Mark O’Mara On CNN During Jury Deliberations – Begins To Remove His Mask…..

….. If there was one source of continuous animosity toward this site over the past 12 months it would honestly be defined around Mark O’Mara.   You see, once we discovered his lies and then watched his excuses, we just got to the point where we could no longer carry a false advocacy. 

It would be intellectually dishonest, and antithetical to everything we stand for.

We wrote about it in June 2012, and I have exhaustively requested all the O’Mara propagandists, those who would not believe their ears or eyes, to find an alternate discussion site ever since. We just cannot maintain the integrity of the Truthful research and constantly have the same circular argument about O’Mara’s character.

Today, as George awaits his fate, CNN broadcast a nine-part / pre-taped interview with Mark O’Mara (Transcript Here)  The emphasis is added by me:

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara just gave the most watched and likely most scrutinized closing argument of his career.  And now he’s been talking with our Martin Savidge, Martin joining me now from Sanford.

So, Martin, you spoke to George Zimmerman’s attorney for nearly an hour.

MARTIN SAVIDGE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Right, yes. This was a very candid conversation.

Mark O’Mara has been no stranger when it comes to the media. But I think what makes this interview very unique, it was the fact that we conducted it with the idea that it was going to come out after the jury had gone into deliberations, in other words, after the defense and the prosecution had both rested.

This allowed Mark O’Mara to be the most candid I have ever heard him. There was nothing he would not talk about. And we talked about everything, whether it be race, whether it be about politics, whether it be about improprieties he saw from the side of the prosecution and about some of the witnesses, as well as some of the personalities including Judge Nelson.

So here is Mark O’Mara and our conversation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SAVIDGE: Why did you take this case?

MARK O’MARA, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE ZIMMERMAN:  It’s what I do.  People asked me that so many times. And I can’t come up with a better or different reason than this is what I do. When this case first became open to me, I looked at it and it just seemed to fit my skill set more than I could ever have planned or imagined.

SAVIDGE: What were the circumstances when you first met George?

O’MARA: Strangely enough, when I walked into the jail cell where George was waiting, I had a couple pictures in my mind. I had a picture of Trayvon Martin being a very young boy, maybe 13 or 14 years old. I had a picture of George Zimmerman being about 250 pounds with an attitude, because that’s the picture that I saw, 2005 picture, when he was very heavy.

And that’s OK. Those are the type of people that I represent, generally speaking. I walked into that jail cell, and one of the most amazing sights to me was this small, young, respectful, quiet, scared individual, half — literally half the size, that I thought he would be, not physically, but presentation.

And it really took me back. I spent a couple hours with him. And he was very respectful, very open, very concerned about his situation. But — and from that day forward, I knew, one, I would be representing him, and, two, where this case was going to go.

SAVIDGE: Was it a concern for you that he might have been a racist?

O’MARA: When I saw the 12-year-old Trayvon Martin picture and the 270-pound George Zimmerman picture, yes, no question. And, strangely enough, I think that’s why most of the people who believe that George Zimmerman is a racist today got their belief when they saw those two pictures 16 months ago. And you can’t not have that thought.

SAVIDGE: Whose fault is that, that imagery dichotomy? Because I think everyone knows what you’re talking about, that, at the beginning, the images were very different. You had the first pictures of George Zimmerman. He was in what looked like jail attire. And then you had a very, very young looking Trayvon Martin. Whose fault is that?

O’MARA: It was a wonderfully created and crafted public relations campaign by the people who are assisting the Martin family. That’s Ben Crump and other people.

I don’t — I don’t discredit what he did, as long as he acknowledges that’s exactly what happened.

SAVIDGE: Do you think that George Zimmerman would have even been charged had Ben Crump not been pulled into this?

O’MARA: No, Ben Crump or someone like him, because had Ben Crump not gotten involved in the case, maybe for some good reasons to begin with — if he believed that there was something here that was being swept under the rug, then get on into it. I’m very OK with that. I…

SAVIDGE: But you didn’t quite say it that way. You made it sound like it was Ben Crump, George Zimmerman would be free at this time and we would not be in a trial.

O’MARA: That’s correct. I think that it was a made-up story for purposes that had nothing to do with George Zimmerman, and that they victimized him. They complain about Trayvon Martin being victimized. George Zimmerman was victimized by a publicity campaign to smear him, to call him a racist when he wasn’t and to call him a murderer when he wasn’t.

SAVIDGE: And so Angela Corey and the governor and all of those that had a hand in bringing about this prosecution, they were all manipulated by Ben Crump?

O’MARA: Oh, I don’t know that it was Ben Crump doing all that manipulation.

But I’m very surprised that the prosecution team decided not to take this case to a grand jury, when one was sitting, impaneled and ready to take on the case for the state of Florida vs. George Zimmerman and determine whether or not there was enough evidence and enough information to charge him with any crime.

Rather than do that, which was the default position that could have happened, they decided to have a press conference, pray with the victim’s family, and then announce second-degree murder charges.

SAVIDGE: How much of this was politics?

O’MARA: It’s guesswork on my behalf.

But if I enter into this formula an element or ingredient of politics, a lot more makes sense, a lot more about the way the case was handled early on, the way it was turned into a racial event, when seemingly — and now positively — it wasn’t, when a special prosecutor was brought in, when there doesn’t seem to be any reason why — you know, Wolfinger, the sitting prosecutor, had the perfect opportunity to handle this case.

Matter of fact, I have deposed three of his assistants who were busting their butts on this case. So they were ready to go forward. And we had a grand jury set. So, when a special prosecutor comes in, then waives the grand jury, and then files charges that most good legal analysts, including Alan Dershowitz, say, that’s an abomination, you have to wonder if there’s not some outside influencing pressuring decisions.

SAVIDGE: Much has been made about race in this case. Where do you see race in this case?

O’MARA: I see race being injected into this case in the first week that it existed. And I see that it has never left this case, even though time and time and time again, race has been proven not to have been an element in George’s consideration that night.

[I’ve got to jump in here with a comment and draw your attention.  Do you see how conflicted about the TRUTH Mark O’Mara is?    He sees race as “injected”, but somehow he disconnects from the question only a few moments earlier about he, himself, presuming Zimmerman was racist on day one.     Can you see the internal conflict at the center of his advocacy.  THAT CONFLICT is the nucleus of his lack of advocacy from the outset…. /SD]

SAVIDGE: This case to many is a cause. It’s not just a case.

These would be people who are very much in support of Trayvon Martin who believe that there was great wrong here and, in essence, that this is a civil rights case. And I mean that in the full sense of advancing civil rights.

You are perceived as the man standing in the way of this civil rights case.

O’MARA: Right.

SAVIDGE: How do you handle that?

tumblr_lsnomlhCKe1qannmco1_500O’MARA: Very simply. I will walk over to that side, put my arm around those people, and walk with them on a civil rights issue.

I have represented young black males for 30 years. I know better than most people, better than most of the people who are complaining how young black males are treated in the criminal justice system. And we need to fix it. We need to address those problems. It’s not just in the system. It’s in the schools, it’s in the churches, it’s in the families, it’s in the homes. We need to address it.

Get your crosshairs off George Zimmerman, and I will join you. Keep your crosshairs on George Zimmerman, and don’t tell me that I’m getting in the way, because you are, because you’re the one who’s sitting back telling me that this is a civil rights case, when George had nothing to do with civil rights. This was an unfortunate event between two people.

SAVIDGE: You took I think what some might consider risks during the trial, one of them being that you cross-examined a grieving mother.

O’MARA: Yes.

SAVIDGE: Any regrets on that?

O’MARA: No.

I hope that people think — or I think that I handled it properly and respectfully. I have handled, I think, 40 or so murder cases. And in every one of those murder cases, you’re going to have some interaction with the victim’s family.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O’MARA: You certainly would hope that your son Trayvon Martin did nothing that could have led to his own death, correct?

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SAVIDGE: And you did Tracy Martin as well.

O’MARA: Yes.

SAVIDGE: And that one didn’t seem to go quite so well.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

O’MARA: So your words were, “I can’t tell.”

TRACY MARTIN, FATHER OF TRAYVON MARTIN: Something to that effect. But I never said, no, that that wasn’t my son’s voice.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

O’MARA: Well, I think that the state should have put Tracy Martin on. That’s their witness. I think it was strange that they decided not to call the father of the victim.

But they did so because of the very reason that I had to call him, which was that Tracy Martin told two cops who testified, four who were present, that when he listened to that tape, it was not his son.

SAVIDGE: But that’s not what he said on the stand.

O’MARA: That is not. But it is what two cops said and two other cops who were available to say that he said, no, that’s not my son’s voice.

Now, it’s got to be extraordinarily difficult to be in Tracy Martin’s shoes and Sybrina Fulton’s shoes. They have to be able to go through life believing in their heart and in their soul that that is Trayvon Martin’s voice.

SAVIDGE: Rachel Jeantel, what did you think of her as a witness?

O’MARA: Here’s how I think about Rachel Jeantel myself. I think that she was a reluctant witness who didn’t want to be there. I think her mom and Ms. Fulton got together and said something like, you need to go tell this woman what happened to her son and do it now. And I think that’s what happened.

SAVIDGE: And how much was actual fact do you think from her testimony?

O’MARA: I think what happened was, once she was put in the position of having to talk, we know that what she did was — was smooth over a lot of the rough spots of what Trayvon was talking to her about.

We know that she didn’t talk about the racist terms that may have been used or the colorful language that he may have used. And I think what she did was just give a sanitized version to mom, because, after all, I think she was being sensitive to Ms. Fulton having just lost her son.

I think Ms. Jeantel came across as being not wanting to be there. I think she had a bit of an attitude because she was there. I don’t think she took very kindly to the way Mr. West was examining her.

SAVIDGE: Oh, I think you’re quite right, yes.

O’MARA: And I think that showed. And I give her, her due in that she didn’t want to be involved in our system.

SAVIDGE: Do you think that George Zimmerman, your client, if he’s acquitted, what kind of life will he have?

O’MARA: Not a good one.

I think he has to live mostly in hiding. He’s got to be able to protect himself from that periphery that still believe that he’s some racist murderer or acted in a bad way, and that you don’t know who they are. You don’t know if they’re down the street or you don’t know if they’re across the country. I think that he’s probably concerned about living still in Central Florida, and never having a normal life.

SAVIDGE: Is this the case you want to be remembered for?

O’MARA: Well, I would like to wait until an acquittal happens before I’m remembered for it, but, yes, I’m OK with that, for this reason. I think that I have handled myself well.

I think that I have looked at a case that’s very difficult in a number of different facets, media, racial issues, the fact that it’s a murder, vocal family, other attorneys involved, and I think that I have handled it in a way that has maintained my respect for myself, which I guess is very important to me, but much more important than that, is that I have respected or maintained a respect for the system.

And I have been able to sort of juggle all of those sensitivities without compromising my client’s right to a fair trial or my zealous representation of him. So, I’m feeling pretty good about what I have done so far, to be honest, and not to sound egoist.

SAVIDGE: And as that jury deliberates, are you nervous? Are you anxious? Do you have some ritual that calms you? What will be happening?

O’MARA: I can’t eat. I can’t work. I just have to wait.

It is the worst thing. I guess it’s sort of like waiting for a child to be born or something. You’re just waiting, and you just don’t know. You’re anticipating it, fearing it at the same time, of course. But, no, you don’t do anything but wait. I don’t think there’s anything else you can do.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SAVIDGE: And that waiting is under way. It began at 2:30 for Mark O’Mara, and certainly for George Zimmerman. By the way, Mark O’Mara, no surprise here, says, yes, he will be writing a book — Brianna.

I can’t find the transcript to the entire 9 part series – But I strongly urge you to watch it in its totality.   CLICK HERE 

crump - O'Mara 2

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

195 Responses to Mark O’Mara On CNN During Jury Deliberations – Begins To Remove His Mask…..

  1. Stormy says:

    Sweet photo of the pinky ring !

    Like

  2. Jeff B. says:

    I would like to be the first to comment….

    I was extremely disappointed with how Omara handled this entire case with GZ’s life and liberties on the line. Omara chose to remain very PC despite the down and dirty smear campaign that was in full effect against GZ and his entire family. Not once did OMara mention in detail the deadly threats that have been directed to the entire Zimmerman family from Spike Lee attempting to tweet the Zimmerman address to the outright dirty lies that GZ was a total racist as well false and malicious accusations that GZ’s; father was involved in keeping GZ from being arrested. This trial was the time to dispel all the lies, corruption and manipulation that was initially created by the BGI, Crump, Sharpton and company. This trial was supposed to quell the civil unrest of all the lies that had been perpetuated against GZ and family. None of that happened. Omara failed to dispel anything that was grossly misrepresented in the media about GZ and family. Omara basically went to a down and dirty street fight with eloquent words of PC wisdom which fell on deaf ears. To me it was clear that Omara was thinking of his own career first and GZ’s life second. I am sickened by Omara’s closing arguments and I am left speechless… I just don’t know how to describe how disgusted and sick I am by the half-ass PC fight that Omara put up on behalf of GZ…..

    Like

    • judyt22 says:

      Thanks so much for this SD. I am ‘getting it’ piece meal and as I reflect on yesterday am still very disturbed about what has been ommitted as is Jeff B. I am a woman and a mother of four. I know that if I were on that jury I would want to know what motivated this “child” to attack a “grown man” (Prosecution) and without the drug connection none of it makes any sense. Both sides had the information why did MOM conceal the cause or what motivated TM?

      Like

      • msfaye123 says:

        “I am a woman and a mother of four. I know that if I were on that jury I would want to know what motivated this “child” to attack a “grown man” .

        I am a black woman a mother of two daughters with three grandsons and an educator. I can tell you that the kids today don’t “need” a reason to sucker punch a grown person at least not a reason that is readily visible. George was driving in a gated community which means that he lived that, was allowed in by someone who lived there or piggybacked his way in. George is watching Martin while talking on his phone with NE dispatcher now IMHO I suspect that Martin knew that George was NW or security. I am sure that after watching George from a distance Martin decided that George wasn’t security/NW and decided to approach George. “What are you doing around here”? “WHAT” now Trayvon realized that George was watching because George thought that he was “up to no good”. Trayvon was anger because George thought that he was up to no good. George reaching for the phone caused the reaction from Trayvon and Trayvon proceeded to beat George’s butt.

        Like

    • justice4z says:

      I have to agree. While I think O’mara did a good job with what he did address he failed to go all out in defense of his client. If George is convicted it will be because of O’mara’s distaste to violate PC standards. Juries are often unpredictable so no stone should have been left unturned in exposing the corrupt prosecution of George Zimmerman. Finally I thought the after trial interview was focused entirely too much on O’mara himself.

      Like

    • Wizzum says:

      It seems to me that if GZ is found guilty of anything that there is so much grounds for retrial that you would need a week to go through it all. Several decisions by the judge on admissible evidence, witness tampering, withholding of evidence, tampering with evidence. The failure of his own defense to admit into evidence the toxicology report is just plain incompetent. If introducing that didn’t open the door to the phone data then it at least would’ve turned the handle.

      Like

  3. lovemygirl says:

    I’ll echo some thoughts. Without thoroughly destroying the State’s case, including calling the two other “available ” officers, leaving the Tox report out, without destroying Rachel completely, without exposing the malicious prosecution O’Mara left the same knuckleheads fuel for the fire of false racism and plenty of cover for this persecution. He will have left an impression that Justice was not done to many if George is acquitted. George and his family’s lives will be dangerous since he did not exonerate his character and prove beyond all reasonable doubt this was straight forward self defense. He did not do his job of being a zealous advocate for his client. With so much evidence left off the table he kept America itself divided, his client a wanted man and the rot within intact.

    Like

    • I believe MOM left the system intact because he indeed wants the system to continue. A man who is searching for justice for his client would have blown this case open to prove the innocence he claimed he wanted to prove in his closing. MOM plays the game like his team is up by a FG while the other team is cheating and he keeps taking knees to run out the clock. The problem is he is near his own goal line and fumbling away his client’s liberty.

      Like

  4. Mr. Izz says:

    If George Zimmerman is not cleared of all charges, O’Mara owes him, and his family, one heck of an apology with a promise to do everything possible (even forcefully drag TM’s image into the public eye) to make sure George Zimmerman is found not guilty on appeal.

    Like

    • John Galt says:

      “O’Mara owes him, and his family, one heck of an apology with a promise to do everything possible (even forcefully drag TM’s image into the public eye”

      That would appear to me to be completely antithetical to O’Mara’s nature.

      Like

    • Truth Teller says:

      ZImmerman will likely be slaughtered in prison if he loses this. Accept that MOM. You did a B job. But ZImmerman really needed an A. With some passion. You are like a GOP Rino. Kind of squishy on the inside, but pleasant enough so long as it is not your own arse that is in the fire.

      Like

  5. sundance says:

    Lost in the “THC Marijuana” discussion is the fact it was the States Witness Dr. Bao, who wanted to recant his prior position the level of THC was not significant. The State witness wanted to testify that the marijuana was of a level to impair judgment.

    Dr. Bao opened the door for O’Mara, then Nelson gave him permission -proffer hearing- to walk through the door. It was O’Mara who chose not to.

    Like

    • Jeff B. says:

      If that was not a slap in the face of GZ than I don’t know what makes sense in this world anymore….

      Like

      • lovemygirl says:

        When someone posted the clip of George looking confused and asking “where’s the marijuana?” I gasped. I hadn’t caught that part this week.

        Like

    • Yep and George even asked “what about the marijuana?”. MOM didn’t even give George a choice.

      Like

    • minor4 says:

      It might have been George’s decision not to present that evidence. George seems like the type who does not want to be perceived as smearing the dead teenager, and George seems very nonconfrontational.

      I thought it should have been used, and I suspect MOM wished to use it as well because of the legal fight he went through to get it admitted. We don’t know whose decision it was — unless anyone has a way to communicate with George.

      Like

      • minor4 says:

        If George was seen or heard to say “where’s the marijuana” then disregard my comment above.

        Like

        • There was a video that FoxNews showed that caught George asking about it. It was on another thread here.

          MOM’s desire to get it in was one of ego more than intent to use. He doesn’t want to be told what to do. I suspect if the text messages were admitted, he would not have used it either. He just wants to win. He cares nothing about justice and truth.

          Like

          • CherryTreeCola says:

            Does anyone know since he was able to get it in– when the jurors asked for the evidence list would it be on there? Will it be considered evidence though they did not talk about it?

            Like

          • minor4 says:

            I think he may have been trying to create another point for appeal because he expected the judge to overrule him.

            Like

        • John Galt says:

          Maybe George wasn’t inquiring as to why exculpatory evidence was not presented on his behalf, but rather just wanted a blunt to attempt to relieve his anxiety.

          Like

    • judyt22 says:

      My question today is why? There has to be a reason ~ did MOM take this opportunity to display his “Renaissance man” persona in lecturing the law over revealing truth which will make George free? Waiting until after the verdict prolongs the injustice. There is a disconnect ~ this makes no sense coming from one who claims to be willing to put his arm around and march with angry black boys …

      Like

    • Judy says:

      “chose not to” And that is DISGUSTING! 😦

      Like

  6. BertDilbert says:

    I am kind of mixed. On the one hand I think O’Mara did a pretty good job and on the other hand based on the evidence, any good lawyer should have been able to get him off. Therefore winning the case on the facts has no special merit other than it was a high profile case. West seems to be the better analytical thinker between the two. If I wanted representation I would take West over O’Mara.

    Looking at some of the statements that O’Mara has made, he seems to be juggling two roles, defendants lawyer and promoter of racial peace. In a case like this where the evidence is heavily in your clients favor, perhaps you can play both roles and get away with it. For Zimmerman supporters, they look at some of the things that O’Mara has said and cringe.

    Is it a mistake to try and play both roles? Well if you are under the microscope of Sundance from TCH, every action will come under inspection to the most minute detail. There are two possible sides to this. One is getting your client off. The other is keeping him alive after he is acquitted.

    O’Mara has no legal obligation to keep his client alive, only to get him off on the trumped up charges. At the same time, O’Mara has to deal with the possibility of coming under threats to himself, as well as the protection of his staff and family. In most cases, this is not an issue. In this case I would beg to differ. This may help to explain the dual role played instead of the singular role of Zimmerman’s council.

    The only thing in life that is garenteed in life is death, taxes and sundance will have a response to my opinion!

    *removes pinkie ring*

    Like

    • LL says:

      I don’t really understand the hate to be honest. I thought he did a tremendous job (omara). I also resent calling people propogandists just because they disagree.

      Like

      • Yakmaster says:

        Omara let his political beliefs influence his Defense of his client. His sensitivity to the BGI and the Florida Judicial system, coupled with his desire to rehabilitate his own public image is what you DON’T want from an attorney defending you from serious charges, right?
        He exculpicates Crump in the whole mess, which makes me wonder what Crump has for leverage on Omara.
        No doubt his upcoming book will star him as the hero. Still angling for the fame and glory and the chance to push his “truth” about the much persecuted Black man in the judicial system. I don’t doubt that Omara heartily approves of the Baker Act being used in Miami-Dade to keep juveniles doing criminal acts out of Juvie ala’ Trayvon Martin.

        Like

  7. sundance says:

    Do not miss the fact that when O’Mara was saying why “he should be well remembered” for this trial, and gave his list of his own perceived accomplishments, he left a key ingredient out of the consideration:

    “George”

    Where is George in that answer.? Where is George’s position, and George Zimmerman’s defender in that equation?

    Sure he defended “they system” and feels great about that, but at what cost? He just told you right there in his own words. Protection of the system was more a primary consideration that the innocence of his client.

    These ain’t my words – these are his. READ THEM.

    Like

  8. minor4 says:

    I don’t quite understand the negative feelings created by that interview. What exactly is it that makes you think MOM is not doing his best for George?

    Like

    • minor4 says:

      Disclosure – I have not watched the whole 9 part interview — I just read the transcript.

      Like

      • Jeff B. says:

        MOM never vigorously attempted to discredit anything about the false narrative and the Martin/fulton-BGI-Crump/Parks connection…. Everything was there “the evidence” to throw a monkey wrench in the entire Scheme Team machine but MOM chose not to go there….

        Like

        • minor4 says:

          I don’t think this trial was the place for it, and it’s really not evidence of George’s innocence or guilt. Besides, O’Mara was severely limited in what he could and could not bring into evidence because of numerous biased pre-trial rulings.

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            “O’Mara was severely limited in what he could and could not bring into evidence because of numerous biased pre-trial rulings.”

            True, but didn’t Nelson rule in his favor on the THC issue? Isn’t that exculpatory evidence that was not presented at trial? Didn’t GZ state in the NEN call that he looks like he’s on drugs? Wasn’t Trayvon swaying at the counter in the 7-11? Did anybody point that out to the jury?

            Like

            • minor4 says:

              As I said elsewhere, I thought the THC should have been used at least in closing argument, and I don’t know why it wasn’t. I don’t think that makes O’Mara everything he is accused of in this thread.

              If Trayvon was swaying in the video, the jury can see that for themselves.

              Like

      • sundance says:

        The transcript is only partial. Please note – and do not miss the fact that when O’Mara was saying why “he should be well remembered” for this trial, and he gave his list of his own perceived accomplishments, he left a key ingredient out of the consideration.

        George Zimmerman

        Like

        • minor4 says:

          I noticed that, and to be honest, I did cringe a little at that whole answer — mostly because I’m not a big fan of lawyers doing a bunch of media during a trial.

          On the other hand, I think it’s important to try to smooth some waters since George will be acquitted, whether by this jury or the DCA. MOM answered the question he was asked — and that question was not about George.

          I understand your point, but I believe MOM is motivated by George’s interest (as well as his own, I’m sure.)

          Like

          • John Galt says:

            “On the other hand, I think it’s important to try to smooth some waters since George will be acquitted”

            Smoothing waters in the event of unknown consequences of an unknown result should never be a consideration of a trial attorney. Winning should be the only consideration. Throw every brick.

            Like

        • GZanon says:

          O’MARA: Well, I would like to wait until an ACQUITTAL happens before I’m remembered for it, but, yes, I’m OK with that, for this reason.

          He didn’t say “, for these reasons.”

          Like

      • rovatek says:

        For starters, I’d expect him to be busy defending George during the trial instead of giving a nine-part interview.

        Like

        • sundance says:

          Well, now that you draw attention to the obvious… 😦

          Like

        • minor4 says:

          I agree with you on that.

          Like

        • JAS says:

          In the transcript he talks about late testimony in the case so I think it is safe to assume that this was recorded after the defense rested, probably Thursday morning, He was not in court until about 11:00 that day if I recall correctly. West handled the jury instructions

          Like

        • John Galt says:

          Has O’Mara ever made a public statement that actually helped GZ’s case?

          Like

        • LL says:

          It was post-final argument, there was no defending left to do!

          Like

        • michellc says:

          How many times was the defense unprepared? Yes I understand how they were given no time, I understand how they were rushed, I understand how they had stuff thrown on them at the last minute.
          However, if MOM had of spent a little less time on charts and giving interviews and giving a little more time to the case, maybe some of that could have been overcome. It often looked like to me all the grunge work was thrown in West’s lap and he didn’t have full 24 hour days to do it all.

          Like

  9. lovemygirl says:

    I had missed a number of weeks before the trial but was Rachel’s mother ever deposed?

    Like

  10. sundance says:

    Why will the jury have a hard time? Think about this:

    O’Mara spent 4 minutes of silence to prove what? Sure, that Trayvon could have hidden around laying in wait for the “creepy ass cracka” to bust up.

    But he never gave the jury a reason why Trayvon would do that. He never gave them the complete picture of Trayvon so the jury would understand what motivation would have led to Trayvon making the decision that all evidence supports.

    O’Mara showed the evidence of confrontation, then he showed the evidence of the time Trayvon had to avoid the confrontation. He even showed them a picture of what Trayvon looked like in reality. But he never gave the jury any reason to understand why Trayvon would choose to confront George Zimmerman. He never fully connected the TRUTH of the encounter.

    He gave them the what.
    He gave them the where.
    He gave them the when.
    But he NEVER gave them the WHY.

    I’ll bet all manner of common sense, that “why” question is the one the jury got hung on. After listening to the 7-11 skittle child, blah blah blah…. They needed a why.

    So they asked for the evidence again. And guess what? It ain’t there. Because it was too awkward for him to reconcile going there.

    That aspect is why George wanted to take the stand…. no-one, not even his own attorney, was willing to describe the man he met – the foul-mouthed, angry, person he encountered.

    Like

    • …no-one, not even his own attorney, was willing to describe the man he met – the foul-mouthed, angry, person he encountered.

      RJ was the closest one to tell the truth about that and we don’t even know if she was the one on the phone!

      Like

    • lovemygirl says:

      That is why I have a queasy feeling. I was shocked at how short and incomplete the defense was. I know the State had nothing but I worry that a jury could go for a “compromise verdict” but even if they do return a not guilty, George will always be a hated and wanted man. More importantly is the corruption stands unexposed for the next victim.

      Like

      • “More importantly is the corruption stands unexposed for the next victim.”

        Geraldo (I have no use for him) swears this is STILL about race. I agree it is sharply divided by race, but because of your sentence above.
        WE are George. It can happen to us, our family, our neighbors.

        Like

    • GZanon says:

      That sunk in!

      Like

    • John Galt says:

      “O’Mara spent 4 minutes of silence to prove what? Sure, that Trayvon could have hidden around laying in wait for the “creepy ass cracka” to bust up.”

      IIRC, O’Mara didn’t even mention “creepy ass cracka” much less state that it evidenced that Trayvon held animosity toward GZ.

      Like

      • maggiemoowho says:

        MOM did say something to the fact that he didn’t care about those words because thats what teens say. I have to go back and listen, it did shock me to hear that part of the closing.

        Like

        • ctdar says:

          Yes he did, I was surprised at that because that was the entire mindset of TM, the foul mouthed 17 year old, pushing the envelope, no care with what others thought, win at all costs: the “no_limit_ni@@er”

          Like

    • bullnuke says:

      It was stunning to watch, the jury being left with no clue as to the character of the man who committed a felonious attack of his client. MoM told Crump, under different circumstances, he would be on the same side. Kinda looks like he was. Damn that picture speaks a thousand words.

      Like

      • John Galt says:

        I would like to see MOM interviewed on the topic of MDSPD falsifying Trayvon’s records to conceal criminal activity and divert him from criminal prosecution. I wonder if MOM has any problem with that.

        Like

  11. BertDilbert says:

    My biggest disappointment of the trial.

    Officer Smith who was in charge of logging the crime scene. Three times she referred to the Watermelon as tea and was allowed to get away with it.

    After the third time officer Smith did this, West should have asked why she misstated the evidence 3 times and what influenced her to do so. This would have stopped the narrative cold in the first days of the tiral. Instead the prosecution carried the iced tea to the very end.

    The defense can claim that race is not a factor in the trial but not calling out the iced tea is proof that council was affected by race in the defense of Zimmerman.

    Like

    • talkaftercarefulthought says:

      I can’t fathom why in 15 months of a process that (I thought) was supposed to demolish the “he said, she said’s” of an event and rebuild that night stone by stone with, JUST THE FACTS, the closest we’ve ever gotten regarding the beverage is “fruit juice” isn’t there something Hindenburg scale size wrong with the entire process if a basic fact was never corrected/brought to light.Knowing what I know about the judicial system now I could never come to the conclusion of “beyond a reasonable doubt” EVER…

      Like

      • Spar Harmon says:

        Having had my own brushes with our “system”, I would never have anything BUT reasonable doubt about it’s product….Spar

        Like

    • John Galt says:

      The “iced tea” – WMFJC discrepancy also evidences that RJ was coached based on the errant police report.

      Like

  12. LHlaredo says:

    So basically , “I know my brother beats the sh** out of his wife, but I don’t want to say anything about it because my family might get mad at me, in any case he doesn’t beat up her that bad”.

    Like

  13. Jeff B. says:

    If I was the defense attorney I would of attempted to mention “things” here and there even though I know it would be objected to.. but at least you start to plant the seed of other scenarios… I would of said so Trayvon purchased “Watermelon drink” and “skittles” and then mentioned that those are in fact 2 of 3 main ingredients to make an illegal drink called lean/syzurp… Even though its objected you at least start to plant the seed of other possibilities…. You also have to mention the tox report and the THC levels… this is “HUGE”.. because it lends credibility to GZ’s observation that Trayvon appeared to be on Drugs acting suspicious…. That fact alone may have been enough evidence for the 6 woman (5 mothers) to acquit GZ….. That omission was inexcusable by MOM….

    Like

    • Perhaps that is what MOM is expecting to use on appeal. I am sure MOM won’t work for free on the appellate case. So even a conviction ends with MOM making more money. SMH

      Like

      • Jeff B. says:

        If Mom was intentionally holding that information out so that it could potentially go to an appeal than that is clearly an ethical dereliction on Mom’s behalf… I hope that is not the case, i really dont….

        Like

      • John Galt says:

        MOM could be the subject of an ineffective assistance of counsel basis of appeal in the event of conviction and appeal. Hopefully GZ would obtain other counsel for an appeal in event of conviction.

        Like

      • ctdar says:

        Usually other lawyers handle appeals phase. Frankly, if it was me I certainly wouldnt put all my eggs in the same basket with the first lawyer that lost my case.

        Like

    • bullnuke says:

      That is why George asked MoM “what about the marijuana?”. By the defense not going there, it took away the true reason why George did what he did that night…followed a suspicious person. The jury needed that bit of information to better understand George’s motivation. I guess MoM didn’t want to blemish Martin’s character. No way was MoM going to establish Martin was a wannabe thug.

      Like

      • Yakmaster says:

        MOM stated flat out that he didn’t bring it in out of deference to TM’s parents. I watched that Presser in stunned disbelief that he actually thought it made no difference to his Self Defense case and their feelings trumped George’s. 😦

        Like

    • thefirstab says:

      Jeff B. – GZ’s observations + “lean” ingredients/blunt purchase, lighter + tox reports = blows claims of innocent Chile just walking home claim out of the water.
      Re: mothers on the jury – as a mother of two teenagers, one very close in age to TM, that is the FIRST thing that comes to mind – potential drug use/abuse.
      Leaving that info out of GZ’s defense is inexcusable, IMO.
      More enabling of this problem that “keeps the black youth down”. Even if drug abuse crosses all racial and socio-economic boundaries. IMO.

      Like

      • minor4 says:

        No way the judge would have allowed that. You guys are acting like the defense had free reign to just talk about whatever they wanted to, and that was not the case at all.

        Like

        • thefirstab says:

          Minor, re: admissibility, I believe the tox report was admitted? IANAL, so may not be understanding of all the evidence issues. Just working that little bit of info into the proceedings could very well have planted a seed in the minds of the jurors, who may have dealt with it with their own teens.

          Like

          • minor4 says:

            The judge allowed the tox report – she did not allow any other evidence of drug use or character evidence. I think I would have used the tox report in arguments to the jury, but I am not going to jump to conclusions just because I would have used a different strategy on that one issue. It’s always a minefield when you start trashing the dead guy. IAAL

            Like

  14. lovemygirl says:

    Often times the hardest things to hear are the things left unsaid, the hardest things to see are those things left in the shadows. It wasn’t until the case drew down and people here mentioned things I had forgotten about that I really, really wondered why not a peep about them was mentioned. So many witnesses left out, so much in evidence not mentioned.
    I just remember SD talking about the Martin’s and Trayvon’s character being off the table at the reporter’s meeting and didn’t know that it applied to the defense too. Troubling indeed.

    Like

    • Jeff B. says:

      That is the most troubling thing about JN’s ruling in this trial… Trayon’s propensity for fighting, lying, stealing, vandalism, skipping school, selling/using drugs, attempt to purchase/sell guns was probably the most significant factor of why this encounter and tragic event happened… Trayvon was an angry out of control youth who was not going to finish school and was more than likely going to be killed by someone else or have killed someone else (if he did not kill some one already)…. Out of all of GZ’s previous calls to NEN about suspicious activity in his neighborhood he physically got involved ZERO times… so I ask again, who was truly the most likely aggressor that night? not a hard question…

      Like

      • minor4 says:

        Character evidence like that is not admissible against a “victim” unless the state opens the door. In this case the immediate drug use (tox report) and the fighting should have been admissible IMO. Excluding the fight texts is reversible error.

        Like

  15. woohoowee says:

    “…the fact that it’s a murder…” (MOM)

    Huh? What? Am I misreading that?

    Like

  16. PeruvianMom says:

    His style is highly analytical almost devoid of emotion. So when he makes these odd comments about of ‘course you’d think it was racial’ it’s almost like a way of deflecting aggression, as if he knows what can trigger hostility towards him, so he anticipates the aggression from the BGI by presenting the alternate opinion. I heard him do it over and over in closing, imagining and stating how a novice would think about the autopsy photo, about sympathy for TM mother, about not wanting to damage the image of TM. He does it well, too. I think this is a defense mechanism -to deflect outrage and aggression against him. It may be useful in getting opponents to drop their defenses a bit – maybe, or as aggressors, they sense his ambiguity and smell blood.
    Look how he described the poor effect the shouting and yelling had on him, and he thought poor for the decorum of the court. If he is highly analytical, hysteria and big emotions are something he shies away from. He’s figured out how to anticipate and deflect so as not to be confrontational…and maybe there is another motive. How many truly heinous vile guilty people has he probably had to defend over the years? He’s probably used this ambiguous tone and approach when defending hardened criminals some of which were death penalty cases. It’s highly inappropriate when dealing with George, although his closing where he went the extra mile to help them understand that George is completely innocent – actually a victim of a violent attack – won points with me. I think he’s an analytical person who shuns emotionality and has found ways to defend against it – and now does so reflexively – and negatively impacts the defense of his innocent client.

    Like

  17. sundance says:

    O’Mara, not the state, O’Mara called Tracy Martin to the stand to ask the question about the 911 call…. Some would say he had too because the State would strike the two detectives testimony if he didn’t… fair enough — regardless.

    If the issue of the voice was so keen and distinct to the central tenet of the case, as O’Mara proclaimed ad infinitum…. Then why, when Tracy Martin lied, and O’Mara was now uncomfy, why didn’t O’mara just ask Tracy about his own sworn FDLE statement.

    “when you were interviewed on April 2nd 2012, in Fort Lauderdale, you told detective TC O’Steen that you drove Trayvon half-way to Sanford, is that correct”?

    He doesn’t need to impeach the witness, truth is on his side, all he needed to do was ask the why questions.

    If Tracy admitted to lying to FDLE, then his credibility about the 911 call audio, against the backdrop of the two previous detectives, would stand like a blazing spotlight….. and the jury would have information to consider his integrity.

    On the other hand, if Tracy stuck to his story about driving Trayvon, as he outlined in the 4/2/12 statement – then Tracy himself has just opened the door for a) Brandi Greene to be called as an impeachment witness. AND/Or b) The the text messages from Trayvon to come in to impeach them both.

    Ask yourself, what’s the downside to asking “why” questions. Afraid of the truth?

    What lasting image would that leave with the jury about the case and their son. Knowing that Dad and Step-mom have either fabricated lies today in court, or last year, around the time of the 911 audio, to FDLE. Remember, Brandi Green was beside Tracy when he listened to that audio.

    Think about it.

    That’s really all I’m saying. Just – Think.About.It. Not as a deceiver but as a truth seeker.

    Like

    • Jeff B. says:

      Sundance, you are absolutely correct… I anticipated that was going to happen when Mom called Tracy to the stand and I was left wanting.. Very disappointing…

      Like

    • BertDilbert says:

      Or he should have also brought in the film of Tracy saying his son was on the porch.

      Like

    • Dell Mar says:

      MOM is on record repeatedly saying he would like to focus on the 6 or 7 minutes when GZ and TM cross paths. This is not an unreasonable thing given the hand he was dealt. I would suggest that his only risk is overplaying his hand. He already has Serino and Singleton vs. Tracy Martin, he has the physical injuries to George, and he has the best vantage eyewitness. If with that, the jury wants to believe that TM is screaming for help, then the case is already lost. No amount of directly impeaching Tracey is going to buttress their case, and if I’m right about that, then the only potential left is for it to harm it. Why go down that road?

      It’s shaping up as some people wanting every once of truth (I’d argue that doesn’t exist in reality), and others more concerned with winning. Unfortunately, in the real world, the truth and winning are not an if this then that proposition.

      Like

      • stella says:

        “We will have to wait to see what the evidence provides, my client believes he is not guilty”…. [Mark O’Mara – April 2012, after arrest]

        “My client feels he is not a racist”….. [Mark O’Mara – May 2012]

        “I cannot speak to his honesty, but George Zimmerman has definitely damaged his credibility, we’ll have to wait and see if he can recover it”…. [Mark O’Mara – June 2012, 2nd Bond]

        “My client said he thinks he did nothing wrong”….. [Mark O’Mara – July 2012]

        “The Stand Your Ground law is an absurd statute”…. [Mark O’Mara – August 2012]

        “I don’t know if it is illegal, but there should be a law, or legislation written, to stop this type of thing”….. [Mark O’Mara – September 2012]

        “If it was not for my client, George Zimmerman, he (Crump) and I would be on the same side in this issue”…. [Mark O’Mara – October 2012]

        “My client was arrested, he should have been arrested, and so there is no reason to debate civil rights in this trial… [Mark O’Mara – November 2012]

        “He’s probably not guilty of murder”… [Mark O’Mara – July 2013]

        Like

        • Dell Mar says:

          Let me guess, how can a defense attorney say all this and possibley be a vigorouse defender of his client?

          1. “My client was arrested, he should have been arrested,…” Sounds real bad huh. Well, let me ask you this, does George get his get out of jail free card if MOM declares he shouldn’t have been arrested? Or, does George benefit in any way if MOM declares he shouldn’t have been arrested? Or, maybe he actually believes that, but it is in context with civil rights which leads me to believe that that is his true focus. “And so there is no reason to debate civil rights in this trial.” That he is saying what he is saying because it helps defuse the volatile situation. It doesn’t harm George and can only help.

          2. The seemingly wafly statements about George’s guilt status. My client feels…. My client believes…. He’s probably not guilty of murder… Those are actually factual statements. They are honest statements, not embellished in any way. They are meant for the court of public opinion. Some people have a problem with that I suppose because he’s not screaming his innocence and that he is not a racist etc… Well, let me ask you this, how well do you think that alternative tact would work for him and George, and to what benefit? You’ve got at least 1/5th of the country in a state irrationality and you want what exactly? For MOM to declare they are wrong? Because that just works so great with irrational people. Time for me to get stern because the point is important: there are no predictive mechanisms in irrational situations. The only thing you can do is give it what it wants and Waite for it to die its own random death.

          3. The SYG and crump comments above, well that’s just what he believes. You know, George is a grown man. MOM must have convinced him it was not the way to go. I’m not privy to the argument and am reserving judgement.

          There is another comment above that I just don’t have any context to. That’s it. That’s my two minute take away. That’s a little insight as to why I don’t see it as difinitevly as you guys see it. Can I see what your getting at? Sure, of course, but I’m still not seeing what makes you so vehimately sure other than that in your minds there is no possible positive explanations to MOMs statements.

          I’m here. I take the time to read the site and comments. I’m smart enough to follow along (apparently real smart people don’t actually declare themselves such). SD drops hints now and then that he knows info that we, the reader, don’t have. And I say to myself, ok, this isn’t enough to absolutely convince me that MOM is rotten to the core, but the TreeHouse has more and it’s coming.

          Like

    • nomorebsplease says:

      Been screaming for that. I hate how they blew it. Why i worry about manslaughter.

      Like

  18. Jeff B. says:

    It needs to be hammered home that $ybrina is only Trayvon’s mother by blood and that is all… Alicia raised Trayvon for 14 years of his life and the small time that $ybrina was directly involved with Trayvon his life spun out of control and she kicked him out of the house….. Im tired of $ybrina being portrayed as a good caring grieving mother when she is anything but that…..

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Oh I’ve a little tabbed page for getting around to that…. maybe late tomorrow. Maybe. 😉

      Like

    • Earlier someone used the perfect term.
      was Trayvon emotionally homeless?

      Like

      • Jeff B. says:

        How is it that Trayvon had no problems (that we know of) for almost his entire life with Alicia until he ends up back with $ybrina?

        Like

        • Dell Mar says:

          I here what you’re saying, but keep in mind, problems with teens escalate. This could have been the natural progression of the trajectory he was already on.

          Like

          • bullnuke says:

            Is wanna be thug part of a natural progression? If so, there are going to be a lot more people in George’s position. Its not natural. Staying in school, staying out of trouble and being raised by loving parents is the natural thing to do.

            Like

          • auscitizenmom says:

            Yes, they do, and for a lot of reasons. Look at what they are being taught in school, who they associate with and their attitudes, and how little is expected out of them. And, they spend most of their time with their “friends.” And, just look at his friends. Oh, my, goodness. And, then look at his father. Trayvon never had a chance. It wasn’t “is he going to get killed”, it was “when” and “how.”

            Like

        • hooson1st says:

          that is pretty well what Alicia, herself, said.

          Like

          • Conniption Fitz says:

            One of Alicia’s photos reveals an almost identical tattoo to Sybrina’s. Wonder if all Tracy’s BabyMama’s have these?

            Like

  19. Be Ge says:

    The school history together with MDSPD officers’ testimony and a competent toxicologist should ‘ve been brought to the court no matter what. There are no “feelings” on the opposite side other than desire of $$$. I ‘d love to see JDN denying police officer testimony like she denied the phone.

    Like

  20. Jeff B. says:

    It’s amazing how many “do over’s” the Martin/Fulton family get in this trial for the benefit of the doubt… Jahavarmint states that its not Trayvon and doesn’t sound like Trayvon on the 911 but then later states he meant that he couldn’t believe it was Trayvon, couldn’t believe he was gone…. Then Tracy states to 2 police officers that its emphatically not his son Trayvon but then later says the officers misheard and he meant that I can’t believe that is Trayvon…. then you have Sybrina claiming she had no knowledge of why she was going to the Mayors office with an entire team of attorney’s and family members, she claims she had no knowledge that they were going to play the 911 tape, but yet there is a [previous filing by Sybrina/Tracy and Crump/Parks for release of the 911 tape… SMH in disbelief…. you get 3 try’s to get your statement/answer correct for the Scheme team… unreal… imagine if GZ’s mother mispoke about the 911 call being GZ…. think about that for a moment…

    Like

    • auscitizenmom says:

      Don’t forget the presser where Sybrina said “it might have been an accident” and then at the next presser she was so indignant that was what was reported and said her words were taken out of context. Oops. One problem. The whole thing was on tape.

      Like

  21. Dell Mar says:

    Obviously I’m missing something here. What gives SD?

    I don’t see anything here that supports the notion of pealing away the mask on the O’mara monster. (Monster: my word not yours)

    Also, why the recent suggestions for readers to go elsewhere if they support MOM? (If I’m not mistaken I believe admin has suggested this in recent comments to comments by others).

    You tell us you have information that readers don’t have, yet at the same time, we, the readers, are seemingly admonished for not connecting the dots. All while, and I don’t think I’m alone in this, I’m watching MOM with my own two eyes put up the best defense I could imagine for his client given all the potential pitfalls in this case both in and out of court.

    I’m smart enough to understand subtle. I’ve read through and followed this site for about a year. I have a good working memory of your comments on MOM and MOM’s public actions, and I’m asking you now to understand that what you think should be obvious to all well intentioned readers is in actuality not so obvious to all.

    You’ve promised sunshine, that implies that some of us are in the dark. It’s unreasonable for now to expect us to see things the way you see them. Cut us some slack, and please bring on the goods sooner rather than later.

    Like

    • sundance says:

      Recent? Recent? Are you just obtuse or intentionally stupid. I’ve been saying that for in excess of a year now. Try actually reading an embed before posting a comment. All the explanations are there. I’m sick and tired of repeating myself because you are too lazy to just click a damn mouse. The only reason you are in the dark is because your lazy ass refuses to look around for the light switch.

      Yeah, I’m beyond frustrated trying to drive you idiots away for over a year, and yet time and time again even the idiots who leave return with the same stupid questions. AND God forbid I say asked and answered – I’ll get the poor hurt fee fee’s BS because I personally did not walk you hand in hand to the page and paragraph you’ll refuse to read in the first place.

      I swear you and your ideological cohorts voted for O’Bama !!

      RUDE? Damn skippy. There is only enough room for so much repetition before a person just says ENOUGH. I’m there.

      Like

      • Dell Mar says:

        First, I think if you look over the post for the past year, you’ll see that your issues with MOM died down considerably (after the bail fiasco thereabouts) and that it was at the beginning of the trial that they resurfaced with vigor, and to the point in the past few days people are being admonished in some way for supporting MOM and once again being told to pound pavement.

        I’m saying to you that well intentioned and intelligent people are being told to move on because they don’t see it the way you see it exactly. I’m telling you I’ve read most if not all of what you’ve been writing for a year, and that some well intentioned and intelligent people are not drawing the same confident conclusions you are.

        At the same time you are telling us you know things we don’t, which implies that there are important dot connecting pieces of information that normal readers of the site don’t have yet. Which is it?

        And what’s with the Obama comment?

        My post speaks for itself and your reaction speaks for itself.

        Like

        • sundance says:

          The Obama comment is because only a sheeple idiot would have voted for a ruse. A false persona. The same inherent characteristic that cannot see the ruse that is Mark O’Mara. No, I Have never changed opinion of him – not a bit.

          The only insider knowledge I have pertains to why George has O’Mara. And that’s not a secret – I’ve shared it openly numerous times. He had no other option. So maybe I softened a bit knowing that he was, for better or worse, stuck to a representative he could not trust.

          What you fail to see I cannot bring you to. There are hundreds, and thousands who do see it. It is visible because it is right there in front of you, as in the content of this post which you insufferably avoid discussing and instead demand “some other” further evidence… more proof.

          Another batch, another round, it will always be thus with the crowd of people willing to be deceived. My request for those to leave is exactly because of the response you leave above. Devoid of actual substance and a ridiculous demand for hand holding, you become annoying like a gnat. Leaving your prose around and stomping your feet demanding to be shown what is in front of your face. Stupid.

          Don’t do yourself the favor of calling yourself intelligent, because that level of obfuscation is most certainly not a trait of the well minded.

          If you do not agree, or like the site – leave. Why do progs have to constantly think they have some manner as to tell the site host what they should or should not put toward their audience. Just leave. Go away. Take your gullible minded, and excusatory self to a place where you can sit around and misbelieve all manner of things just because it is more comfortable to ignore the reality.

          The reality is George Zimmerman has been petrified of his representation for almost a year. And after all of the shit this jackass prog attorney had done, he’s still got idiot progs like you standing up saying he’s awesome.

          He’s not. Sorry. Deal.

          ps. Did you vote for Obama or not?

          Like

          • Dell Mar says:

            Here’s the basis for my comments about more info from a recent post of yours.

            “However, after verdict we will be able to go to places we have reserved out of respect and prudence. The Defense team obviously has taken the position of staying down range from the media until the verdict is announced. We will not do, or say, anything to undercut that position.”

            I took that to mean you would open up more about what you know that we, the readers’, do not. That’s the basis for my comments to you and not some mindless game of circular arguments.

            No, I did not vote for Obama. I’m a Libertarian.

            I never said you changed opinion of MOM, only suggested that your post on that subject died down only to resurface with vigor at the beginning of the trial.

            I wasn’t trying to tell you what to do. I never said I don’t like the site. I suppose you gleaned that from my compliments. What bizarro world are you in right now. Prog this prog that. Because lawyers in Orlando, or wherever, are all buddy buddy that means a defendant can’t get a fair trial or a vigorous defense. Well they are buddy buddy everywhere. How is that proof that MOM is this absolute slime ball that is just going through the motions. He teamed with West, didn’t he? What do you mean To suggest that George can’t find another lawyer? What is West? By your standards West is slime just like MOM.

            I’m not directly addressing the interview of MOM because I don’t see anything in there that rises to the levels of indignation that you are suggesting is there. Nor do I see anything to suggest he is less than vigorously defending his client.

            I think MOM is brilliant at picking and choosing his battles to win the war, but it appears at times you believe ground given is proof of a traitorous general. I know you are not stupid enough to believe that, but that’s how it appears. No, that’s what you are doing.

            MOM could come out today and announce his three way love affair with Corey and Crump, and it would not change my mind one bit of the excellent job MOM did in giving George the best odds of going free and regaining some semblance of a normal life.

            We disagree or are miscommunicating and you resort to name calling and hurling insults. And that was right from the start. I posted one comment to you and that’s how you came back at me, and yet I’m supposed to be the one with an issue. Whatever crap you have with someone else, take it up with them. Take it up with the progs or Obama or whoever.

            Like

      • alan says:

        yes, with attitudes like that, it is no wonder that people flee this site. Lots of people do not have the intellectual horsepower to put all this together. You can just run them off, but pretty soon, sundance, you won’t have the diversity your site needs to be both famous and effectice. Pride goeth before the fall. Try being humble, and help those who ask for it.

        Like

        • sundance says:

          Who says I’m looking for diversity? Not a chance in hell. There’s a reason I don’t go spending time at HuffPo, or the Washington Post, et al. Why would I want to infect the Treehouse with stupid.

          The only diversity we want is a diverse audience, willing to engage the truth. If you ain’t willing to accept the truth – NO MATTER WHERE THE SEARCH TAKES YOU – Then you ain’t welcome in this foxhole.

          Pride.? That I don’t have expect to say I don’t associate with Democrats. Who I view as the stupidest people alive today. It just makes life easier.

          Be humble and help? No, that don’t always work. Why? Because there are users who demand your constant assistance. If that sounds like you – or describes a trait you might be comfy with – you should find another locale this ain’t the place.

          It called culling the herd. It serves a purpose. Look it up.

          ps. I dug you out of moderation, so you must have done something stupid to get yourself perpetually put there. Because these admins (who do 99.9% of that stuff) have a way longer fuse than I. Figures

          Like

        • ytz4mee says:

          yes, with attitudes like that, it is no wonder that people flee this site.

          I’m not so sure people “flee this site”. We have uninvited lots of people who don’t understand what we are about and who are rude. They continue to come back, banging at our front door to be let in. I would be much happier if the Progs would actually flee, but we have the opposite problem.

          Lots of people do not have the intellectual horsepower to put all this together.

          That’s their problem, not ours.

          You can just run them off, but pretty soon, sundance, you won’t have the diversity your site needs to be both famous and effectice.

          “You won’t have the diversity…”. Ah, so clearly you haven’t read this site in detail or even have the first clue what we are about. “Diversity” is PC code for equivocation. You’re a zimmerhead trial junkie who shows up here for their “fix”. The nice thing about the trial being over is we will lose the dead weight that are trial junkies like you.

          “famous and effectice”. That is the least of our worries. TCTH wasn’t set up to make anyone “famous”. We routinely eschew requests for media interviews. I guess you could call us the “anti-MOM”s in approach and attitude.

          Pride goeth before the fall. Try being humble, and help those who ask for it.

          Again, you don’t understand what this site is about. SD is one of the most humble people I have had the pleasure of working with. And no, we don’t have the time to spoon feed lazy Progs who demand we stop what we’re doing and give them 100% of our time and attention. How unbelievably selfish and narcissistic to think we “owe” that to people who casually drop by to read our work. It’s the “everyone is special, everyone gets a gold star for achievement” mentality. Not welcome here.

          Don’t count on getting let out of the spam can again any time soon.

          Like

          • Menagerie says:

            He should not be let out. Many good reasons why he is moderated but the best one is we don’t have time for him.

            Like

          • stella says:

            True thing about the laziness. Reminds me of another commenter the other day who made lots of allegations that were not backed up by any evidence of any kind. I took the time to furnish evidence to the contrary, and suggested that search engines were his friend. Did he counter with his own evidence? Of course not, because he is TOO LAZY. We don’t need people like that here.

            Like

          • michellc says:

            I found this site way back in the beginning of this fiasco. I did not stay for the Zimmerman. As a matter of fact I rarely waded into the George Zimmerman open threads.
            I found a refuge here and thank God this site is not about diversity. If it was about diversity I would have not stayed around.
            There is nobody here that I agree with 100% of the time and I’m talking about those that have been here since I’ve been here. Not the ones who’ve came since the trial started.(I haven’t even figured out who all these people are much less what they all are) But all of those people I referenced are walking down the same path as me. The extended family that is living in the same universe. If they cared about diversity, then they wouldn’t be that extended family with the same goals as mine.

            I can’t wait for this trial to be over so there is less company in the house. It at times feels like we can’t wade through to even get to the base of our tree.

            Like

        • stella says:

          The only people who are fleeing this site are those we are happy to wave “bye-bye” as a send-off. We have gained a number of people who will stick around, and our page views are higher than they ever have been. The page views will decrease after the trial is over, but we don’t care about that. We care about quality people who like our approach to many subjects, not just this trial. We aren’t against people who have legitimate questions and arguments, just those who keep repeating the same stupid arguments with absolutely no evidence to support them. It is nice to have visibility as a site, but not the be-all and end-all. If we modify our opinions to please the popularity gods, then we might as well quit today.

          Like

        • Stormy says:

          Buh Bye ! 😉

          Like

        • MayS says:

          I don’t think this site is for humble people. I’m not the most eloquent or smartest cookie in the jar but I came across this site a little over 1 year ago when I became interested in the zimmerman trial and after only a few weeks the zimerman threads were the last ones I opened.

          I always loved the information I got from and while at first I was a little intimidated by the people who are clearly poets. I’m so good at numbers not words but I started joining the conversation at different times and I have never felt excluded. If I don’t get it, too bad, read it one thousand times and move on. If I don’t agree with it try to join the discussion and see how I can better understand. If in the end it’s still not within my view I move on to the next post.

          SD is not a politician that needs to please you until his next vote, you can tell he’s passionate about what he does and is not afraid to expose injustice. That to me is enough to read with an open mind and even if I don’t agree still chew on the words I’m reading.

          Like

      • LL says:

        “Yeah, I’m beyond frustrated trying to drive you idiots away for over a year, and yet time and time again even the idiots who leave return with the same stupid questions.”

        Well you’ve just driven one more away. All the best.

        Like

        • sundance says:

          You know it is quite possible to leave a site without having to stand at the door and stomp your feet, while announcing your departure. Think about it.

          Then AGAIN: NOTE TO SITE READERS – THIS BEHAVIOR IS A CENTRAL TENET OF PROGRESSIVES.

          Like

          • Chip Bennett says:

            You know it is quite possible to leave a site without having to stand at the door and stomp your feet, while announcing your departure. Think about it.

            Behold: the petulance and the glory of the rage quit.

            Like

      • minor4 says:

        Wow

        Like

        • sundance says:

          Save us from your “wow” bullshit. you’re one of the direct people that I’m talking about. You know damn good and well that I have asked you and your like minded Prog Lawyerly types to leave for over a year. Thankfully, You even left for 6+ months…. alas, here you are again.

          Like

            • minor4 says:

              ….BTW – I am not a prog. I didn’t vote for Obama and I’m a died in the wool conservative. My “wow” comment was directed at the tone and hysteria of your post – not so much the content because I’ve always believed that reasonable people can disagree.

              Like

  22. Aslan's Girl says:

    “You can’t not have that thought”; “You”? He shouldn’t generalize and speak only for himself. He thought it, doesn’t mean *I* thought it.

    Like

  23. graffety says:

    Perspective is everything here. A young man was failed by everyone in his world. Mark did not want to pile on. At the same time, he needed to defend George, and hope the world does not explode. He did lay it all out as much as he could. The Zimmerman family statement takes a high road, and George is a key member of this family.

    George gets redemption, no matter what happens now. God be with him, and with all who have suffered.

    I do very much hope that Sundance will continue to fight for the truth. How many people of all walks have suffered from out failed systems? Mark knows this better than most.

    Like

    • St. Benedict's Thistle says:

      Excuse me? You say, “A young man was failed by everyone in his world. Mark did not want to pile on.”

      That is immaterial to the case, and exposing the truth about Trayvon Martin cannot hurt him. What it can do is embarrass and shame his family (who deserve it). What it can do is expose what happened to George that night and free him from prison (which is what ought to have happened).

      “He did lay it all out as much as he could.” That is a disingenuous statement easily disproved by many articles posted at this site.

      I’m sure that MOM knows how the system has been in failure for those seeking justice, especially those without funds to put on a good defense. What of it? He’s had the media at his feet for months. He could’ve been advocating like mad for reform of the system. The point is, it’s that very broken and corrupt system that intentionally charged George Zimmerman with a crime he did not commit.

      Like

      • John Payson says:

        //That is immaterial to the case, and exposing the truth about Trayvon Martin cannot hurt him.//

        Exposing too much truth about an alleged crime victim may cause emotional jurors feel bad and to to dislike the person who made them feel that way. Not a good way to try for an acquittal.

        That having been said, I think the proper tone for the defense to take would be that Trayvon Martin made an unfortunate decision *to persist in battering George Zimmerman for a minute or more* while GZ was screaming for help. It doesn’t really matter what other good or bad decisions anyone may have made that day. Had Trayvon Martin decided to get up and run away once GZ started screaming for his life, GZ would not have been forced to shoot him. Even those who might think that GZ had somehow slighted TM, and that TM had a right to reclaim his honor would probably acknowledge that any such debt was paid in full by his broken nose and bloodied head; TM had no right to continue seek retribution beyond that, and GZ had no obligation to let him. That TM decided to do so is unfortunate, but the fault lies entirely with TM.

        Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          Even those who might think that GZ had somehow slighted TM, and that TM had a right to reclaim his honor would probably acknowledge that any such debt was paid in full by his broken nose and bloodied head…

          We live in a civil society under the rule of law. We do not live in feudal Japan, where affront of one’s honor is considered justification for resorting to physical assault in order to defend/reclaim that honor.

          I find it highly ironic and hypocritical that those who in one breath claim that Trayvon Martin did not put George Zimmerman in a position where he justifiably used deadly force to defend himself out of a reasonable fear of imminent risk of death or great bodily harm, would in the next breath assert that Trayvon Martin had the right to “stand his ground” by assaulting George Zimmerman for “disrespecting” Martin by “profiling” him.

          Like

          • michellc says:

            I’m just curious with what I hear these people say in and out of court, me being a woman and I had a man coming towards me saying I had a problem now and I pulled out my gun and told him to not come any closer and he did and I shot him before he could reach me that I guess because I didn’t wait to see his intentions I’m guilty of murder?

            That’s basically what I think the state of Florida is saying and is why this creepy cracka won’t be taking a step inside Florida.

            Like

          • John Payson says:

            I was in no way trying to imply that Travon Martin’s sucker-punching of GZ was in any way justifiable. It obviously wasn’t. My point is that a jury doesn’t have to find that TM’s initial battery of GZ was unprovoked to find that the undeniable actions of Trayvon Martin *after* than point would be sufficient to justify GZ’s self-defense claim. The prosecution claims that “we don’t know what happened between the end of George’s call and the 911 call where he’s audibly screaming”. Notwithstanding the fact that “we don’t know” implies reasonable doubt, *even a juror who 100% believed any prosecutorial speculation* about the time before the “screaming” call could not legitimately convict George unless he *also* believed that the scream on the 911 call could not have been George Zimmerman screaming for his life.

            Some jurors might, for whatever reason, have a mental block that compels them to believe that the notion that a black youth might attack someone without provocation is a racist lie; if a juror has such a mental block, evidence of TM’s character will–ironically–reinforce her perception that evil racists say mean things about black people. To score an acquittal from such a juror one must convince her that she can acquit without having to believe that TM might have unjustifiably sucker-punched GZ. Such a juror could believe, if she wanted, that TM wasn’t a bad kid, but he may tragically, have gotten a little over-exuberant in his initially-justifiable assault on GZ. One need not believe anything negative about black youths to recognize that people of all stripes can sometimes get over-exuberant doing just about anything, and that over-exuberance in many things can at times be fatal regardless of the character of the people involved.

            Like

        • St. Benedict's Thistle says:

          “Exposing too much truth about an alleged crime victim may cause emotional jurors feel bad and to dislike the person who made them feel that way. Not a good way to try for an acquittal.”

          Allowing the jury to think TM was a good kid, a normal kid is also not a good way to try for an acquittal.

          Like

      • Webster says:

        You obviously didn;t get the memo. It’s more important to salvage an attackers reputation than it is to save the freedom of an innocent man.

        Like

      • Chip Bennett says:

        Excuse me? You say, “A young man was failed by everyone in his world. Mark did not want to pile on.”

        I think this nicely encapsulates the O’Mara issue, and the differing viewpoints of those who debate the effectiveness of his representation of George Zimmerman.

        As defense counsel for George Zimmerman, “piling on” Trayvon Martin should be absolutely of no concern to Mark O’Mara. Defense of his client boils down to one thing: Trayvon Martin, and Trayvon Martin alone, is responsible for Trayvon Martin’s decision to confront, verbally accost, and physically assault George Zimmerman.

        Anything – anything at all – that Mark O’Mara did to enable, facilitate, or allow a complete and rigorous defense of his client to be obscured by any attempt to avoid “piling on” Trayvon Martin was a violation of his client’s right to due process, proper representation, and a fair trial.

        Like

  24. coreshift says:

    “Mark O’Mara On CNN During Jury Deliberations – Begins To Remove His Mask….”

    Did I miss the unmasking of the two DDs?

    Like

  25. Baldy says:

    Here is the transcripts page. Maybe the other parts in the MOM interview will be up shortly: http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/

    Like

  26. HughStone says:

    It looks like the same tie he was wearing on May 28.

    Like

  27. Springstreet says:

    Sundance, Let’s accept some sad facts: GZ, MoM, Nelson, Ken Doll, BDLR, Crump. etc. etc. all voted for Obama : they are Progs. And Progs? They deal with the world by clinging to a consensus of emotion. Truth plays no part in their equations … it is a distraction … an irritating speed bump on their path to self-serving nirvana. So yes, they ALL hid behind “reasonable doubt” because if the embarrassing Trayvon was exposed … then Progs everywhere would have had to look at themselves.

    Like

  28. JAS says:

    If you let emotions rule you even for a second, you are done. Emotions preempt logical thought and without logic there can be no truth. That goes for everyone in my book prog or not. If this comment burns anyone here then you know where you are.

    Like

  29. bullnuke says:

    Sundance, you do the work the lazy won’t do, the presentation of facts that support the truth. All one has to do is read and absorb what is written. Its hard to comprehend the unwillingness of progs to examine the truth and make informed decisions. Their ideology won’t allow it. Their fellow progs won’t allow it.

    Like

  30. kathyca says:

    He thinks he’s done something to respect the system and been able to JUGGLE that respect and the feelings of the family, etc. while still providing George with a defense. And he’s PROUD of himself. OMG, too much. And I see West is like-minded, which explains how he’s been able to tolerate O’Mara. I always wondered about that. I’d like to throw an expensive glass of a delightful full-bodied cabernet with cherry undertones in his face.

    SD, you certainly did have him pegged.

    Like

    • Stormy says:

      🙂

      Like

    • Chip Bennett says:

      And I see West is like-minded, which explains how he’s been able to tolerate O’Mara.

      Just curious: on what are you basing that observation? Something O’Mara said? The way West comported himself in the courtroom? Something else?

      I’ve had just the opposite impression of West – but some things are much too Inside Baseball in the legal world for me, and I may have missed something.

      Like

      • kathyca says:

        I had the opposite impression of him, too. That’s why I always wondered how he put up with O’Mara. My comment was based on SD’s post yesterday about both of them being Dems who supported Nelson’s campaign and that she is a prog of the worst order. I was seriously multi-tasking at the time, so maybe I’m mistaken. I did re-read the part about how both of the defense lawyers did so three times to make sure I was reading correctly!

        Like

        • Chip Bennett says:

          My comment was based on SD’s post yesterday about both of them being Dems who supported Nelson’s campaign and that she is a prog of the worst order.

          I don’t remember seeing confirmation of the political party affiliation of either O’Mara or West, though the article did state that Nelson was a democrat.

          Both O’Mara ($250) and West ($100) did contribute to her (I assume non-political) re-election as judge, but I viewed both contributions as very minor, and assumed that such “chump change” donations were just part of legal glad-handing – much the way that large corporations tend to throw campaign-contribution bones to candidates from both political parties; hedging bets, so to speak.

          Is that an inaccurate assumption (that lawyers tend to make small donations to re-election campaigns of sitting judges, just as part of being in the “industry”)?

          Like

          • kathyca says:

            I know some do. But they usually donate to the “side” they are on. I don’t know of any conservative attorney who would donate even a token amount to the campaign of someone who doesn’t share their ideology. That said, I don’t operate in the criminal law world, much less in Florida. After everything I’ve seen in this case it wouldn’t suprise me. But I’m still disappointed in West, even if it was just a token.

            Like

    • sundance says:

      Hey kathyca. Two points:

      FIRST – regarding O’Mara/West. Here’s what appears – O’Mara was convinced the BIG Media legal analyst gig was right at the tip of his fingers. NeJame recommended MoM to GZ based on Nejame helping MoM find that big gig. But they are told they need “shingle” credibility…. Hence West was supposed to take over as partner in shingle ownership as MoM heads to the bright lights and big city….

      SECOND – The time has passed for me to tolerate the crowd willing to be deceived. There is a reason for culling. I hope you understand my deliberate nature / tone toward the unwilling. I appreciate in large measure your intellectual honesty.

      Like

      • kathyca says:

        To your first — very well could be. I had assumed that he was getting ready to retire, but your hypothesis makes much more sense.

        To your second — I’m all for legitimate debate, but I think the time for any legitimate debate over O’Mara has passed, if not long passed. The current interview is just hearing it laid out, in its entirety, from the horse’s own mouth. In my opinion, further equivocation about O’Mara is only damaging to the mission of this blog, so I wholeheartedly agree with your decision/position.

        Plus, it’s YOUR decision to make. I am most grateful for this forum, as you know. And I respect the ridiculous amount of hard work by you and mods to make it what it is 🙂

        Like

  31. bullnuke says:

    One aspect of this case has been bothering me lately. Because MoM did not defend his client to the extent he should have (not introducing all known evidence), the jury does not have all the facts they need to come to a truthful verdict. Where was the concern for the jury? If, by chance, they find George guilty, and then later learn of the evidence that was not provided to them, how will they be able to live with the fact they found a man guilty without having all the facts available to them?

    Like

  32. Observer says:

    If George gets a hung jury or a guilty verdict it will be O’Mara’s fault.

    He did not do all he could have done to present the best possible defense for George. He was not aggressive enough. He did not give 100%. He was too concerned about not going after Martin and too concerned about protecting the system.

    If there is a hung jury George should get another attorney for the next trial, assuming there is one.

    Like

    • michellc says:

      I made a comment the other day about Trayvon’s parents failing him in death as they did in life. How they could have used his death to possibly lead other young black boys down a different road.
      By exposing the system, MOM could have done the same while freeing his client and just possibly giving his client a life after trial when others eyes were opened that George was a victim of not only a teen thug but a teen thug that was created because of the system.

      I know why MOM didn’t expose the system, he’s part of the system.

      Like

  33. goddessoftheclassroom says:

    I think MOM wants a future in politics.

    Like

  34. Observer says:

    The state had no real case. Their entire prosecution was based on four things.

    1. George said a few bads words

    2. Calling the minor inconsistencies and discrepancies in George’s five or six accounts of what happened deliberate and significantly telling lies.

    3. Painting GZ as an out-of-control reckless wannabe cop who did irresponsible things he should not have done — like getting out of his truck.

    4. Presenting Martin as a innocent “child” who was doing nothing wrong when GZ hunted him down and shot him dead.

    #4 is what Guy harped on over and over again in the state’s final closing argument. It is an appeal to emotion. It is an appeal to a jury of mothers. And O’Mara did not present an aggressive defense against it. He presented almost no defense at all against it. His defense was an appeal to reason. As an experienced defense attorney he should know that might not be enough.

    #1-3 are all attacks on George’s past and his character, honesty, and reputation. O’Mara did not even try to touch on Martin’s past and his character, honesty, and reputation, other than to try to get cell phone data introduced into evidence. Even without the cell phone evidence he could have done a lot more.

    O’Mara presented a dry and purely fact based defense to counter a prosecution whose case was almost entirely an appeal to emotional and irrational judgement. Like an idealistic liberal believer in the system, he apparently thinks that all he needed to do was present the facts and that the truth would win out. And that is giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    That said, hopefully the jury sees through the prosecution’s cynical strategy.

    Like

    • Observer says:

      I forgot one other thing the prosecution tried to do. It tried to say that GZ’s injuries were minor and he did not need to shoot TM to defend himself.

      The jurors ought to ask for a piece of concrete to be brought into the deliberation room, so they can each take a shot at banging their head into it five or six times.

      Like

  35. khintx says:

    CNN reporting the jury is working through lunch.
    kh

    Like

  36. flaladybug says:

    I wanted to make a quick comment about the discussion of “Diversity” up thread. When I was in my early 20s, I was a liberal Democrat 😦 and thought “diversity” and “equality” were a great way of life to strive to accomplish. Now in my 40s, as a wife, mother, and hard working tax payer, I’m QUICKLY learning that “Diversity” is just another word for AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, and “Equality” is a word to try and make working class people feel better when their hard work is rewarded by having a large part of the fruits of THEIR LABOR given to someone who hasn’t done a damn thing to earn it!!

    Regarding MOM’s interview….I have NEVER seen him speak so intently about George’s INNOCENCE before…..too bad it’s TOO LITTLE….TOO LATE. 😦

    Like

  37. flaladybug says:

    One thing I have learned while living in Florida my entire life, is that once you are part of THE SYSTEM, you have 2 choices.

    1). Go along with the status quo….which is usually corrupt as hell!!

    2). Defy those in THE SYSTEM and be eaten by sharks!!

    I’m thinking MOM knows this ALL TOO WELL……he is part of that system of corruption by HIS OWN CHOICE. 😦

    Like

  38. JoNobody says:

    Is there anything to the possible catfishing of Trayvon by Rachel? She had just recently been in touch. Had they ever met in person? Did he know her as Rachel or only Dee Dee?

    Like

    • I do believe it since the friends brought it up and aren’t well known enough to want to dupe people. It makes sense. A shy fat girl with no real confidence has guilt. Gee, wonder why.

      Many reasons, sure, but this being one of them would make sense. Read his texts to her, he tried to impress her. He wouldn’t go that far for a 3 week friend who he hasn’t seen in years that he (with respect) would not be attracted to. 17 year old boys DO NOT DO THAT.

      Like

      • JoNobody says:

        It fits with the other behavior. It better explains why she didn’t go to the visitation or funeral. Or, wish to see the mother or call anyone to tell them what she knew.

        Like

  39. AnginKs says:

    Just a few thoughts while I wait. I was thinking Jenna Lauer (not exactly sure of Lauer spelling) was a realtor, if my memory serves me. She should change her business number to Lauer911( “for affordable safe homes”). We’ll find you a home faster that TM can run 50 yards. The not so kosher possibilities are endless. Anyway, I degress. Which reminded me that surely the jury saw when baldr tried to impeach one possibly more than one of his own witnesses by asking him about tweeting and or facebook. And how is that acceptable considering the dog could have gotten her account and tweeted for her. Or possibly her parrot he he.

    Like

  40. AnginKs says:

    My other thought is this is taking tooooo long. Its so obvious to me it shouldn’t be taking this long. Im not very optimistic at this point,

    Like

  41. gabytango says:

    SD is so right about this interview exposing the true O’Mara. I read it last night,_ slept on it and woke up with the same disturbing feeling. MOM has managed to get by, walking carefully along the tightrope. Like the “Jack of All Trades,” however, being all things to all people (especially in his self-seeing interests), he has not given his “all” to what should have been his number one priority: keeping GZ out of prison. This interview really exposes the true, self-serving, pandering, ambitious politician that MOM is at heart. I hope GZ survives it. 😦

    Like

  42. Mongo Mere Pawn says:

    The failure to even attempt to introduce the THC/tox screen through the ME may, in the long run, be what sends GZ to jail. You get the gift of the ME changing his mind to conclude that the level of THC in TM’s blood stream “could” have caused some degree of impairment and you don’t even attempt to put it in evidence to show, at least, that the tox screen is consistent with GZ’s observation of TM on the phone with SPD??? Without that evidence, the jury can infer that GZ was making that part of his description up, which then lends credence to the “pretext” narrative offered by the state. And that’s something objective a reasonable juror would expect to hear about if it were true — and would conclude is mistaken, or worse, false, if not presented.
    On top of that by never offering the tox screen and getting a ruling, GZ cannot make it a ground for appeal. Judge Nelson ruled it could come in, if offered. For its exclusion to be held reversible on appeal, she would have had to actually exclude it from the jury’s consideration. That did not happen. Complaining about ineffective assistance of counsel after the fact is almost always a loser on appeal.
    The fighting texts, the drug references are all character evidence to which the state never opened the door. They were never evidence of what happened that night. Evidence of TM’s blood chemistry at the time he died, coupled with the ME’s changed opinion or, perish the thought, your own damn pathologist’s opinion that the levels were consistent with recent marijuana use, would have been very material to a proper understanding of the confrontation. At the very least, you could have drawn into question the lack of any investigation of drug use at the time to see if GZ’s story was true.

    Like

  43. Cherpa1 says:

    O’Mara and West did a great job for Zimmerman and a tremendous defense. How can anyone complain?

    Like

  44. JAS says:

    I think MOM made a calculated gamble to be on the side of political correctness and the wager was a man’s life. Is that lawyer like? Was he comfortable with that? Maybe, but it is certainly not full advocacy to the truth, the oath nor the profession. The jury is now deadlocked, which means a man’s life might be destroyed because of his gamble. West on the other hand has known all along that the house had rigged the game and it showed many times during the trial.

    Like

  45. BF4 says:

    Sundance, how is MOM’s view of the GZ’s arrest materially different from what you have been saying?

    MOM: “It was a wonderfully created and crafted public relations campaign by the people who are assisting the Martin family. That’s Ben Crump and other people.”

    Like

  46. Pingback: BREITBART by TONY LEE & THE LAST REFUGE by SUNDANCE « How Did We Get Here

  47. rickmadigan says:

    Reblogged this on Railroading of an American Hero and commented:
    Jeff B put it best, when he said:
    July 13, 2013 at 2:26 am
    I would like to be the first to comment….
    I was extremely disappointed with how Omara handled this entire case with GZ’s life and liberties on the line. Omara chose to remain very PC despite the down and dirty smear campaign that was in full effect against GZ and his entire family. Not once did OMara mention in detail the deadly threats that have been directed to the entire Zimmerman family from Spike Lee attempting to tweet the Zimmerman address to the outright dirty lies that GZ was a total racist as well false and malicious accusations that GZ’s; father was involved in keeping GZ from being arrested. This trial was the time to dispel all the lies, corruption and manipulation that was initially created by the BGI, Crump, Sharpton and company. This trial was supposed to quell the civil unrest of all the lies that had been perpetuated against GZ and family. None of that happened. Omara failed to dispel anything that was grossly misrepresented in the media about GZ and family. Omara basically went to a down and dirty street fight with eloquent words of PC wisdom which fell on deaf ears. To me it was clear that Omara was thinking of his own career first and GZ’s life second. I am sickened by Omara’s closing arguments and I am left speechless… I just don’t know how to describe how disgusted and sick I am by the half-ass PC fight that Omara put up on behalf of GZ…..

    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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s