Day-By-Day: The Trayvon Martin Fabrication Deconstructed – February 27th

February 27th 2012 was a Monday, the day after Trayvon Martin was shot and killed Sunday Night February 26th.

We know that Tracy Martin woke up, Trayvon was not at home, and having stated he turned his phone off overnight he then told his girlfriend Brandi Green to call her network within law enforcement and see if Trayvon was arrested or could be located.

Crime Scene 1 - Trayvon Shooting February 27th at 5-04pm with Tracy Martin and Brandy Green

So let’s reconstruct the day based on what was initially told to the media and contrast against what was factually true.   We know Tracy claimed to the initial police contact that he last saw Travon at around 8:30pm on Sunday night – obviously this was a lie because Trayvon was dead at that time.   This is the day Serino came to see Tracy and identified the body via Tracy’s cell phone picture and a picture from the coroner.

This is also the day the Orlando Fox affiliate happened upon the scene around 5pm and encountered Brandy and Tracy walking through the complex.   Brandy proclaims “he was sitting on the porch”.    The video still probably exists – but most of the u-tube versions are no longer around.

Crime Scene 4 - Trayvon Shooting Brandy Green Tracy Martin GirlfriendCrime Scene 3 - Trayvon Shooting Tracy Martin and Brandy Green 2-27

Again, looking back through the initial media accounts and contrast against what is now known to be true.   Remember, initially Al Sharpton and the Schemers were selling the story that Trayvon sat in the morgue as a “john doe” for 3 days.   Although these false stories/reports were made by them weeks later, they continued for months.

We know another series of lies surrounded what was taking place with George Zimmerman.   The media claimed he was not arrested, questioned or detained.   Al Sharpton said the police gave George back his gun and never did any tests.  We know this not to be true:

ABC_ZIMMERMAN_POLICE_120329_xwide

George Zimmerman was taken in handcuffs to the police station.   He was detained.  He was printed.   His clothes were removed as evidence.   Forensics were conducted on his hands for Gun powder residue.  His handgun was also taken into evidence.   He was questioned from around 8:15pm (Sun) to 1:30am (Monday).

Later that Monday afternoon, without representation, George voluntarily met investigators back at the crime scene and did a reconstruction walk-through.   After which – he drove with investigators back to the police station, and again without representation, he voluntarily gave further statements to police during round #3 of questioning and underwent a voice stress (lie detector) analysis.

Not exactly the “they just let him walk” story huh?

Y’all drop the links and share the false stories and links, and then later in the day I’ll reconstruct the entire thread post, using your information, to reflect the contrast between the story and the Truth of the day.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Day By Day Trayvon Lies - The Story, Trayvon Martin, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

190 Responses to Day-By-Day: The Trayvon Martin Fabrication Deconstructed – February 27th

  1. Macready says:

    John’s interview with Keith Landry was largely ignored by the media until late March, when he was falsely reported as a “new witness”.

    Like

    • libby says:

      Well said,
      As an aside, he vast majority of media accounts about this case are fabricated LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      .
      The persecution team withheld the hi resolution photo of George’s face (for six or more months) and the media made it seem like the photo was NEW (same stupid lies)

      Like

    • tara says:

      Brandy: “He don’t know anybody here. He just came down here, he was bored, so he walked to the store. He was on his way back home. I’m living down here. He was sitting on the porch and this man killed him. Are you serious?”

      Brandy knows that Trademark’s cousin Stephen (Boobie) lived nearby and that Trademark (and Chad) had spent time with Stephen that weekend. So like Tracy to the dispatcher, Brandy lied to the reporter about Trademark not knowing anyone there. I get the feeling they were either trying to protect Stephen because Stephen knew something, or they simply didn’t want to subject Stephen to a police visit, or they had convinced themselves that Stephen wouldn’t be helpful thus potentially hampering the police investigation.

      As for the porch statement, Brandy waves down the sidewalk when she says “I’m living down here” and yet she and Tracy clearly know, and are standing at during the interview, the location of the shooting. I’ll give Brandy a pass on that one, Chad probably told her that Trademark had spent some time on the patio before he decided to go to the 7-11. But I’ve read the other theories here, that Trademark dropped off some of his things on the patio or even met Chad there before he went back to assault George. I feel very strongly that the porch thing came from Chad. It will be interesting to see if this is the only day “porch” is mentioned.

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      @ 3:40

      Police: Is he white, black or Hispanic?
      Tracy: He’s black.

      NEN call
      911 dispatcher: OK, is he white, black, or Hispanic?
      Zimmerman: He looks black. <<<< NBC: dat's raaaycissssss!!!!

      Like

    • tara says:

      When the dispatcher asks Tracy “So are you staying in a hotel here?” Tracy lies and says ‘No, I’m actually staying at, uh, a girlfriend’s house”. (But he doesn’t know the address.) According to what we know now, Tracy did not stay at Brandy’s apartment on Friday night and Saturday night, and he probably didn’t stay there on Sunday night either.

      In the call back, the dispatcher (or investigator, whoever that is) asks Tracy “Does he know anybody in the area that you think he might have went to, like a friend’s house or anything like that?” and Tracy replies “No”. According to what we know now, cousin Stephen (Boobie) had recently move to an area very near Sanford, we know Trademark spent some time with Stephen that weekend, and Tracy claimed that he called Stephen both Sunday night and Monday morning. It’s also possible that Stephen’s brother also lived there, Stephen was driving his brother’s car that weekend. So Trademark DID know someone in the area, yet Tracy denies it, just like Brandy denied it in the video above.

      Are these lies? If Tracy didn’t intend to deceive, it’s pretty obvious that he was reluctant to provide any information other than the absolute basic stuff to satisfy the immediate questions. To me, this is further indication that he was certain that Trademark had been arrested, not that Trademark had been a victim. But it doesn’t explain Brandy’s mistruth after she knew Trademark had been killed. She stuck to the script, noooooo, Trademark didn’t know anyone ’round here. Why?

      Fantastic links, Diwataman. Please know that for every link you and everyone else posts, I say “thank you”, I just don’t want to clutter up the thread with writing that over and over. :)

      Like

      • libby says:

        Tara,
        about the only truthful thing I have seen any of the martin/fulton/green clan make is when they said it was raining

        Like

      • libby says:

        I could be wrong, but I would guess that not a single treeper if asked where we live is unable to answer

        Like

      • tara says:

        Just want to amend my prior post ….Tracy does tell the dispatcher “I have a nephew up here” but Trademark “hasn’t been over there either”. So Tracy first states that Trademark doesn’t know anyone there, but then casually reveals that Trademark’s cousin is there but blows it off as unimportant. As I have stated before, Tracy and Sybrina and their ambulance chasers have no right to complain about the police when Tracy and others were so reluctant to provide information and allow the police to do their work.

        Like

      • LandauMurphyFan says:

        When the dispatcher asks Tracy “So are you staying in a hotel here?” Tracy lies and says ‘No, I’m actually staying at, uh, a girlfriend’s house”. (But he doesn’t know the address.)

        You raise an important point here, Tara. I was thinking about this just the other day. The Trayvonites refuse to believe that GZ didn’t know the exact address to give to police on the NEN call, but TrayDad doesn’t even know the address of the unit he’s allegedly LIVING in. And even if he doesn’t live there, he’s been dating this woman for, what, over 2 years? And he doesn’t know her address??? Why is one man’s memory lapse taken as evidence of evil intent whereas another man’s far less explicable memory lapse is just glossed over? (Yeah, yeah, that’s a rhetorical question.)

        Like

        • libby says:

          Maybe tracey martin is a regular lean user (or bath salts) and it affects your memory somethin fierce whereas I imagine GZ was fairly clean and didnt have the drug induced amnesia and thus was expected to remember

          Like

      • jello333 says:

        “a girlfriend’s house”

        A girlfriend’s house. That had to have made Brandi feel real good, eh?

        Like

    • libby says:

      Havent listened to this one in a while……among the most interesting aspect of this phone call is when tracey begins with “HOW ARE YOU?” as if he is so concerned about the disposition of the perosn who answered the phone and not all that worried about his son (WHOM I would hazard to guess he already knew was dead, but he had to make this call anyway to pretend he hadnt already known what he knew).

      Like

      • yankeeintx says:

        I’m glad you mentioned that. And his response when asked the same “Good, good, good”. Is that a typical response for someone who has a missing son, and he had to have known at that point that something involving the police had happened at the complex?

        Like

        • tara says:

          He sounds embarrased, like “I can’t believe I have to make this call”.

          Like

          • yankeeintx says:

            Considering this was his 3rd call of the morning to authorities, and not his first, I think it is safe to assume that he knew something had happened. It is my belief that he thought Trayvon was arrested. It is telling that if he knew an altercation had taken place, that he had Brandy call juvie. He must have known that TM was agressive enough to have been involved in a fight.

            Like

        • jello333 says:

          I think he DID know. But as for the words he’s saying, it feels to me more of a coping mechanism. I know a few years ago I got a call from my brother with some really bad news. He started off the call with, “Hey, what are you doin’?” And only after I said, “Not much, what are you up to,” did he start to tell me the bad news.

          Like

          • yankeeintx says:

            I think he was trying to sound like a concerned but “cool” parent. He was probably expecting to hear that TM had been arrested for vandalism/graffiti, possession of stolen property/burglary tools, or possession of marijuana/paraphernalia, you know, all that typical teenager stuff. He might have been in denial that Trayvon might have been killed (because I think he knew someone had been shot in the complex), but he was probably thinking that Trayvon was some how connected or involved.
            Tracy always tries to come across as father of the year, but doesn’t even listen to the stuff coming out of his own mouth. He set his apartment on fire trying to cook up some chicken for Trayvon, after having not fed the kid all day, putting grease on the stove at 9-10 o’clock at night, and then falling asleep. He was such a good dad that he gave his son $75-$100 for spending money, but this was a kid that was suspended from school for drugs, which he then left alone for the weekend. I think he also claimed that he took him to Sanford to chill and to get him away from Miami, but he took him to his mistress – what an example he was setting for this kid.
            People often say that kids need parents, and it doesnt work if the parent also wants to be their kids best friend. Tracy has often said that Trayvon was his best friend, but Trayvon didn’t need a best friend, he needed a father.

            Like

    • I can’t, for the life of me, wrap my head around the fact that between the commotion, police traffic, police tape, news crews, inquisitve neighbors, etc that Tracy/Chad/Brandy seem so oblivious to all of this. I just don’t get it

      Like

      • tara says:

        Chad told investigators that he was in his front bedroom playing video games with headphones on. He was 14 years old, that sounds about right, and his ability to ignore everything going on around him sounds about right too. :)

        I believe Tracy didn’t return until Monday morning, to pick up Trademark so they could return to Miami. By that time everything probably appeared normal.

        I believe Brandy returned to the apartment on Sunday night. She told investigators that she returned that night, and Chad told investigators that he waited until Brandy returned before he went to bed. No mention of Tracy. Surely Brandy saw some of the commotion …. unless she returned home SO late that the police and media had all packed up and left.

        Like

      • mcfyre2012 says:

        I agree. I doubt any of them were even there at all.

        Like

      • jello333 says:

        One way or the other, Chad is lying. Either, 1) he wasn’t really home, and he’s lying when he says he WAS, or 2) he was home, but is lying when he says he heard/saw nothing.

        Like

      • rooferx says:

        They were oblivious to the recent crime in the neighborhood also….apparently.

        Like

    • rumpole2 says:

      The Short version – actual Voice Stress Test

      The Test

      Three types of questions:

      1. Irrelevant questions – No stress, benign questions (eg is your name George)
      2. Control Questions – to see result when you do lie – George TOLD to lie (Color of wall and Speeding)
      3. Relevant questions – Did you confront the guy, were you in fear for your life)

      Results

      1.”Is your name George?”…….Yes

      2. “Is the color of this other wall green?”……No
      (Control question George told to lie)

      3. “Is today Monday”….Yes

      4. “Did you confront the guy you shot?”….No
      (Relevant question)

      5. “Is this the month of February?”….Yes

      6. “Were you in fear for your life when you shot the guy?”….Yes
      (Relevant Question)

      7. “Are we in the city of Sanford?”…….Yes

      8. “Have you ever driven over the posted speed limit?”…….No
      (Control question… George told to lie)

      9. “Am I wearing a watch?”…..No

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        He said he has never driven over the speed limit! Zimmerman is such a LIAR! He’s so good at it, the machine didn’t even catch him! LIAR ZIMMERMAN!

        Like

  2. raiikun says:

    One nitpick, but it’s an important one IMO.

    “We know Tracy claimed to the initial police contact that he last saw Travon at around 8:30pm on Sunday night – obviously this was a lie because Trayvon was dead at that time.”

    I wouldn’t call that statement itself a lie. I mean, we all know the lies that came later about the time Trayvon was coming home etc…but a lie is an attempt to deceive, and I don’t think Tracy was trying to deceive as much as give the best guess as to when Trayvon was last seen.

    It’s the same issue I have with people nitpicking every little inconsistency in George’s testimony and calling it a “lie” with no proof that it’s just an inaccuracy of someone trying their best to relate what they remember. There’s a few things that there’s compelling reason to give George the benefit of the doubt on, and I think that goes for Tracy Martin in this instance.

    And that of course doesn’t justify the lies that came from that way, and sprung off of what Tracy said that day, but I think those lies started later.

    Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      I agree. One of my biggest pet peeves is the conflation of an untruth with a lie.

      Tracy Martin said something that was demonstrably untrue, but that the statement was demonstrably untrue does not make it inherently a lie. A lie is an untruth with the intent to deceive.

      There is no evidence that Tracy Martin intended to deceive anyone with that statement.

      Like

      • hooson1st says:

        I agree

        Like

      • libby says:

        Chip,
        I agree, but in this case, I dont think this was the case. Was the last time tracey saw trayvon at 9:30? at 7:30? at 5:30?
        or wss the last time he saw trayvon on friday and he tried to decieve the police so they wouldnt arrest him for parental neglect

        Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          I agree, but in this case, I dont think this was the case. Was the last time tracey saw trayvon at 9:30? at 7:30? at 5:30?
          or wss the last time he saw trayvon on friday and he tried to decieve the police so they wouldnt arrest him for parental neglect

          The question Tracy Martin was asked, and that he answered, was, “when was the last time he was seen“, IIRC. The given answer was an approximation of the last time that Tracy Martin knew Trayvon Martin had been seen. As I listen to that call recording, I do not get the sense that Tracy Martin was implying that he himself last say Trayvon Martin at 8:30PM that night.

          There are enough materially important things to concern ourselves with in this case. We don’t need to get into the weeds on something like this.

          Like

          • tara says:

            Dispatcher: “Can you give me a specific time or last time YOU saw him?”
            Tracy: “Uh, around 8:30″
            Dispatcher: “8:30?”
            Tracy: “8, 8:30 last night, yes.”

            IMO, Tracy simply fabricated a time. It didn’t have any relevance to any factual information.

            Chad had called Trademark while Trademark was still out, Trademark told Chad that he was on the way home. Maybe the 7:04pm call? Didn’t anyone think to look at Chad’s phone to try to figure out what time Trademark was still locatable? In the missing person call, a male voice is feeding Tracy info about what Trademark was wearing on Sunday night, I always assumed it was Chad even though the voice sounds too deep for a 14 year old and doesn’t sound like Chad during his and Brandy’s TV interview. But now I’m wondering if Tracy didn’t make that call until after Chad was already at school on Monday morning. Chad told investigators that he didn’t find out that Trademark was dead until after he came home from school on Monday. Maybe Tracy wasn’t even at Brandy’s yet when Chad went to school, so he wasn’t able to check Chad’s phone and wasn’t able to ask Chad any detailed questions. Then who was the male voice feeding Tracy info about Trademark’s clothing? Cousin Stephen, perhaps? I’d like to know what time Tracy called Stephen on Monday morning….

            Like

            • justfactsplz says:

              They should check if it was Chad Trayvon was talking to and not Dee Dee. Chad’s phone needs to be checked out.

              Like

            • jello333 says:

              “Then who was the male voice feeding Tracy info about Trademark’s clothing? Cousin Stephen, perhaps?”

              Hmm…. Does the police report say who all was at the apartment when they went there to have the photo of Trayvon ID’d?

              Like

    • Letsbefairtogz says:

      I understand your points. However, Tracy may have intentionally covered the time as an alibi for a Trayvon that he knew was capable of a violent deed. I really think that, based on the plethora of future lying that was forthcoming, it would be disingenuous to completely exclude that possibility.
      I think you give too much credit to a proven liar (later of course).

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        ” as an alibi for a Trayvon”

        or as an alibi for parental failure to supervise a known problematic teen.

        Like

        • LittleLaughter says:

          +1 John Galt. That has been my interpretation of Tracy’s “misrepresentation” of that time all along. Tracy was not likely trying to cover for Trayvon as much as he was covering for himself. If your son were missing, even if you believed he might be detained by police, most of us would make sure to give the best and most accurate accounts and times in order to help find him. I have often wondered if there had been an expulsion or suspension, would not the school have had something for the parent(s) to sign- promising to keep Trayvon under close supervision? IDK, but I think there may have been something signed by Tracy agreeing to keep Trayvon in his custody and to know his whereabouts. Especially if the suspension/expulsion were the result of something criminal. Perhaps that was part of a deal they reached to keep Trayvon from being arrested for whatever actions he did that caused the suspension/expulsion from school. In our local school district, such a form is required to be signed by the parent or guardian when the student has committed an offense. Maybe Tracy was covering his own arse by misinforming the police about the time frame.

          Like

        • tara says:

          as an alibi for parental failure to supervise a known problematic teen.

          That is exactly what I’m thinking. Exactly. Tracy was freaking because he realized Trademark had been dead for 12+ hours. He was trying to minimize the damage to his reputation. Ever concerned about his own interests, Tracy is.

          Like

          • libby says:

            parental neglect is still a crime is it not?

            Like

          • ftsk420 says:

            Tracy really didn’t sound upset at all. What time did this call take place because I remember people saying Chad was at school but you can hear him speak in the background. Things he said like A Girlfriend then he says my Girlfriend. I would be willing to give Tracy the benefit of the doubt if he wasn’t so full of shit.

            Like

        • janc1955 says:

          “or as an alibi for parental failure to supervise a known problematic teen.”

          This is what I think as well. And I’d feel better if Tracy DID NOT KNOW what decent parents do, than to KNOW and NOT DO THOSE THINGS and then attempt to cover for himself. Despicable.

          Like

      • jello333 says:

        I think lying is a distinct possibility…. but there are other possible explanations. I think we’re supposed to be halfway pretending this is all new info to us, so for right now, Tracy is as pure as the driven snow! ;)

        Like

    • ejarra says:

      From what we’ve learned in the past year about Tracy is that he does lie. Example: He lied about when he came home Sunday night. Home @ 10:30 and NOT noticing a police presense.BS!! I believe, as I’ve said in the past, he got the 8:30 time from that liar Chad and that he misspoke when he said that HE saw him last at that time. But what I don’t undersatnd is why he didn’t tell the truth when he was asked when HE saw him last. In the case of a missing person, an “untruth” like he uttered and not offering the information that HE did NOT witness when he was seen last, is very telling. There are lies of omission. Just ask Lester and his “potted plant” view of Georgie.

      One more aspect about that call should be noted. He called to find out information about hismissing son and yet, with his mistress sanding right next to him, he starts flirting with the women on the other end of the phone. You can hear it in his voice. That man is scum.

      I’ll admit that I can’t stand a man like Tracy. I believe whole heartedly that his son would be alive today, if he acted as a real father would have that weekend.

      Like

      • AghastInFL says:

        I agree ejarra, this is the same man that reported to police he had a 2.5 year relationship with Brandy… while married to Alicia! taking his son with him to her home on several occasions for overnight visits. Think about that kind of parenting.

        Like

        • libby says:

          having more than one wife is very popular in certain religions. I am sure this is why the media never picked up on this aspect of the case since the media is so sensitive to religious minded folk-it would be ok to be gay and want to marry, but …

          Like

          • boricuafudd says:

            Libby,
            if you are referring to masonry, to which Tracy was head of a local Chapter is not a religion in itself. IMO it was not forgotten because it would dilute the image of an all-American family, just notice how Alicia and Brandy were never to be heard from and both were active in TM’s life to an extent.
            To me the laissez faire way Tracy was acting as he reported his son, the obvious misstatement about the last time he saw his son, are important. Consider that by saying that TM was alive at 8:30 it would delay identifying the John Doe in the morgue since it could not have been TM since was alive after the incident. Luckily for him the police imo match the address of the missing teen, and the body found from the same area.

            Like

        • justfactsplz says:

          In the beginning Tracey refered to Brandi as his girlfriend. After Crump became involved she became a fiance and Chad became Trayvon’s brother.

          Like

    • tara says:

      I’m looking for the source of Tracy’s “8:30pm” statement. Does anyone have a link?

      Like

    • jello333 says:

      Yep. There are a number of reasons why he might have said that. Yes, one is to flat-out lie… but there are other possibilities too.

      Like

  3. ejarra says:

    “George Zimmerman was taken in handcuffs to the police station. He was detained. He was printed. His clothes were removed as evidence. Forensics were conducted on his hands for Gun powder residue. His handgun was also taken into evidence. He was questioned from around 8:15pm (Sun) to 1:30am (Monday).”

    SD, I believe that you should add this to that paragraph above:

    He was read his Miranda Rights of which he waved and to which he signed that he received them and that signed receipt is in evidence.

    If he wasn’t “officially” arrested that night, why go through that?

    Like

    • tara says:

      If he is arrested, isn’t there only a certain amount of time that can pass before he’s charged with something? One site says 3 days is typical and in some states 2 days. The procedure they went through indicates arrest, but the lack of charges indicates no arrest. It seems the police were doing certain things to prepare for a possible arrest, but decided to not carry through with it.

      Like

      • brutalhonesty says:

        I was “arrested” once, just like gz. I was brought in, read my rights, questioned, released pending charges to be filed (they were not, they accepted my rationale that its not harassment to call and leave a bunch of facts on a DFS investigators machine relevant to a case he is handling, when hes not in the office……this was btw me trying to stop an injustice, a jealous ex husband levying false allegations of abuse to get back at his ex wife)

        Like

    • Floridianne says:

      Yep, he was in custody. Non-custodial interview doesn’t require Miranda.

      Like

      • tara says:

        But if the police thought they might arrest George, and George was offering to be interviewed, wouldn’t they read him his rights just in case? Because if he offered up crucial damaging info and they hadn’t read him his rights they wouldn’t be able to use the info?

        Like

        • tara says:

          Nope, I’m wrong, presuming the following is correct:

          To determine when a suspect is technically under arrest and entitled to Miranda warnings, Washington has adopted the “Berkemer test“ which is explained by the United States Supreme Court in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S. Ct. The test states that a suspect detained by law enforcement is not entitled to Miranda warnings until his or her freedom of action is curtailed to a degree associated with a formal arrest. See State v. Harris, 106 Wn.2d 784, 725 P.2d 975 (1986); City of College Place v. Staudenmaier, 110 Wn.App. 841, 43 P.3d 43 (1996).

          http://www.duilawfirmwa.com/dui-arrest-and-miranda-rights/

          If George was read Miranda rights, then he was indeed arrested. In that case, the police had up to 72 hours to charge him with a crime. But they didn’t. So how were they later able to charge him?

          Like

          • libby says:

            They had 72 hours to charge a crime WHILE HE WAS BEING HELD IN CUSTODY (they have as long as the statute of limitations with regard to the crime he was accused of to file charges while he was out of police custody).

            Like

            • tara says:

              Thank you for that clarification!

              Like

              • indiethink says:

                Yes, and yet another media and TM advocates lie, GZ was not arrested.

                In truth GZ was arrested, charges were not filed based on a review of Florida Law and evidence of self defense

                Like

                • Floridianne says:

                  He was detained/in custody, if he was not free to leave at any time. That would be the reason to read Miranda. If he was never told he was being charged with a crime/arrested (even if not booked into jail) then there is no speedy trial violation to use as a technicality. SOL runs as normal. Anyone know otherwise?

                  Like

                  • ftsk420 says:

                    But he was being questioned about what happen and anything he said would be used against him so miranda rights were read.

                    Like

  4. libby says:

    The government should come up with a new parental training pamphlet (based upon the martin/fulton ignore your child playbook) that suggests if your troubled teen kid doesnt come home at night, you should just have a stiff drink and turn your phone off and pass out

    Like

  5. tara says:

    http://www.cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/Twin-Lakes-Resident-Flyer-0227.pdf

    This is a flyer police distributed to residents of the condo community on Feb 27. It’s interesting that it includes the following statement:

    Late this morning the deceased was identified as another resident of the community

    I’ll agree this is nit-picky, but Trademark was a visitor, a guest, not a resident. This may have led people, including reporters, to believe that Trademark lived in the community full-time.

    http://westorlandonews.com/2012/02/27/sanford-police-investigate-fatal-shooting/

    This Feb 27 article again describes Trademark as a “man”.

    Like

    • ctdar says:

      Well, police didn’t want to say TM was a suspicious character lurking around in the rain amongst their homes that night with no ID on him now did they ;)

      Like

    • recoverydotgod says:

      Here is a profile on WestOrlandoNews and their coverage via the Columbia Journalism Review.

      The interesting part is the release of info from the police in the first few days Feb 26-29. The article which interviews Keith Longmore doesn’t mention the feb. 27th post.

      http://m.cjr.org/164393/show/5c82129683b185258f1660062873ecdd/?

      Like

      • recoverydotgod says:

        Orlando Startup Covers the Trayvon Martin Story – When the national news is local
        Posted on Tuesday Apr 3rd at 1:42pm
        By Alysia Santo

        http://m.cjr.org/164393/show/5c82129683b185258f1660062873ecdd/

        -snip-

        Longmore explains the delay: “Sanford Police Department first alerted on the shooting on February 26th. There were no names of the victim or shooter. On February 27th, Sanford PD sent the names and ages and described Martin as a black male and Zimmerman as a white male. We wrote back on Feb 27, asking the police, ‘Has George Zimmerman been charged yet? And if so, has he been booked?’” By February 29th, the police responded to Longmore’s requests with this: “He has not been charged with a crime as the investigation continues”; it was then that West Orlando News Online began its coverage.

        -snip-

        Like

  6. justfactsplz says:

    George’s bloody clothes were taken as evidence yet Nancy Grace stated she wanted to see the bloddy shirt because she did not believe the injuries.

    Like

  7. justfactsplz says:

    In the wee hours of the 27th Shellie Zimmerman waited for George’s release from police custody. Later that day George went to his family doctor and to his place of employment. Later the records from the doctor were released and testimony from George’s co workers stating George’s injuries and answered questions if George was a racist. His co workers thought highly of him. He also did his video reenactment on that day. The important point I want to make is that a lot of people saw George’s injuries the following day.

    Like

  8. ctdar says:

    Remember Tracy & Brandy were shacking up at convention that weekend, maybe not even home yet on Monday therefore no cause for worry about TM until Monday when they arrived & no sign of him. Did Tracy drop himAnd so we now at cousins for weekend, where is cousin house in relation to 7/11? Was Chad even there? I always wondered if he was dropped off at fathers/friends house for weekend but used as alibi to the skittles & tea run. How would he not notice the lights, sirens, door to door canvas…and above all where the heck TM was for over 12 hours when he supposedly just walking to the store and not call his mother?

    Like

    • sundance says:

      There are multiple aspects almost impossible to reconcile. Two of the more astounding ones, at least for me early on, were (again, within the original MSM narrative):

      Firstly – Chad, Brandy and/or Tracy never knew the entire neighborhood at the end of their row of townhouses was blocked off with crime scene investigators? Emergency vehicles, cop cars, multiple flashing lights and spotlights on the scene – on an otherwise quiet Sunday Night. Just doesn’t compute.

      Secondly, that Sybrina never left Ft. Lauderdale to drive to Sanford upon finding out her son was dead. She sat in her car (at work) on the phone with Tracy, found out Trayvon was dead, and then just drove home and stayed there. Never, even making an attempt to go to Sanford. [She just stayed in Ft. Lauderdale until March 8th.] This was the first inclination to me that something was seriously spun about their relationship.

      Like

      • recoverydotgod says:

        Yes. Bitterness. Not at her son.

        Like

      • maggiemoowho says:

        I often thought that the reason the Juvie center was called might have been because they did see all the police and commotion that night and when TM didn’t come home, maybe they thought he was involved. Tracy really hesitates during that 911 call to report TM missing. Parents don’t call a Juvie Ctr. first when their kid is missing unless they have a kid who has been in trouble before. Maybe Tracy was giving TM an alibi by saying he last saw him at 8:30.

        Like

        • jello333 says:

          Yes, I think by then Tracy knew full-well that something bad had happened the night before. I think he even knew that someone had been KILLED. But I don’t think he yet believed it was Trayvon who had been killed. So assuming his calling around was because he thought Trayvon may have been INVOLVED in what happened the night before…. what’s the only other option that leaves?

          Yeah, I think Tracy may have been thinking, “Oh God Tray, you didn’t kill someone did you?!”

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            I don’t think I have ever heard a discussion about Brandi’s neighbors and their relationship with her. Did she not know anyone there? Wouldn’t it be logical for her to check with them? Bizarre..

            Any discussions with any of them would have revealed that something happened that night, whether they were there or not.

            Have any of them ever said that they knew her or Tracy?

            IDK but I would think there would be a lot of discussions among everyone who lived around there the next morning and throughout the day.

            I mean these people live within feet of each other and surely someone would have noticed Tracy and Trayvon’s sudden appearance in their own “backyards.”

            Maybe everyone there is blind and anti social but I would have been asking around.

            So I guess everyone there was aware of what happened that night except for the occupants of Brandi’s condo.

            Too weird for me.

            Like

        • justfactsplz says:

          That’s right. If your child is missing you call hospitals not jail.

          Like

    • jello333 says:

      I know we’re not yet to the right date to deal with this issue, but when was the first time Skittles was publicly mentioned? (And I assume it was Chad who first mentioned them.) I mean, I know it was in police reports within hours, but that’s not what I’m looking for.

      Like

  9. diwataman says:

    Tracy and Brandy Free Mason Convention

    Radisson World Gate Resort on 3011 Main Gate Lane Kissimmee, FL 34747 from Friday 7pm to Sunday 3pm. The reason Tracy would have stayed there is because he is District Grand Master of Florida District #006 for the International Free & Accepted Modern Masons, Inc. and Order of the Eastern Star(1) and that is when and where the Grand Joint Council convention was held(2).
    You can find photos of Tracy at another convention; Florida Grand Lodge Convention Thu, April 12, 7pm – Sun, April 15, 3pm at Double Tree Resort Orlando, FL 32821 under the photo section labeled Joint Session(3) photo’s #31 and #127(4).

    (1) http://www.renfordpbrown.org/district_006.html
    (2) http://www.internationalmasonsfl.org/calendar.html
    (3) http://www.renfordpbrown.org/photo_gallery.html
    (4) http://www.renfordpbrown.org/2012_joint/index.html

    Like

  10. jordan2222 says:

    I think this might be helpful to everyone in their research about the case last year, day by day,

    I started on March 15th of last year and checked every post for everyday until March 23rd. I could be mistaken but I am reasonably certain that March 23rd is the first date that coverage began here at the Tree House. I guess it’s possible that some posts do not appear but, if they all do, as they should, here is where to start:

    http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/03/23/

    You will find 4 threads about the case on that date. From there, you can easily move forward one day at a time to see every thread here about the case.

    I will caution you that this is very time consuming if you read each article in its entirety and ALL of the links referenced in each article because many of those linked articles can easily lead you to yet additional articles.

    At some point in time, we began to open threads every single day. And, of course, on some days, there are often multiple threads.

    I hope this helps those who are going to participate in this project.

    Thanks to DMan for helping me to get started on this.

    Like

    • sundance says:

      The posts prior to 3/23 were not “stand alone” discussion threads (I think) they were comment threads within the Open Thread…. If I remember correctly.

      Like

      • jordan2222 says:

        That’s a good point but that would be very time consuming to review every comment on all of the open threads.. I will let someone else do that. . like DMan.. LOL.

        Like

        • boricuafudd says:

          Jordan, all you have to check are the one prior to 3/23

          Like

        • diwataman says:

          Took me less than ten minutes to search the open threads that were available between the 7th and 23rd doing a Ctrl+F search for these keywords; Trayvon, Zimmerman, Black, Shot. I didn’t find anything. Doesn’t mean nothing is there about this just not under those keywords. It would probably take less than an hour to skim all of them, there’s not that many really. I skimmed the 23rd, nothing there.

          Like

          • jordan2222 says:

            “I skimmed the 23rd, nothing there.” There are 4 complete threads on that date. Maybe I am missing what you are saying.

            There are many comments about the case prior to 3/23 in other threads. That would be almost a month of posts. I found it too time consuming to read all of the comments on each thread so I gave up for now.

            Searching for keywords does not work here. Forget about google-type searches. It does not work here unless there is a trick I don’t know.

            Like

            • diwataman says:

              Re: Sundance comment “they were comment threads within the Open Thread”

              So I searched the Open Threads, not every thread.

              “There are many comments about the case prior to 3/23 in other threads.”

              Where?

              I did a Crtl+F search on each thread, not a keyword search in the search box on the site itself.

              http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/08/crazy-90-percent-of-people-dont-know-how-to-use-ctrl-f/243840/

              Like

              • jello333 says:

                This is totally off-topic, but it’s funny. My Mom, who’s in her 80s, only learned how to use a computer about 5 years ago. She’s still not a pro, but she’s much better than she was to start, and MUCH better than almost all her friends. A year or so ago she called and said there was something wrong, and everything was froze up on the computer. After asking her a few questions, and verifying that was true, I had her do a Ctrl-Alt-Del to reset. It took her awhile to figure out what I was meaning, but she finally got it. And it has happened again a couple times over the past few months. Each time I had to explain it again, and she would say, “I should be able to do this without having to ask you every time.” So maybe a couple weeks ago, she called again about the same problem. I started to tell her how to fix it, and she stopped me, “No, I already did it. And it’s working again now.” She was SO proud of herself. I have a feeling she’s gonna TRY to crash the thing again so she can show off some more. ;)

                Like

              • Wow, you are my hero. Pretty sure you just saved 65896 hrs of my (future) life! :)

                Like

      • boricuafudd says:

        Correct, most of the early discussions were done in the Open Thread section.

        Like

      • jello333 says:

        I know that here from the main pages, we can’t search for specific comments using keywords and stuff. But I assume you guys (admins) can do it, right?

        Like

        • jordan2222 says:

          DMan is our resident search guru so ask him but I have a sense that our search engine here has major limitations imposed by Word Press.

          I do know that SD has more flexibility in finding things than the rest of us unless he has memorized the entire site.

          Like

  11. jello333 says:

    Ok, if I’m pretending to be watching that for the first time, I’m thinking that Brandi’s emotions are really honest, and no reason to doubt anything she’s saying.

    Like

    • boricuafudd says:

      Which is why her comment about TM being in the back porch felt true and real. IMO TM did make it home, knock on the back porch for Chad to let him in, but stay outside while talking to DD. He glances towards the T, and sees GZ, who is framed by the ambient light, where he is visible but TM in the dark shadows. He probably tell DD theres that guy on the phone again, whether prompted by DD or not he sneaks through the shadows towards GZ, Witness testified of seeing shadows moving towards the T before the altercation. Waits, until GZ hangs up and turns towards the truck and comes up to him from the left and back and confronts him.

      When Brandi comes home she sees the commotion and asks Chad, where is TM, he says he was out on the porch last time I saw him. That is my scenario

      Like

      • jello333 says:

        Watch Chad during that Craig Rivera interview. Not when Chad is talking, but when OTHERS are talking. Watch Chad’s mannerisms, his mouth and eyes. It sure looks to me like he KNOWS that some of the stuff being said, especially by Brandy, is not true.

        Like

        • J – Where is the link for that video?

          Like

          • jello333 says:

            Ah sorry… here’s one. And there’s also other stuff in that video, some that’ll make you mad. Like where they mention George talking about Trayvon walking around behind houses when he first saw him. So the idiot reporter walks down the sidewalk between the row of houses to the south of the “T” and says something like, “As you can see, this is a sidewalk that’s MEANT to be walked on, yet Zimmerman found it suspicious.” ???!!! Idiot!

            Like

  12. Unicron says:

    Need some help folks. Having a debate at another site about whether GZ’s community’s actual specific NW manual had anything about not carrying a firearm. I seem to recall it didn’t. They tried to quote a national sheriff’s manual and at first I bought it but then I double checked.

    Like

    • janc1955 says:

      The way I understand it, concealed carry laws trump neighborhood watch rules. But what I also understand to be true is that GZ wasn’t “on patrol” that night — he was headed for Target to do some shopping. He happened to see TM as he was leaving the complex.

      Like

    • libby says:

      The authority having jurisdiction is the Sanford Police department, the sheriffs office, the state police, the state of florida, etc (they would make the rules known as laws that count-the news media has a job and it seems that its job is to make lies).
      .
      it is very hard not to deal with all the media lies with a straight face without much sarcasm.
      (was studyign electrical wiring for a time-we were at first taught the national electrical code was al important untli we later learned about AHJ’s)
      .
      AHJ – AUTHORITY HAVING JOURISDICTION …….The national Neighborhood Watch Association doesnt have jurisdiction over a henhouse……They make recomendations (to avoid iability, in large measure), not laws.
      .
      legislatures make laws, police arrest people for not following the laws and prosecutors prosecute people for not following the laws.
      .
      from the beginning of this case, there were so many logical fallacies (as well as the crumped up narrative)……like…….”the lead investigator wanted charges filed, but the prosecutor decided not to” or some such nonsense………
      .
      And I was like, “freakin duh”….well, yeah, the job of a lead detectivce is to detect (and to arrest) and it is the job of the prosecutor to prosecute (and the detective, though they can make recommendations, doesnt make the decisions that the prosecutor makes).
      The detective decides if he (or she) will arrest and the prosecutor decides if they will prosecute.
      the news media wanted you to think something terrible had gone wrong cuz the lead detective wasnt makign decisions prosecutors usually make (no conspriacy here, just stupid journalists hoping you are as dumb as they think you are)

      Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      Having a debate at another site about whether GZ’s community’s actual specific NW manual had anything about not carrying a firearm. I seem to recall it didn’t.

      The debate is moot. It doesn’t matter, even if the manual contained such instructions.

      Florida concealed-carry statutes include a preemption clause, meaning that they preempt any other state, municipal, or any other regulation or rule. If the NW handbook contained a “do not carry” rule, that rule would be nullified by state statute.

      790.33:

      PREEMPTION.—Except as expressly provided by the State Constitution or general law, the Legislature hereby declares that it is occupying the whole field of regulation of firearms and ammunition, including the purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, storage, and transportation thereof, to the exclusion of all existing and future county, city, town, or municipal ordinances or any administrative regulations or rules adopted by local or state government relating thereto. Any such existing ordinances, rules, or regulations are hereby declared null and void.

      But in answer to your question: no, the manual contained no such rule.

      Like

  13. diwataman says:

    “This is the day Serino came to see Tracy and identified the body via Tracy’s cell phone picture and a picture from the coroner.”

    Where did that come from? It must have been something Tracy said I’m assuming right?

    Regardless, just to add to that, from Serino’s report it says:

    According to the discovery(p.39/183) (Serino went there at apx 9:20am) Serino says that while talking with Tracy he noticed several physical characteristics Tracy had with Trayvon (tall and black?, lol). Then it just says “Upon presenting Mr. Martin with a photograph of the facial image of the decedent, taken at the scene, positive identification was made…”

    Like

  14. diwataman says:

    I just skimmed and didn’t see this on here.

    It was breaking early afternoon among Trayvon’s friends on twitter what happened (note: for some reason the time of the tweets will show differently here on WordPress)

    Like

  15. Pingback: The real Trayvon Martin....some actual facts - Page 67 - Pelican Parts Technical BBS

  16. gary23902003 says:

    Wow. I’m amazed every time I visit this site. So much information, my head spins. Some of you guys do some pretty amazing stuff — kudos Diwataman! This would make one helluva book, if only I had the talent. And then, of course, the movie wouldn’t do it justice. The ever thickening plot would be impossible to direct.

    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