May 29 2012
Zimmerman’s Snap Alibi Comes Back To Bite Him
More news is out on the Trayvon Martin case, and it will be a test for all those ‘open minds’ who have decided Zimmerman is innocent in his killing of an unarmed 17 year old boy who was simply out walking and talking to his girlfriend. The news confirms my suspicions that Zimmerman was the aggressor (not someone defending himself) and is guilty of at least manslaughter (if not 2nd degree murder).
Zimmerman’s past includes well documented incidents of his hot temper and his desire to be Enforcer of The Law (which sets him apart from those who look to law enforcement as a profession – versus the ego trip). Zimmerman has all the signs of wanting to be better than others and prove his superiority. His gun is not protection, but a crutch to his ego. I have seen his type too many times not to notice all the parallels. Age and experience do count at times.
Zimmerman is also an easy liar – as he did in court when he apologized to the Martin family and claimed he thought Trayvon was much older (hinting he thought Trayvon was in his mid 20’s). Of course Zimmerman forgot he told the 911 dispatcher he had made Martin to be in his late teens when he went stalking the kid – supposedly because he looked ‘suspicious’. That ability to spew a falsehood to save his skin is an indicator, something not to be dismissed or overlooked. If that is part of his core nature, a lot of good people have probably put their faith in someone who does not deserve it.
After the incident it was clear no one immediately knew of witnesses nearby and the ear-witness on the phone with Martin (listening up to seconds before his death). George Zimmerman was especially ignorant of these people who could easily challenge a quickly concocted alibi.
As I noted before, Zimmerman’s statements are inconsistent. He claims to get out of his truck to find street names or house numbers, but then finds himself behind buildings where there are neither. He acknowledges being told to stay away from Martin until police arrive, but then somehow gets to a point behind buildings where he is ‘jumped’. Except the ear-witness on the phone hears Zimmerman talking to Martin. Clearly he was not ‘jumped’ once a dialogue is engaged.
All this led me to predict the case would be built around the ear-witness and holes in Zimmerman’s statements to police which will prove him to be untruthful (at best). Now the prosecution has confirmed my prediction:
“Defendant (Zimmerman) has provided law enforcement with numerous statements, some of which are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses,” the prosecutors said in their court filing.
They said the statements by Zimmerman were admissible in court and “in conjunction with other statements and evidence help to establish defendant’s guilt in this case.”
Emphasis mine. Note how both testimony of witnesses AND physical evidence combine to prove Zimmerman lied in his statements to police about what happened. And why would Zimmerman lie? Because he knew he went beyond the bounds of lawful activity in stalking, confronting and killing Martin. He believed with all his twisted mind he had found a burglar in his community, and he was going to make sure this one did not ‘get away’. He was wrong. Plain and simple. No racial issues, no gun rights issues. Just one person who was probably the wrong person to be armed and playing sheriff.
The evidence must be pretty damn good, or else the prosecutors would not want to keep out of the public square. The defense will not have a chance to try this part of the case in the news media. And in fact, the defense is already starting to cede ground:
In a separate court filing on Thursday, Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara joined in the motion to keep his client’s statements out of the public eye for the time being.
“There is the possibility that these statements may be subject to motions to suppress, if there is a potentially involuntary statement elicited from Mr. Zimmerman,” O’Mara said.
Clearly the defense has realized some of Zimmerman’s own words are going to convict him, so now they have to try and keep those words out of court. Not likely to happen, but not surprising when your case is in this kind of hole.
So all those open minds who have acquitted Zimmerman based on partial information are challenged to prove they can learn as more information becomes available. Here is a challenge to show how justice must work, even when our first impressions are wrong. Actually, the hardest part is making the change when our first impressions are wrong. But that is the sign of wisdom and fairness.
mata, thanks for your good response and a truce is certainly welcome. I too am a strong RKBA person and have the same concerns you do. I’ll let AJ speak for himself on his feelings about Zimmerman, but I don’t think it’s very much as you stated. Probably considerably different. My feeling is that it would never have gotten to the state it has except for racial reasons and the fire stokers that wanted to make it blaze into what it has. I don’t see it as much different than many of the other thousands of deaths in similar circumstances. It is important that the rights we have in the constitution be maintained. and I second that they likely would not get an invitation from me either. I don’t care about the case at all unless it results in us losing some rights that we don’t want to lose.
While I like the concept of SYG, it was not an everyday acronym to me until this case came along. I do believe it is as it should be and we don’t need to lose the right to defend our own personal safety all the way to the point of having to kill someone, if that’s what it takes, but only if that is what is required.
An injustice has been done to someone: either Trayvon or GZ. Justice needs to be done.
I am all for supporting RKBA, but not if it means sacrificing an innocent “white hispanic”.
I am with Redteam: I strongly suspect this thing is a witch hunt by a professional race hustle industry which knows how to bulls-eye all of the pre-existing biases of the professional left/media. Bulls-eyeing those biases is how you get media photos of a 12 year old Trayvon, and it is how you get insta hoodie marches in major cities.
This has the scent of other famous frame ups: Tawana Brawley, Richard Jewell, Duke Lacrosse, and Jena, LA.
RT, since I promised you answers to your questions, and the original response I penned June 8th at 10:57pm is still in moderation, I’ll report the answers… one question at a time.
I suspect that length may have something to do with moderation, and apparently AJ’s busy. So let me try the answers one question at a time.
He and Martin fought. Never a question on that. I pointed out the three base things the prosection must prove to a jury <a href="http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/18276/comment-page-3#comment-523195".in my first comment here on April 13th. None of it has to do with who threw the first punch, who was winning the fight, or Martin’s character. GZ’s guilt or innocence will be determined by a jury’s perspective of the State’s evidence that that his decisions and choices showed an utter disregard for human life, and whether his choice to use a gun was an unreasonable and imperfect defense… or an overkill response to the situation.
Answer #2, Rt
Totally irrelevant to the crime. Nor is Martin under any obligation to walk in a Florida night at the speed you think he should. But being as I lived in Florida for 18 years, and still visit family annually, I can tell you that rain there comes in spurts, fits and with a fury. I’ve spent quite a bit of time waiting for squall lines, winds and storms to pass thru before carrying on with my journey. I believe that Dee also mentioned that he waited out the rain as well.
So in that neck of the woods, it’s not unusual that you head out for a 15 minute errand when it’s dry, and find yourself stuck with waiting out Florida’s huge.. and I do mean huge… raindrops. I live in Oregon where rain is also common. But it’s nothing like Florida’s rain and dramatic weather. It’s not called the lightning capital of the Americas for nothing.
RT question #3
You need to way slow down in your reading of the 183 pg evidence docs, RT. So why were the headphones in the pocket? The more important question is who put them there?
Pull up your PDF of the evidence dump, and follow the bouncing ball along as to the multiple references to the headphones in the reports with the PDF pg numbers noted below, and their quotes.
According to two officers arriving on the scene, they were in “near proximity” and “next to him” that night.
p16
While Martin was in the process of being transported to the ME’s office, I noticed the items that were collected for evidence was a bag of skittles, an Arizona ice tea can and headphones. I also observed Sgt. Ceisla recover an empty bullet casing in the grass after Martin was recovered from the scene.
P17
The victim is described as a younger B/M, in his teens. I observed a single gunshot wound to his chest. I observed a package of Skittles in the front pocket of the victim’s sweatshirt. I observed a can of Arizona iced tea and a pair of earphones in close proximity to the victim’s body. Scattered nearby, I observed a flashlight, cell phone and car keys with a small flashlight.
p20
The Volusia County Medical Examiner’s Office arrived on scene and began to examine and move the victim. The victim had $ 40.151n US currency, a bag of skittles candy, a red 7·11 red lighter in his pockets, headphones next to him. and a photo pin on his sweatshirt.
Evidence List:
p22
One (1) red “711/1 brand name lighter, photo button, bag of skittles, and headphones. and collected from with in the victim’s pockets.
p 31, 45, 51, 58, 66, 75, 82 (restated what is on page 22)
p80 (restated what is on page 20)
The evidence list is made out later, while the notes of what was observed are on the spot. I’d say the on the scene officer observations are correct, and the compilation for the evidence list later is incorrect.
Now if you think the headphones location implies that the cell call with Dee was done with before the scuffle, you’ll have serious conflict with the call log records. While we couldn’t see the seconds on the limited call records of Dee’s phone (prosecutors, no doubt, have the detailed versions with durations to the second), the call supposedly lasted four minutes, and the TM incoming call log states her call came in at 7:12pm. That makes it 7:16 when it ended, give or take seconds.
The officers arrived on the scene at 7:17pm. Per that timing, the entire scuffle, post the words exchanged, lasted a minute or less, and jives perfectly with the girl’s account that the call ended when the scuffle began.
Prior to that scuffle, multiple witnesses, including the girl, heard voices/arguments etc. Therefore any GZ version of his story that says he was jumped for behind will be in conflict, just as AJ notes.
Grrrr… the “headphones” answer hit the moderation filter… again, probably too long with the citations from the evidence document dump.
Here’s’ the condensed version, RT. Pull up your PDF of the May evidence dump. Headphones is mentioned on 12 pages in the PDF document. The first three, on pgs 16, 17 and 20 are by those who had arrived at the scene. Pg 16 notes only that items were collected for evidence. Both Pg 17 and 20 are by an officer and the medical examiners office, who note that the headphones are located “in close proximity” and “near by” the body.
It is only on pg 22, the evidence list, made out later where it implies the headphones were in the pocket. That same meme is duplicated on the rest of the evidence references on pgs 31, 45, 51, 58, 66, 75, 80, and 82.
The timing of Dee’s ending of the call jives with all timelines of call logs, so I’m not sure if you’re thinking Dee’s is lying and that the call was over when the fight started.
RG’s 4th question:
Toxicology reports don’t support Martin being intoxicated on anything that night. And we’ve already been thru the gambit on trying Martin’s character to support Zimmerman’s evidence.
Any penchant to “impugn” Martin’s character, which you firmly believe you do not do, really has nothing to do with how 2nd degree murder charges are proven.
But for those that want to play the character judgement game, it’s easily countered with Zimmerman’s own 2005 MySpace page, which doesn’t exactly portray him as one likeable guy. He brags about his friends doing jail time and not ratting on him and calls his ex wife a “‘ho”. Like I said, I personally wouldn’t be spending time with either GZ or TM, so I have no “character” horse in this race.
O’Mara has confirmed that is GZ’s page, and this is another part of the evidence that he likely wants not admissible in court, when he talks about GZ’s “private life”.
RT’s 5th question:
We’ve been thru this already. But in addition to the likely route that Martin/Greene would take to get to their unit, any vehicles with “emergency lights” flashing would probably be parked on Twin Trees Lane, where GZ’s SUV was parked. None of those lights would be seen from the entry of Green’s Unit since, as BGG noted, you wouldn’t see them over the buildings.
You can’t bring vehicles to the site of death without driving on sidewalks and grass… doubtful. So it would only be the sounds and lights (or flashbulbs? seriously????) of the few people walking the crime scene grid… none of which would be overtly visible and annoying from over a football length away from their back door.
Apologize for having to do this piece meal. But I think length of a comment requires moderation. Is that true, AJ?
mata, thanks for those responses. I’m very familiar with Fl. I grew up on the Ga-Fla border at the coast and my wife is from north Fla and we own a place near Palatka, so I’m very familiar with it. My only reason for mentioning the 40 minutes is that published info indicates he was most likely taking the long route to finish smoking his pot before he got back. Tho I don’t know why he would care about that since no one was at the apartment that would care one way or the other. I certainly agree that it is irrelevant to why he died.
Earphones, I did not read every evidence report. as regards the headphones, only the one that said they were in his pocket. I actually don’t care where they were, but it is interesting that there is clearly a discrepancy in the write up on the evidence collection, (based on what you said) which makes curious people wonder if there may be other discrepancies. You didn’t actually answer the question as to why he had the fruit juice cocktail and skittles. Do you have an opinion on why? (my opinion on that is that he planned to add codeine(robitussin) to it and sit at home and sip and watch tv while getting hi, or whatever. something he apparently did on a regular basis) I didn’t research the exact levels of the chemicals(from marijuana usage) that were found in his body enough to know if a person would be considered ‘intoxicated’ with those levels, but I did find that the levels indicated long term habitual usage. I’ve never used marijuana, so am not very tolerant to those that have no better self control than to resort to habitual dope usage. (but I do drink wine and beer) regarding the lacerations. you also didn’t answer my question about that. your answer indicates that you think he got them while ‘fighting’. My opinion is that he got them while TM was bashing his head onto a concrete sidewalk, while sitting on top of him. I think that if he got them in that manner( and I’m not saying that it has been proven that he did) then he was fully entitled to place a lead slug into TM as a way to prevent his own demise.
These responses are only my opinions based on what I’ve read and heard. The truth will likely only be known if and when a trial takes place.
I’ve never observed that length causes moderation. the word so-cial-ist without the hyphens, will do it almost every time, but i didn’t see that word in your comment.
One simple question I ask: Why has the media mislead us on this case based upon the FACTS we know so far?
Because it doesn’t matter whether he enjoyed getting high on pot or purple drank or not. It also wouldn’t matter if he was high when the death happened (and he was not). Again, this is just another version of examining Martin’s character in order to shed a false positive light on GZ’s actions that evening. They are unrelated.
In Castle Doctrine defense cases all over the nation (Lowe being only one I’ve mentioned, and AJ mentioned Dooley), whether the dead victim was a bad guy (in anyone’s personal opinion, altho it’s clear that Manning was no good guy…) doesn’t matter. In fact, in Lowe’s case, Manning was even in the middle of committing a crime… and it still didn’t matter. Because Manning wasn’t the one on trial. Lowe was for killing Manning. And because he did that, and under the circumstances, he still was given the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter.
GZ doesn’t enjoy the same benefits of the case that Lowe did. Lowe had witnesses that said he was chased by a multi-felon, carrying a metal pipe, and beat in a robbery attempt. GZ wasn’t being chased by TM, he was following, attempting to locate TM… and for no small amount of time. And we also know that TM was aware of GZ’s focus on him, even tho he wasn’t doing anything wrong.
So this is how the case will be going. The State is going to attempt to prove that GZ committed 2nd degree murder because:
1: Martin is dead (check)
2: That GZ committed a criminal act. That means, using the FL definition of that as it relates to 2nd degree murder, that he performed a series of events/actions that created the conditions that led to the death. Or, simply put, that GZ continued to pursue, follow, track down.. .whatever… TM and those choices created the dangerous condition and ultimate result.
3: That GZ demonstrated a “depraved mind”. A gain using the related legal definition, he demonstrated an utter disregard for human life by not recognizing the danger he posed by following… while he was armed… and that he’d likely have a confrontation.
Since those three points – the quintessential elements of a 2nd degree murder charge – is what the State is going to attempt to prove to a jury, there is no logical GZ defense in answering those charges by constantly saying to the jury and judge, “but he was pounding my head on the sidewalk, sir”. It’s not relevant to since, if the State can prove the above beyond all doubt to a jury, GZ was losing a fight that wouldn’t have happened at all but for his decisions.
O’Mara and GZ don’t have to prove that GZ’s head was being pounded. It doesn’t matter his head was being pounded because of the specific charges. What the defense has to focus on is casting enough doubt on the State’s evidence that GZ’s actions weren’t responsible for his head being pounded. See what I mean?
Mata says:
“It doesn’t matter his head was being pounded because of the specific charges.”
It very much does matter, IF A is an active lethal threat to B.
The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ did not perceive Trayvon as a lethal threat.
gcotharn, you are a tenacious one.
The State doesn’t have to prove squat about Martin. What they have to prove to the jury, beyond all reasonable doubt, is that Zimmerman’s actions were reckless,was the cause for altercation to happen at all.
O’Mara’s defense may counter that the death, despite any reckless intent, was justified for the reasons you say. But if the jury is convinced that Zimmerman was the reason they tangled, that ain’t likely to fly. But it may be enough to get a recommendation for a lower voluntary manslaughter conviction instead.
You have shifted the goalposts from Murder 2 to Manslaughter.
This is my lay person’s understanding:
First, the state must charge. The jury cannot suddenly declare a Manslaughter conviction (b/c the defendant would have defended himself differently against a charge of Manslaughter).
Second, for Murder, the state must prove that GZ did not consider Trayvon a lethal threat.
Third, if Manslaughter is eventually charged, the state must then prove that Trayvon was not a lethal threat.
If you understand differently, please inform. I am not a legal expert.
You may be correct, gcotharn. The jury is generally allowed to recommend alternative sentencing within reason, but perhaps not a lowered charge if it wasn’t in the original menu selection. i.e. Jonathan Lowe had four charges, first-degree and third-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter and possession of an instrument of crime. He was found guilty of two… the voluntary manslaughter and possession of an instrument of crime.
In which case, the Zimmerman devotees will be happy that the evidence must be sufficient to fit that one charge, or he walks ifthey fail.
One has to wonder if that is the prosecution’s plan by not having any alternatives in the charges. Go for the gold and not provide for any silver or bronze.
Nope… very sure on this one. It’s all over multiple FL criminal defense attorney sites. Take, for example, the Arnold Law Firm with offices both in Jacksonville, FL and Brunswick, GA.
You can continue reading what I’ve already posted about the definitions of these, and that’s been compiled from many legal criminal defense attorney sites and other legal sites.
Under no circumstances is the dead victim required to be proved a lethal threat because the defendant is being charged for his actions, not the victim’s.
As I said, O’mara’s defense will have to instill doubt about GZ’s actions being reckless in their intent. And O’Mara may may also attempt to prove that Martin was a threat in order to justify GZ’s actions. But it won’t fly if the jury is convinced beyond all doubt that Zimmerman’s actions were the very reason the fight began.
Mata,
In order for the state to prove that the killing of Trayvon was
“an unlawful killing … demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life”.
If GZ considered Trayvon an active lethal threat, then GZ was not acting with a depraved mind, but rather in self defense with a reasonable mind. Ergo, the state must prove that GZ did not consider Trayvon to be an active lethal threat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“But it won’t fly if the jury is convinced beyond all doubt that Zimmerman’s actions were the very reason the fight began”
Your arguments are consistently premised upon the circumstance of a normal fight.
GZ will argue that what began as a normal fight … morphed into a helpless victim being assaulted with a deadly weapon. If that morphing occurred, then everything about the normal fight becomes irrelevant. For instance: the reasons, for the normal fight to have begun, are irrelevant.
You have to conceive it like this:
Normal fight begins.
Normal fight ends.
Assault of a helpless victim with a deadly weapon begins.
Look at the above again. The normal fight began and ended. It is over. The circumstances of the normal fight no longer matter.
Think of a bar fight. One combatant falls and is barely conscious and cannot arise. The normal fight is now over. However, the other combatant then uses his boot to stomp the helpless man. So, we see that a normal fight ended, then an assault of a helpless victim began. A separate, and serious, crime is occurring. Whatever provoked the normal fight … is no longer relevant to the current circumstance. If the stompee is able to regain enough consciousness to pull a gun and shoot, then he has used his gun in justifiable self defense, and ought not be convicted of murder.
When Trayvon mounted GZ, GZ became helpless, i.e. unable to use his hands to adequately protect his brain against assault with a deadly weapon, i.e. GZ became analogous to the barely conscious man of the bar fight. The normal fight was now over. A new circumstance was about to come into play. Trayvon then used the concrete as the bar fighter used his boot: i.e. as a deadly weapon with which to commit assault.
The normal fight had ended. The question, of which party had provoked the normal fight, no longer mattered.
gcotharn, I tend to agree with you that when GZ got on the ground with his gun still concealed and TM was on top of him pounding his head onto the sidewalk, that is the point that SYG begins to apply, not prior to that, not when GZ was following TM. (I’m just assuming that is the scenario, it certainly may not be true at all) and that is the point when it became alright for GZ to do whatever he had to to prevent his own death.
But now I read that the case will almost certainly be determined by a judge and not be a jury, see this link:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/06/11/george-zimmerman-and-stand-your-ground/#more-41655
It says: “When a defense lawyer files a motion for “stand your ground” immunity, a hearing is held that resembles a trial: Witnesses are called and cross-examined, evidence is introduced and lawyers make arguments”
I have never believed that, from what I’ve read, that there exists the evidence to convict GZ of a crime and therefore the case would never go to trial. Now I’m thinking that it may well indeed just be dismissed by the judge because of the lack of evidence.
This may all happen when this june 29th (I think) hearing takes place.
gcotharn, a fleeing TM, who was not committing an illegal act, is going to be hard to portray as a “lethal threat”.
If you are going to ignore all I’ve tried to explain about the three elements that must be proven in a 2nd degree murder dare, and just keep starting your debate clock from the fight only, we really have nothing more to discuss. This conversation with you is like trying to review the events of 2011, but you will only talk about anything that happened after July 4th.
Redteam, SYG will not apply in this case, but immunity hearings can be either a SYG or Castle Doctrine attempt. The latter would be Zimmerman’s only choice.
I haven’t heard that O’Mara has filed a motion for an immunity hearing. I’d be mighty surprised if he did, but little surprises me anymore… LOL In an immunity hearing, the burden of proof lies on the defendant and the defense team to prove the self defense claim before the judge. (and it many not even be the same judge as the trial judge)
There’s a couple of problems with this as it’s not a good success ratio in the courts. The Tampa Bay Times has been compiling a searchable database. When I archived it in the beginning of April, there were only 140 there. They’ve been searching more and are up to 200 now. As of the database now, in 200 cases, , only 35 were granted immunity. All the rest were denied and the cases went, or are proceeding to trial. If you check out the links, you can get to the fatal cases, and then click on the photos to read the basics of each case.
From what I’ve read, most judges prefer to let it go to jury unless it’s really clean. And most defense attorneys are somewhat mixed on the immunity hearings. First, it does shift the burden of proof to the defendant, which is totally backwards from our usual procedure. Secondly, with this “mini trial”, including evidence, testimony, etc (both sides) in front of a judge, the defense has to show their defense strategy. If they lose the immunity hearing, the prosecution already knows what the defense has. On the flip side, the State doesn’t have to show all their aces.
Lastly, much of the judge’s consideration, after looking at the evidence in the immunity hearing, rests on the defendant’s credibility. I can’t believe that O’Mara, who fully admits his client’s credibility has been damaged in just the past week, is going to rush to a June 29th immunity hearing that will depend so much on credibility. Perhaps further in the future would be my guess. While I don’t know for sure, I’d bet it’s a bond hearing. Or it may be further hearings on keeping evidence under seal. But I could be wrong. Time will tell….
Correct, as of now it’s only scheduled to be a bond hearing, but the theory is that O’mara requested it that far in the future so he would be prepared to ask for the immunity hearing at the same time.
but, Mata, isn’t the very basis for SYG that if you are not a life or death threat to someone and they then attempt to kill you, that you have the right to prevent it? That’s what the evidence I’ve seen seems to indicate happened.
Do you have a theory on why TM did not go on into the apartment when he got there and instead went back to the point where the confrontation occurred? If you believe what DD said that her conversation with TM revealed, that he got all the way back to the apartment but did not choose to go in, but instead returned to the spot 70-110 yds away? It’s true that he had no compelling reason to go inside except that supposedly he was afraid of GZ and wanted to get away, but instead went back to a point where he knew he would likely encounter GZ.? I have a theory, but suspect it may be different from yours (if you have one).