Jun 22 2012
Zimmerman Faces Anonymous Witness
The information out on the Trayvon Martin case today is truly damning, and surprising. One of the more intriguing audio clips is this 45 minute ‘last interview’ between SDP and Zimmerman. It should be noted this happened on February 29th, before the public outcries from certain political circles had really spun up. In this clip at time mark 14:07, SDP investigator Serino drops a bomb shell about an anonymous call he received that day. The caller – depicted as a witness – claims there was much more to the altercation, including a verbal give and take long before any punch landed. This could be Dee Dee, or it could be someone else. But it blows a hole in Zimmerman’s statements.
One thins is clear, Serino says the witness claims Zimmerman tried to detain Martin and was not jumped at all.
I will continue listening to audio to see if Zimmerman continues to try and gild his alibi, but that right there is serious.
Also interesting in the clip, is how Serino echos many of the concerns back then those of us not buying Zimmerman’s claims asked. For example, why not roll down the window and ask Trayvon what was going on from the safety of the truck? Zimmerman’s response is he is scared, but then he goes on foot looking for the kid? The whole vigilante thing comes out in this first installment of a 3 part interview. Even the question of how can you not know the names of the 3 streets in the neighborhood (especially the one you turn in from at the entrance which you have to give to anyone when giving directions to your own house) came up.
Then there is this damning analysis at FDL:
The third thing I noticed is that his description of the confrontation makes absolutely no sense because he claims that after Trayvon punched him in the nose knocking him down, Trayvon got on top of him and was using both hands to cover his mouth and nose to prevent Zimmerman from shouting for help. Yet, even with both of his hands free, Zimmerman claimed only to have attempted to wiggle and slide his body farther underneath Trayvon and away from the concrete sidewalk, thereby inadvertently exposing the gun he was carrying in his waistband hoster.
Yeah, with my hands free I would be gut punching and a few other things – but recall there are no injuries to Martin.
Zimmerman did not explain how Trayvon would have been able to see his gun from his position straddling Zimmerman’s body. Apparently, Trayvon was such a vicious and superhuman thug that he could see through Zimmerman’s clothes and legs.
I caught that one as well, using Zimmerman’s own reenactment to prove it could not happen:
Unfortunately for Zimmerman, however, the bullet must have changed course somehow in the 2 to 4 inch distance between the muzzle of his gun and Trayvon’s chest because it entered Trayvon’s chest 1 inch to the left of the midline and 1/4 inch below the left nipple. It traveled straight through from front to back without deviating up or down, left or right and exploded the right ventricle of the heart and right lower lobe of the lung, collapsing both of his lungs (See page 125).
Odd too that no high velocity blood spatter blowback from the shot impacted Zimmerman’s jacket front or sleeves, according to the crime lab.
I tell you what, that is really, really, really damning. That bullet path indicates a gun level, at arms length. Not one coming up from the waist pointed upward through arms grasing around Zimmerman’s head or neck.
Trayvon then either slumps forward or Zimmerman pushes him aside — he does not recall which — so that Trayvon ends up lying face down. Zimmerman climbs on top of him, straddling him. Then he grabs both of Trayvon’s hands and stretches them out, so that Trayvon is in a Y-position.
…
Unfortunately for Zimmerman, Trayvon was found with both of his hands under his body, not stretched out in a Y position.
Hard to keep so many details straight when you make things up on the fly.
Update: For all you timeline junkies this is the recording where police play the recorded dispatch call and you can hear how the timeline from Zimmerman makes no damn sense. Especially the supposed stop at the clubhouse. Amazing
Your posts demonstrate what pro guilt jurors will be doing in the jury room. There will be pro innocence jurors who will make counter arguments.
IMO, most of the points which you have made in these last two posts are refutable, and relatively easily.
Second, remember, in this case which will have jurors arguing and speculating in the jury room, that the burden of proof is on the state.
Third, if GZ is innocent (and I believe current evidence is not sufficient to prove his guilt), then this is a textbook case of why an innocent person ought shut up and lawyer up: it is virtually impossible for an innocent person to keep a story exactly straight, and to clearly remember details. It is especially impossible to do so when trained police officers are trying to trip you up and confuse you.
It is conceivable (I would bet this way) that GZ had turned around his earlier, raucous life tendencies … under the influences of marriage, maturity, and his mother’s Catholic faith. It is conceivable that GZ was a do-gooder, neighborhood watch guy.
It is conceivable that GZ is a guy who trusts God, who wanted to do the right thing, who trusted authorities, and who instinctively wanted to please others (authorities, and, when in court, Trayvon’s parents and GZ’s fellow citizens). This would explain GZ’s babbling on, in explanation after explanation, to police officers who were trying to trip him up and confuse his story.
It is conceivable that GZ had faith that truth would win out in the end. It is conceivable that GZ did not comprehend the way his story would be picked over, and skewed, and speculated about, and torn apart and (often unconsciously) misrepresented. GZ’s faith, that truth would win out, was his mistake.
Here is the moral: even when innocent: shut up and lawyer up.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am weary of debating specifics, and especially so b/c what I think the case will be decided upon: whether or not the state can prove that Trayvon was not threat to GZ, is not what A.J. and Mata think the case will be decided upon. So, I am weary of arguing specifics … when we do not agree upon what will be the deciding factor in the case.
But, if any of you want me to reply re one or two specifics which A.J. has raised, I will give the counterargument. Just point to the area of your interest. Otherwise, I am happy, for a while, to bow out of these commentary proceedings … unless and until, maybe weeks from now, I get a second wind.
goctharm,
Your post is an insult to our judicial system and those Americans who serve as impartial juries.
Is your need to be right so desperate??
Your posts on this are an insult to a blogger, yourself, whose reasoning I once held in high regard. You are emotional on this subject. And you are resorting to frequent insults. Looking, from the outside, at your reasoning, and at your nastiness to those who disagree with your reasoning, and at your psychological denial … is not pretty.
gcotharn, why not just pick one specific… the story which is proven to be a falsehood about TM running down and around the corner from Twin Trees, coming back to circle his SUV parked there, and then running away.
Let’s accept GZ’s story that:
1: He called the dispatcher while parked at the clubhouse (from reenactment video)
2: From 46″ to 1’25”, he is discussing Martin approaching him, “coming to check me out/hand in his waist band (dispatcher call)
3: That he then followed (not in front of) Martin to the Twin Trees (reenactment video) and
4: at 2’08”, 43 seconds from being at the clubhouse, says Martin is running, gets out of the car six seconds later and the rest we know from the dispatcher call
Please tell me why GZ insisted on saying that, while he was parked at that Twin Trees location, Martin ran around the corner, doubled back to circle his car, and took off again when it is impossible that it happened.
Here’s the thing, gcotharn. For GZ to be acquitted, using your reasoning as to how the case will be decided (whether TM was a threat or ot), the jury has to find GZ credible and believe he is being truthful. For it’s only GZ’s story that says Martin assaulted him at the tee, and not further south on the path.
So let me ask you a question as to how you think self defense works. What if:
1: GZ relentlessly followed Martin
2: That he actually moved south on the path, confronted and attempted to detain Martin physically and started the physical part of the fight
3: That despite the entire thing genuinely being Zimmerman’s doing, but was losing the fight, he shot Martin.
Would you then believe he is still just exercising self defense?
Mata,
We just go round and round the same point.
It does not matter if GZ followed Martin. It would not matter if GZ physically detained Martin and physically began the fight. The only thing which matters: can the state prove that there was no legitimate necessity for GZ to act in self defense?
Re your #3 assertion, i.e. that GZ was losing the fight and shot Martin:
if Trayvon reached for the gun … was Trayvon fighting, or was Trayvon attempting to commit murder?
The state bears the burden of proof. Can the state prove that Trayvon did not reach for the gun? GZ does not bear the burden of proof.
From the Orlando Sentinel, on March 16, quoting the lead detective, Chris Serino:
Mata,
So, since it seems obvious, to me, that the state cannot prove their case via showing evidence that Trayvon did not reach for the gun, therefore the state’s only remaining option is to impeach the witness, i.e. to show that GZ lied due to a consciousness of guilt. The jury would thereby decide that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that an innocent person would lie in such a way.
Therefore, the jury will take a look at what is a willful lie … vs. what is simple misremembering. No jury wants to convict, on Murder Two, due to the jury’s mistaken conflating of misremembering with willful lying.
This is especially true of potentially misremembered details which are not crucial to deciding the case. Why would GZ willfully lie about unimportant details? It seems more likely that mistakes about extraneous details would be the result of simple misremembering. It seems logical to save one’s willful lies for details which are crucial to the deciding of the case.
So, I think the jury will be looking for willful lies re crucial details. I do not see where those lies exist.
A.J. makes a stab at a willful lie vis a vis GZ’s placement of his holster, and GZ’s alleged grabbing of his gun while on his back. However, GZ said he ooched and squirmed in order to remove his head from the concrete. His squirming raised his jacket and revealed his gun to Trayvon. It seems logical that GZ’s squirming might have left his right hip somewhat rolled forward and into the air, thus allowing GZ access to his gun.
A.J. makes another stab at evidence which would prove a willful lie, i.e. the angle of entry of the wound. However, if Trayvon were turned and were reaching for GZ’s gun, then Travyon’s torso could have been turned in a way which allowed the entry wound.
Someone speculated about blood splatter. The round went through at least one shirt (and maybe a second shirt, I cannot remember), plus a sweatshirt. Trayvon’s shirt and sweatshirt would have prevented blood from splattering on GZ.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
re GZ sitting in his vehicle, 50ish yards from the clubhouse, and whether or not Trayvon ran by his vehicle a second time
I have to admit that I have not delved into the details of this. I suspect that GZ did not lie about this. I suspect Trayvon actually did run by GZ’s vehicle a second time. I suspect you, and others, are confused about the details.
Here are my reasons:
It doesn’t seem logical for GZ to have lied about this, b/c this seems an easily discoverable lie, and therefore it would be a clumsy lie. Further, such a lie would be of minimal help to GZ: how does this lie help him? If it helps him, it does not help him very much at all. This means the risk, of a such an easily discoverable lie, would not come close to justifying the miniscule reward of pulling off such a lie. Lastly: does this seem the type of lie someone would make up? i.e. that Trayvon circled around and ran past the vehicle a second time? That would be one of the quirkiest lies, ever. Who thinks like that, and who lies like that? Running past the vehicle a second time … is so quirky … that it has the ring of truth to it. True things are often quirky: they are not quite what you would have expected. Lies are about what you would have normally expected. The truth often has a bit of quirk to it. You wouldn’t make it up. Too quirky and weird.
If you can point me towards a Google search term, or a blog which has written about this, I will take a closer look at the details. I am dubious.
dubious, that is, that you and others have interpreted the details of this incident correctly. I suspect you are accidentally engaged in a garbage in garbage out exercise.
I wish a.j. and everyone else would stop speculating. Whether GZ is guilty or not, it is certain that he has become the target of a political witch hunt and many people want him dead before the criminal justice system has even been given a chance to work.
Gcotharm,
Your denial of the charges and law do not make a difference out here in the real work.
Zimmerman losing the fight only works as self defense if:
(1) He was not the aggressor chasing Martin (on dispatch call he admits he is out of his car chasing Martin), the fight starts way down the walk away from line to Zimmerman’s truck, etc
(2) Martin does not attempt flee many times (again GZ says he does on the dispatch call and Dee Dee confirms)
(3) Zimmerman is not acting out of anger (dispatch calls show he is)
(4) And if TM is committing a felony so GZ is allowed to attempt to detain.
This last one Investigator Serino notes on the audio tapes. It is quite clear TM is doing nothing wrong, so all of GZ’s actions beyond calling the non-emergency line are lower level crimes. The M2 charge is old because there is no doubt GZ killed an innocent, law abiding kid (GZ himself testified no crime was committed up to the altercation).
When it is proven Martin could not have ‘jumped’ GZ, (witnesses) then the case is over and won by the state.
That is the case, not the punch in the nose. And feel free to toss ut your legal credentials to show us any time…
It’s interesting to watch the desire to discuss “specifics” wither and shrivel in the searing heat now that Zimmerman’s written, audio, and video statements have been released.
Once those things are placed alongside the 911 audio, the inconsistency, the fabrication, and yea, the outright lies leap out into plain view.
The State’s case is now coming into focus and the uphill battle that O’Mara et al will have to win is going to be a daunting one.
The comment section on this site is not the only one that has gone conspicuously silent now that the new evidence release splashed down. (There are five sites in particular that were most virulent in their support of Z. Now, the roaring silence is deafening.)
Where we once observed strong, impassioned arguments we now hear only crickets.
It’s strange how so many people could be struck by sudden onset muteness all at once like that.
That’s an interesting statement. You first say you have not delved into the specific details, and then say that those of us who have, are confused?
It’s really quote simple, gcotharn. Just listening or watching three GZ statements… the 911, the video reenactment and the Serino call where he dissects the dispatcher call in an interview with GZ as to his whereabouts in that time… give you the “specifics” that we are noting. ALL of have linked here.
From the lips of GZ himself, he pulled over at the clubhouse to call the dispatcher line after passing Martin where he entered the complex. Martin caught up with him there, passed him by and then went down Twin Trees Lane. Again, all from the lips of GZ himself.
He did not say he was circled there.
GZ then said he followed TM in his car down Twin Trees to the final location. Serino specifically asked him if he was in front of Martin, or behind. GZ said behind. If Martin passed him by at the clubhouse, and he was behind him while driving to Twin Trees, when was Martin passing him by a second time?
I’ll again ask the question. When was this supposed to happen? I’ll repeat the dispatcher timeline for you.
46″ to 1’25”: GZ describing Martin approaching him (catching up) at at the clubhouse
43 seconds later at 2’08”: GZ says he is “running” and gets out of the car to follow six seconds later.
Here’s your task, should attempt to tackle it. Just when and how in that 43 seconds is TM supposed to run from the clubhouse and around the corner out of sight (GZ is, according to what he says, following him on Twin Trees) tee, then come back out to charge GZ in his SUV, then begin running back?
If we assume that TM passed GZ at the clubhouse, and took off at a flat out, non stop run to do all this in 43 seconds, the approx distance he’d have to cover is 476ft from the east side of the clubhouse around the corner. Add another 218 ft for Martin to flat out run (never stopping in between) back to GZ’s SUV and do one circle.
That distance is a total of 694ft. In a full out run that’s traveling at over 16 ft per second, with no stops or hesitation. Does it occur to you that if Martin was traveling anywhere at this pace, most especially if charging his vehicle, that GZ was likely to say this to the dispatcher?
So when did it happen, gcotharn? GZ clearly gave his actions a time stamp beginning at the clubhouse, used to compare to the dispatcher call time lapses. Tell us where we “confused” types who’ve listened to GZ’s three conflicting statements are going wrong?
Can’t wait to hear this miraculous time warp of spin. If nothing else, it has to be entertaining.
That “willful lie” of circling, done more than once, isn’t likely to be misconstrued as confusion. It is deliberate, with the goal to portray Martin as a threat to GZ when he wasn’t. GZ’s wants to justify that he had good reason to pursue Martin on foot – against all neighborhood watch guidelines and the dispatcher’s advice – despite the fact he wasn’t doing a darn thing wrong, not committing a crime, and wasn’t a threat to himself. He is, apparently, painfully aware that his actions are hard to explain, so he’s adding stuff in to attempt to justify both his suspicions and his aggressive actions.
The State will use these actions, and his lies, to show that GZ was unnecessarily aggressive and had ill will towards Martin (i.e. depraved mind). They will also use his “a’holes always getting away” or any other negative statements made. They might even use his admitted (CVSA interview) use of the drugs Librax, Adderall and Tamazapan (he also admitted he suffers from ADHD) to point out that these contribute to aggressive behavior. They might even point out that GZ has a regular psych he visits, and whom he noted (again in the lead up to the CVSA interview) was the hardest on him about the shooting when he visited the medical pros the following day. Something about “authoritative” behavior.
GZ needs the jury to believe that TM did pose a threat, and thus justifies his aggression. Considering that he needs the jury to believe him about the fight, if he’s proven a liar about things leading up to the fight, he’s not going to be winning hearts and minds.
A major flaw that indicates you still don’t know how prosecution works. No where in the charge for murder two does the court have to prove, or even address, any imaginary fight for the gun, which is not supported by DNA forensics. That event has nothing to do with the elements the State must prove.
That discussion will arise from the O’Mara defense as a secondary issue. But only after he’s attempted to place reasonable doubt into the jury’s minds about GZ’s actions being unnecessarily aggressive and the reason for the fight to begin with.
INRE the scenario I posed… where GZ was responsible for hunting and starting the altercation, and whether you believed he had the right of self defense…. I can say I am utterly amazed at your response:
Let’s remove the names, shall we? According to your world of selfl-defense justice in America, I can chase you down on the street when you aren’t doing anything wrong, and start a physical fight. I’m armed. You aren’t. When you attempt to defend yourself … perhaps getting the upper hand on me… I can pull my gun and shoot you. I’m going to walk away free for no wrong doing because, despite of all my actions, you were winning the fight that I started and I felt in fear for my life.
Wow… what a nation this would be if that were the way the law were written.
You keep bringing up this fight for a gun. I keep telling you there is not an iota of proof that ever happened, save for GZ telling the world it did. DNA forensics indicates TM was never anywhere near the gun.
We don’t even know if TM was ever aware of the gun except for GZ’s statements. If he had thought about that for a minute, he wouldn’t be so quick to volunteer TM knew. Because if there ever was a justification for head banging, it would be because you were facing an armed opponent.
So now that GZ says TM knew he was armed, he has to make sure we believe any such revelation happened after the head banging, and not before.
However that, again, requires that we believe GZ is a straight shooter and honest as the day is long.
Add another faxu pas to explain to the mix.
Injuries associated with the gunshot to the heart and lung were two collapsed lungs, gcotharn… autopsy report. Without knowing the length of time he may have lived following that gunshot, how much resistance could TM muster with two collapsed lungs and a shot thru the right ventricle of his heart? Or dramatic conversation, for that matter.
Yet GZ describes talking not only to TM while pinning him, but spending some time pleading with some mysterious witness to help him pin Martin…
But according to GZ, when the PD arrived – and they confirmed that TM was dead when they got there – he got up from pinning TM, holstered his gun, and that dead teen managed to fold his arms under his body after death. Whoa… it’s a bloody miracle!
If GZ has already proved himself to be a perpetual liar about far more than one aspect of the event with his own statements, why would a jury believe his say so?
AJ, speaking of FDL… I found this common and erroneous observation repeated, with caveats about Zim’s behavior, on a post by fairleft, who only wishes that the liberal left would distance themselves from the case.
I doubt that either you, me, or BGG would disagree with his observations on Zim’s irresponsible actions. But again we run back full circle to a couple of misconceptions:l
1: That the O’Mara/GZ defense can totally ignore the three elements of murder two, and rely only on self-defense as a strategy, and
2: That Zim’s choices that even may not be illegal, but that does not absolve him or the responsibility of those choices.
To #1, been there done that, too many times to count.
To #2, as I’ve said before, it’s not illegal to eat a Big Mac while driving. However if you get into a vehicle accident, and there is a resulting death, the fact that you were legally eating a Big Mac, which contributed to the death, will not get you off.
Irresponsibility, just because it is no legal tort prohibiting it, is not a viable defense in the real world.
Mata,
Of course I agree. What worries me is the ignorance shown by GZ and his followers. That kind if ignorance gets you the results we have here: a dead kid and a life in prison.
GZ is screwed because he tried to cover up his ‘stalking’ of TM. No clue why he thought it would work, but he was so obsessed with not being down the path off the T that he basically lied about what is the crime scene.
Pictures coming in the next post, but TM’s body is some 50-60 feet down the path to his home. There is debris strewn from the T back to the body (meaning TM was trying to escape and GZ was now hunting more than following), and there is a witness who saw to men running towards TMs home along the path before the yelling and gun shot.
GZ will be caught in about 20 lies, and the jury will determine his entire story is false (including the self defense claim).
The bullet trajectory doesn’t add up. The time line does not add up. The claim of suffocation does not add 3-4 different ways, the fight description does not add up….
It will be brutal and beyond a doubt GZ lied in his statements to cover up is state of mind and the fact he did not allow TM 3 or more opportunities to retreat.
The jury will not be out long on this one. And I pray those dim enough to think you can roam any neighborhood and detain people at will, and kill them when they either push back or retreat, learn the lesson here.
“And feel free to toss ut your legal credentials to show us any time…”
we’re still waiting for yours. imminent, I suppose…
and Layman, I see you now understand what I said about BGG, he is juvenile.
All these comments about ‘new evidence’ and with no links. Just endless rehashing and restating what someone ‘thinks’ happened. I’ve seen no proof of any crime. I’ve seen many statements about ‘proof’ just haven’t actually seen any proof.
I haven’t commented in a few days because there is nothing new. Restating opinions is not evidence. or as some would say. Wait, you believe in “A” then you must be wrong that can’t be what really happened, what really happened is
“A” and I’m surprised you didn’t see that. Get’s tiresome.
“There is debris strewn from the T back to the body (meaning TM was trying to escape”
which means TM had traveled back from Dads’ apt all the way to the T where TM jumped GZ and the fight began with debris being strewn all the way (10-20)feet down the path. Quite contrary to all the ‘stories’ about GZ seeing TM down the path from the T and going there to approach him. Lends a whole new meaning to the term ‘trying to escape’..
gcotharn, from what you write, I’d say you pretty well have it figured out. Ditto, Layman.
mata: “However if you get into a vehicle accident, and there is a resulting death, the fact that you were legally eating a Big Mac, which contributed to the death, will not get you off.”
Leaving a bit off here, eh? Nor will it get you convicted.
I suspect the charge would be more like negilent driving or reckless driving, etc. I’m relatively sure the charge would not be ‘legally eating a Big Mac’.
have fun….
Mercy… we’re back to legal 101 and preschool again, eh?
Yes, Redteam… if you are charged with <a href=" “>vehicular manslaughter, also called vehicular homicide, you most certainly can be convicted if found guilty of negligence or irresponsible behavior that results in death…. which includes inattentive driving because you were focusing on your Big Mac.
All but three states have these statutes. Penalties vary state to state, of course and there is no lack of those who have been charged and are paying the penalty for for brief moments of irresponsibility.
And while you’re at it, you’ll find that you have access to every link that we’ve provided here (and they have been provided..) and more at the GZ Legal site… a hotlink I provided two days ago when it was hot off the press.
Your lack of curiosity as to what’s happening is not to be confused as no new evidence.
mata: I said A, you said no, it’s not A. It’s A. What’s the point?
“if you are charged with vehicular manslaughter, also called vehicular homicide,”
“if found guilty of negligence or irresponsible behavior”
So, let me get this straight. Is the charge vehicular manslaughter or is the charge ‘legally eating a Big Mac? Isn’t that exactly what I said. Maybe you really do need some Legal 101. You would not be convicted for legally eating a Big Mac. If you committed an irresponsible act, that’s what you would be guilty of.
Now you can repeat that one more time, as is your custom, or deal with something useful.
Priceless:
“Your lack of curiosity as to what’s happening is not to be confused as no new evidence.”
Just for the fun of it, just quote one ‘new fact’ that we didn’t all know a month ago. Just one. And I’m talking ‘fact’ not your speculation. I’m absolutely positive I’m at least as well read as you are on this subject, so I don’t need any ‘legal briefings’. so just bother to quote one ‘fact’ if you care to.
mata: just for the record, ‘there was absolutely NOTHING new in that interview, I’ve heard the details long ago and read a transcript or whatever long ago. don’t bother asking for a link, I don’t bookmark everything I read and this is all ‘old’ news. So, I know it is redundant, but YOU ARE LATE TO THE DANCE’ this has all been rehashed over and over a month or so ago. Just because you just found out about it doesn’t make it NEW.
“Mercy… we’re back to legal 101 and preschool again, eh?”
yep, seems to be necessary with you.