All About You

Plurality: the Concept of Quantity

Lately, I’ve been listening to the beats of distant drums. The boom-ba-boom-ba-boom I’m hearing questions whether the state has a case against Shellie Zimmerman. Was the felony perjury charge against her too far reaching that it really holds little to no merit? Or was the state correct in issuing the arrest warrant?

Some of what I’ve been reading comes down to a relatively simple, yet complex, statement similar to the one that former President Clinton once uttered. “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” I think we’re familiar with that one — not that this has anything to do directly with what I’m writing about, but keep in mind that the 42nd president was also an attorney and we are talking about law. Besides, Clinton’s statement segues easily and smoothly into linguistics, which is the study of language. This post will come down to the meaning of you. Not you personally, mind you, but the meaning of the word itself. You.

In college, I was fascinated with the English language. One of my first English course books was Language in Thought and Action by the late S.I. (Samuel Ichiye) Hayakawa, once a premier linguist, psychologist, semanticist, teacher and writer. Back then, he taught me a lot about word usage. There’s a good and bad way to say things, and depending on how you use words, the outcome could be disastrous. An example of this would be in how you might order something in a restaurant. Would you ask for a chopped up dead cow sandwich when all you really want is a hamburger?

Another one of my favorite writers was (also the late) William Safire; well versed in lexicology, syntax, pragmatics and etymology, he was once the premier etymologist in the country, and for many, many years, I tried my best to read his column, On Language, every week in the Sunday New York Times Magazine. Between those two men and my (very much alive at 93) uncle, David A. Kyle, they are who inspired me to write. Not that I learned anything. Anyway, back to the matter at hand…

I’m going to ask you a simple question and I want no answer. I just want you to remember it for now and wait until I tidy it up at the end. By then, you should understand. Suppose you are at the mall without your significant other. You run into a friend with or without their spouse. You chat briefly and then are asked, “Would you like to join us for a double-date Friday night?” Keep that in mind.

§

We know what perjury is and we know Shellie Zimmerman was charged with it soon after an official courtroom proceeding. We also know why she was charged.

“… whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree…” (F.S. 837.02 - Perjury in official proceedings)

Do we agree that, in a legal sense, the charge will stand? Can we really make any call like that until after the dust settles, when a verdict is read? One of the most important things we need to keep in mind is that, in a courtroom, the battle between opposing sides comes down to the interpretations of laws and many of the statements made by people directly involved in the case and, most importantly, the defendant. That includes words and actions.

During Ms. Zimmerman’s telephonic testimony regarding finances at her husband’s bond hearing on April 20th, she was first questioned by his defense attorney, Mark O’Mara. Here is part of the exchange between them:

Q. Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?
A. None that I know of.
Q. I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband George declared indigent for cost, have I not?
A. Yes, you have.
Q. And is — are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?
A. Uhm, not — not that I’m aware of.
Q: I understand that you do have other family members present with you, and I’ll ask some more questions of them, but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pull together some funds to accomplish a bond?
A: We have discussed that —
Q: Okay.
A:— trying to pull together the members of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.

Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda had an opportunity to cross examine her:

Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
A. To my knowledge, that is correct.
Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
A: I’m aware of that website.
Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —-
A: Currently, I do not know. 
Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
A: I do not.

I don’t know if you are getting my drift or not by now, but let me say that there could be a possible problem over that final exchange and the word you. You see, there’s a method to my madness and it comes down to how that simple word is conceptualized. In the English language, there is no plural for this particular second-person pronoun. Singular is the same as plural, so it is open to interpretation. It could go either way.

In the O’Mara exchange, “other major assets that you have…,” if you is taken as plural, it would include her husband, and it would change the entire meaning. De la Rionda was a bit clearer when he worded it, “‘you all’ had no money,” but the final exchange between them is the real quandary. “Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?” Is that singular or plural? You see, the secret jail house code conversations will show that she was aware of money, and lots of it, but did she have an estimate of the amount at the precise time she was questioned by the prosecutor? That could be a sticking point. She, by herself, denied knowing, but if de la Rionda’s usage was intended to be plural, then, legally, they both had an estimate; just like asking you out on a double-date. Singly, you as a word wouldn’t work for the state. As a couple, it would.

Personally, I think the state has the goods on her — enough to convict, but you never know these days, as we all understand from the last Orlando debacle. Oh well, what will be will be. It is what it is, you know, and I guess, in the end, it may come down to what the meaning of the word “you” is.

ZIMMERMAN: I'M SORRY, BUT IT WAS GOD'S PLAN

Statement from Martin Family:

GZ said that he does not regret getting out of his vehicle, he does not regret following Trayvon, in fact he does not regret anything he did that night. He wouldn’t do anything different and he concluded it was God’s plan.

Tracy Martin: We must worship a different God because there is no way that MY God would have wanted G. Zimmerman to KILL my teenage son.

§

Yes, George Zimmerman did say both, but not in that order. God came first — then the apology. Throughout the interview, he kept his eyes on the host, Sean Hannity, but when he was offered the opportunity to give his final thoughts with a minute or two left, he turned to face the camera, just like a seasoned politician. My fellow Americans… This dude is one smooth operator, but fortunately, he thinks more highly of himself and about what he did than most people’s perceptions. He’s good, but he’s no pro. Ironically, I do believe he and Mark O’Mara are reeling in the money after tonight’s performance because we live in a time when you can make a fortune off your dead victim. How sad.

I’ll tell you, while most reasonably sane people understood Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker and what made them tick, their flock kept right on flocking and the dumb kept right on donating. The main difference between Zimmerman and Tammy Faye are the make-up and tears. Well, I think there’s another distinction and it’s an important one. Had Tammy Faye been around The Retreat at Twin Lakes that fateful February night, God rest her soul, she most likely would have marched right up to Trayvon and asked him what he was doing. She was a feisty one. She would have asked him to pray with her, too. Then, she would have asked for money. George, on the other hand… he just wimped out.

Hannity went easy on him. He could have asked questions about why Trayvon’s body was found farther south from where the confrontation took place, according to his account; how he managed to get the gun out of the holster upside down and fire directly (meaning straight) into the victim’s upper chest; and how the boy’s arms were tucked neatly under his body the way they fell, when he showed investigators during the reenactment how he spread them out and away from his sides. There have been so many inconsistencies in his stories but, like political interviews, I suppose, there will always be questions that remain off-limits. I understand — there’s a trial ahead — but I still believe that George Zimmerman will never, ever admit that what he did was wrong, and tonight he proved it. He said he was sorry about what happened, but quite absent was an apology for what he did; he got out of his vehicle with a loaded gun. Instead, he asked for apologies from Al Sharpton and Spike Lee for calling the shooting a racial crime.

PFFFFFT. As if he would ever be the one to say I’m sorry to.

Oh yes, he’s good, alright, but even after he clarified his ethnicity by saying he’s caucasian and Hispanic, he made it a point to call himself an American first; above and beyond. Well, Yankee Doodle Dandy, George, you sure do know how to touch the masses. I don’t think you’ll ever be president, but after tonight, I’m not quite sure how you feel about that.

(The interview was held today at an area hotel and there was no monetary payout according to both parties. Zimmerman denied ever knowing about “Stand Your Ground” prior to the incident, and neither Zimmerman or O’Mara solicited donations on the show.)

Why Judge Lester Will Refuse to Recuse

I can understand why George Zimmerman’s defense attorneys, Mark O’Mara and Donald West, filed a motion for Judge Kenneth Lester, Jr. to step down. It makes sense. For one thing, had they not, it wouldn’t help pave the way for a retrial later on if Zimmerman is convicted. I’m sure he requested it, too, and no matter what, the attorneys are there to work for their client. Besides, George is used to getting what he wants, he believes this is a frivolous case, and he wants a new judge. So there. Only it doesn’t work that way, and there are some rather good and strong reasons why.

Let me first mention a few “for instances” that were mentioned in the actual motion filed by his attorneys, the VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY TRIAL JUDGE, which can be viewed HERE, directly from the gzlegal.com Website.

On page 5, the motion says:

“Generally a statement by the judge that he feels a party has lied in a case indicates bias against the party.”

Now hold on a minute. Didn’t another judge once say something about the truth and Miss Anthony are strangers? That had nothing to do with his recusal request, did it? No, it didn’t, and as a matter of fact, look at it this way. If all I had to do was lie to a judge to get him/her disqualified for bias, I’d lie to every judge who comes rolling down the pike, and I’d never go to trial. They’d run out of judges long before the statute of limitation runs out. Like a lot of defendants, lie your way out of it.

Let’s move on to page 7:

“The Court states that the money used to post bail ‘… is not money which the Defendant has earned through his hard work and savings, so forfeiting it for failing to appear would not impact the Defendant’s life in the same manner as a similarly-situated defendant who puts his house up for collateral to obtain bond.’ Page 7, (f). However, the Court fails to note that his family’s home would thereby be forfeited if he failed to appear. Further, the Court ignores the reality that those funds are the only funds available to Mr. Zimmerman to survive, to eat, to pay for utilities and to provide his family shelter.”

Here are the problems I see. George Zimmerman not only lied to the court, he lied to his parents, who took out a second mortgage on their house to secure the bond money. What a weasel. He lied to his attorneys, too. As for food and shelter, it was clearly spelled out that the money was to be used for his defense, not to pay off credit card bills and to buy expensive guns. Aside from that, it’s a lousy excuse and a cheap argument.

From page 9:

“The Court departed from its role as an impartial, objective minister of justice when it stated on two occasions on its Order that in the Court’s personal opinion there is probable cause to believe that the Defendant committed a violation of Florida Statute 903.035(3), a third degree felony punishable by five years in prison. This is tantamount to instructing the State that Mr. Zimmerman should be prosecuted for this offense. Comments like these are taken seriously by the Defendant, and further convinces him that he cannot get a fair trial from this Court. The Court made a similar comment about his wife at the June 1, 2012 bond revocation hearing when it said…”

We all know what it said, and Shellie Zimmerman was duly charged. The problem here is that the motion blames the judge and not his client. Had his client and wife just told the truth to begin with, this would not be an issue. It’s a situation that is being passed off on the judge. The fact remains that the Zimmermans lied and the judge pointed it out, including what the possible charges and penalties might be. Who is to blame for that? Was the judge merely telling the truth? Poor George says he takes the judge’s comments seriously. Well, shiver in me boots. What about the judge? He took the Zimmermans’ comments seriously, too, but according to the Book of George, he wasn’t supposed to do that? Only George is allowed? Gimme a break. I could go on and on, but…

George is responsible for his own mess. Based on the recusal motion, I see nothing that warrants the judge to step down, but that’s only part of the reason why this judge will refuse to recuse.

§

I think that most of you are aware of a role I played in a motion filed in another case where the presiding judge was asked to step down. I did an awful lot of legal studying back then, and in March of 2011, Casey Anthony’s defense filed a motion, the MOTION FOR A REHEARING ON ORDERS DENYING MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS, that had this one glaring statement:

c. The Court Did Not Look at the Evidence from the Hearing Objectively and Instead Displays a Clear Bias [emphasis mine] In Explaining Law Enforcement Conduct Rather than Evaluating Whether a Reasonable Person Would Have Felt Free to Leave.

Holy Foghorn Leghorn! Only thing is, under FLORIDA RULES OF JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION, Rule 2.330, DISQUALIFICATION OF TRIAL JUDGES, “Any party, including the state, may move to disqualify the trial judge assigned to the case on grounds provided by rule, by statute, or by the Code of Judicial Conduct.” OK fine, but what it means is that the procedure for filing disqualification motions for civil and criminal cases is set out in Rule 2.160 of the Fla. R. Jud. Admin., amended by the Florida Supreme Court in 2004.

Since this is the route O’Mara and West are taking, they should be familiar with F.S. §38.10, which states:

Whenever a party to any action or proceeding makes and files an affidavit stating fear that he or she will not receive a fair trial in the court where the suit is pending on account of the prejudice of the judge of that court against the applicant or in favor of the adverse party, the judge shall proceed no further, but another judge shall be designated in the manner prescribed by the laws of this state for the substitution of judges for the trial of causes in which the prescribing judge is disqualified. Every such affidavit shall state the facts and the reasons for the belief that any such bias or prejudice exists and shall be accompanied by a certificate of counsel of record that such affidavit and application are made in good faith.

But please pay particular attention to this part:

However, when any party to any action has suggested the disqualification of a trial judge and an order has been made admitting the disqualification of such judge and another judge has assigned and transferred to act in lieu of the judge so held to be disqualified, the judge so assigned and transferred is not disqualified on account of alleged prejudice against the party making the suggestion in the first instance, or in favor of the adverse party, unless such judge admits and holds that it is then a fact that he or she does not stand fair and impartial between the parties. If such judge holds, rules, and adjudges that he or she does stand fair and impartial as between the parties and their respective interests, he or she shall cause such ruling to be entered on the minutes of the court and shall proceed to preside as judge in the pending cause. The ruling of such judge may be assigned as error and may be reviewed as are other rulings of the trial court.

Remember the first judge? Jessica Recksiedler? She was asked to recuse herself and that’s how Judge Lester came to the bench.

After Judge Recksiedler willfully stepped down, and she could have easily remained on the bench, Judge Lester cannot be disqualified because of alleged prejudice solely based on what Zimmerman claims. The only way it would work is if Lester admits he is biased in favor of the prosecution. Even then, his admission would merely be recorded in the court minutes and the trial would proceed on schedule. Of course, this would be reviewed after a conviction (if there is one) and it would, no doubt, lead to a retrial, but let me assure you, this judge will not fail. He will never admit to bias, and because he’s the second judge, the rules are different.

One of the misconceptions of trial court judges is that rulings are the basis for disqualifications. They are not, as O’Mara and West are claiming in their motion. A judge may not be disqualified for judicial bias. He/she can be disqualified, however, for personal bias against a party. (See Barwick, 660 So. 2d at 692, and cases cited therein.) You just have to prove it.

§

Lest you think I will leave you dangling with merely one slice of cake from the book of rules, allow me to add a thick, sweet, slab of icing to the entire cake.

Back to good old Rule 2.160…

Section (g) deals with the filing of successive disqualification motions. This is to prevent the possibility of abuse, otherwise referred to as judge-shopping. Yes, you read it right… JUDGE-SHOPPING!

When Judge Recksiedler disqualified herself, Judge Lester cannot be disqualified on any successive motions filed by Zimmerman’s defense “unless the successor judge rules that he or she is in fact not fair or impartial in the case.” And that ain’t gonna happen, folks. Judge Lester will be allowed to toss out any new dismissal motions filed on Zimmerman’s behalf.

See also: The Florida Bar Journal, Judicial Disqualification: What Every Practioner (and Judge) Should Know, Douglas J. Glaid, October, 2000 Volume LXXIV, No. 9

No Smoking Gun?

There wasn’t really any shockingly new or surprising material in Thursday’s document release from State Attorney Angela Corey’s office, but I did manage to squeeze out a bit of information. Ever since this news story broke, my main contention with George Zimmerman was that he got out of his vehicle with a loaded pistol to chase after a figment of his distorted imagination — a hoodlum; a bona fide bad guy. Prior to yesterday’s release, we knew nothing about Sanford’s three main gangs, all known as “goons” in one way or another. Could Zimmerman have uttered “f*cking goons” under his breath during his now famous call to a Seminole County police dispatcher that fateful night of February 26m 2012? It makes more sense than “cold” or “punks” doesn’t it? And it’s a matter of fact that the majority of those goons are made up of minority ethnicities; African-American and Hispanic. For me to say so does not make me a racist.

One thing is certain regarding race. Not one of the nearly 30 people interviewed considered Zimmerman to be one, either, and I, for one, never believed he was from the gitgo. If anything, look at the city of Sanford and Norm Wolfinger’s office for racial issues but, even there, I would dare say you will never find anything close enough to substantiate claims of bias. Odds are good that had it been a Hispanic wearing a hoodie that night, his fate would probably have been the same. Zimmerman was on a mission. Look to Bernie de la Rionda for guidance on this matter. He maintains that Zimmerman is guilty of criminal profiling. That’s a far cry from racial profiling. On this issue, I suggest we move on because there is nothing to substantiate any prejudice and all that will come out of it will be feuding and hard feelings among commenters. The real issue remains the same. Zimmerman profiled, stalked and murdered an innocent teenage boy. Regardless of what anyone feels Martin had done prior to that night, he did absolutely nothing to deserve what he got — a hollow-point bullet through his heart.

I’m going to start by taking this page-by-page. I will readily admit I didn’t get everything, so I will rely on you, dear reader, to fill in the gaps and offer up your ideas. There’s a lot to discuss.

§

On page 11 of the 284-page document, State Attorney’s Office Investigative Division Memorandum, an enlightening statement was made by a Sanford police officer:

“Officer Mead saw the flashlight ‘on’ at the intersection of the two walkways when he responded to the scene.”

Actually, the flashlight was found south of the intersection, as the maps will show, but the part that’s very revealing comes from what Zimmerman told investigators during his next day reenactment. He specifically said his flashlight was not working that night.

“… I had a flashlight with me. The flashlight was dead, though…” (Watch HERE; 8:11/15:04)

This is another example of Zimmerman’s imagination getting the best of him. Does he assume that changing the facts literally changes the facts to his advantage? Does he think people are so stupid he can pull the wool over their eyes, including trained law enforcement investigators? Yes, I’m afraid so. It also means, in my opinion, that he pounced on Martin, cop style, with gun and flashlight in hand, right in the young man’s eyes.

§

On page 34, during the night of February 26, while at the police station:

“The Evidence Technician came and collected clothing and photos of Zimmerman. The injuries to the back of the head of Zimmerman appeared to be abrasions and not lacerations.”

What this tells me is that Zimmerman was never close to his demise. If Martin popped him one, it was in self-defense and he he had it coming. It also tells me that those butterfly bandages on the back of his head, placed there by his wife, (shown the next day during the reenactment) were a farce and nothing more than a pity ploy to make him look more injured than he was.

§

On page 54 of the document, and part of the FDLE Investigative Report, Wendy Dorival put on a presentation at a Retreat at Twin Lakes HOA meeting at Zimmerman’s request. She is a civilian liaison with the Sanford Police Department. Held on September 22, 2011, she clearly instructed Zimmerman of the rules. A witness (name withheld) at the meeting said that:

“… it was told, you watch, you do not take any action on your own, you get away from the situation and you call the police.”

These are guidelines, not laws. Zimmerman was not supposed to be carrying a firearm, either, but he was licensed by the state of Florida to do so. The point of this is to show that he was aware of the rules, yet he chose to ignore them. Why?

§

On page 60, one of the witnesses noticed that the loud noises were getting closer.

“They first thought it might be kids in the neighborhood or people having a good time outside. Hearing the noise a second time, he decided to mute the television. Not hearing anything at first, he heard the sound again as if it was coming toward him and getting louder.”

What this signifies is movement, which contradicts Zimmerman’s account of where the fight began and where Martin fell to his death, which were in close proximity. According to Zimmerman, there was no running; no real movement. The maps show that the fight did not take place where he said it did, and Martin’s body was found farther south.

§

On page 65, another witness describes what she heard and saw. To be fair, she did take her contact lenses out before being compelled to look out of a back bedroom window:

“Hearing what sounded like running, she glanced out of the bedroom window (rear facing) to see a person go by from left to right (in a south to north direction).”

What this tells me is that, if true, Martin and Zimmerman were farther south than Zimmerman explained in his reenactment, and that Martin was much closer to where he was staying; in the townhouse that was east and most south of the sidewalk where he fell.

§

Another witness, on page 71, states that he heard what sounded like an argument, right in the area of the T-section on the walk way. He then said:

“… he heard a scuffling sound that was moving down the walk way getting closer to the building next to his house.”

This means the chase headed north, but the ensuing battle moved Zimmerman and Martin toward the south, as one of them fought back. (See map)

§

On page 74-75 of the FDLE Investigative Report, Wendy Dorival said she never had any further contact with Zimmerman after their September HOA meeting until the following month, when he requested information on a recent burglary that happened in the area. However, at the meeting, she gave him a neighborhood watch coordinator’s handbook and explained all the duties and responsibilities. She also asked him for something else:

“Dorival said during the meeting with Zimmerman she asked him to make a list of all the neighbors who wanted to be involved in the crime watch program. Zimmerman was then to determine who would be willing to be block captains and get her the list… Dorival said Zimmerman never provided her with the list of names for the crime watch program.”

This can be highly revealing. Was Zimmerman a loner? Was he a vigilante who wanted all the glory for himself? Or was he lazy and someone who didn’t follow through on his obligations? Not according to his work ethic, where he was quite adept at his responsibilities, according to interviews with associates.

§

Page 76 is a very telling page. The FDLE report explains what agents found in Zimmerman’s possession the day he turned himself in to authorities on April 11:

“Upon the completion of booking Zimmerman into the Seminole County Jail, SA Rogers transferred a Fabrique Nationale Herstal (FNH) Five-seven handgun cal. 5.7 x 28 SN# 386201358 and three magazines with ammo to SAS Duncan. SA Rogers stated that the handgun and magazines were the property of Zimmerman.”

It’s my understanding that this particular weapon is a police killer because of its ability to pierce armor. I imply nothing by stating that. You can formulate your own opinion, but the gun was fully loaded and each clip holds 20 rounds. That’s 80 bullets, folks. I understand his fear and desire to protect himself, certainly in light of the New Black Panther Party threat against him, but my question is whether this particular gun is overkill. Until his arrest, it was still legal for him to carry a firearm. To those who give to his cause, you’re out $1,200, plus extra clips and ammo. If he’s found not guilty, thank yourself for buying him one helluva pistol.

§

On page 78, Zimmerman spins his tale to a witness, who I will assume is Frank Taaffe, Joe Oliver or Mark Osterman. What really intrigues me the most is how Zimmerman was able to pull the gun out of his holster. Of particular interest is the fact that he is left-handed and the holster was on his right hip, set-up for a left-handed person to reach across his chest and belly to go for the gun. While that might not seem like much, it also means that when he went for the gun with his right hand, he either fired it upside down or he had the time and space to turn the gun right-side-up before firing it straight into Martin’s chest:

“Zimmerman used both his hands to pull Martin’s hands away from Zimmerman’s mouth. Martin then observed or felt the handgun on Zimmerman’s side, took his other hand away from Zimmerman’s nose and reached for the handgun stating, ‘You’re gonna die now Mother F*cker.’ Zimmerman slapped Martin’s hand away from the handgun, pulled the handgun, rotated the weapon and fired one round. Zimmerman’s elbow was on the ground at the time he fired.”

I find this to be extremely problematic for several reasons. It means that, since the bullet went straight into Martin’s chest, he had to have been perfectly parallel to Zimmerman’s body at the time the bullet was fired. Why? Because earlier in the interview, Zimmerman’s friend said this:

“Martin and Zimmerman struggled, which resulted in Martin gaining a position on top of Zimmerman, sitting on Zimmerman in the ‘mounted position,’ Martin’s butt on Zimmermans stomach, with Martin’s knees on the ground next to Zimmerman’s ribs.”

 With knees positioned the way they were, how does one wiggle their way out? How did the gun move from behind Martin’s thigh to in front of it? If Martin was riding Zimmerman like a horse, how did the bullet go straight into his chest while Zimmerman’s elbow was in direct contact with the ground? If Martin was positioned parallel to Zimmerman at the time of the shooting, how did Zimmerman manage to get the gun between the two sandwiched chests, let alone with enough of a gap to point the gun straight in?

Incidentally, Zimmerman said he made eye contact with three witnesses during the struggle, yet no witness has admitted to that. How observant for a guy to notice that, yet he contradicted himself regarding Martin’s age; someone who was a heck of a lot closer than the nearest witness.

§

On page 86 of the FDLE report, a background interview took place with the person who provided Zimmerman’s firearms safety training course. Zimmerman’s certificate was dated November 7, 2009. I will have a complete article that will describe, in detail, what led up to George’s obsession with buying guns. Yes, it’s about a dog. Until then, there is plenty to discuss, including personal issues regarding his family and a certain ex-fiance. That’s too much to handle in this post, so please feel free to address his temperament and anything else. Certainly, if I’ve missed anything else, I’d be more than happy to learn, but as far as I’m concerned, the only smoking gun, so far, is the one that George Zimmerman held in his hand on February 26, 2012.

Gun Power

There’s been plenty of talk around the blogs and forums of late about working out a plea deal. You know, why not let George Zimmerman plead guilty to a reduced charge of manslaughter and get it over with? It would save the state of Florida a lot of money, and that’s what this was all about to begin with, right? Well, yes, it would save money but, no, it was not what the state had in mind at all. Well, maybe there’s one major detail, which I’ll explain later.

To begin with, I now agree with what former lead investigator Chris Serino said about the manslaughter charge. He actually knew what he was talking about, but before any of you throw racial darts my way, or missiles of any kind for any reason, you’d better keep an open mind and read the entire article or you’ll be spending some time left out in the cold during one of the most brutal summers on record.

Yeah, George, take the plea!

No, don’t!

Any way you look at it, if he is convicted of second-degree murder, it goes without saying that it would be a felony conviction. But what about manslaughter? Would it be a felony or a misdemeanor if he’s convicted of that instead? Murder is a piece of cake to explain. It means that malice aforethought must be present, whereas in manslaughter, it’s absent. Absence of malice. OK, that’s easy enough to grasp, but what makes it a misdemeanor or felony?

Involuntary manslaughter means causing the death of another person without intent. Generally speaking, it’s caused by an improper use of reasonable care while carrying out a lawful act, or while in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. Let’s say drag racing with your car that results in a homicide. You took an unreasonable and high-degree of risk and that’s considered criminally negligent manslaughter. On the other hand, let’s say you’re chopping down a tree and accidentally hit someone with the ax — killing him — there’s nothing criminal about it. In many states, depending on the degree of involuntary manslaughter, it could be a misdemeanor or a felony.

In the case of voluntary manslaughter, we’re talking about an intentional killing that’s accompanied by added circumstances that mitigate the killing, not excuse it. In its most common form, it occurs when a person is provoked to commit the homicide. This is felony manslaughter, and it goes to the very heart of the Trayvon Martin shooting death, whether it’s considered manslaughter or second-degree murder. Either way, if George Zimmerman is convicted, it will be a felony conviction. Interestingly, the Orlando Sentinel reported that the paperwork originally sent to prosecutors stated that there was probable cause to charge Zimmerman with manslaughter. The Sentinel article went on to say that it “was signed by lead Investigator Chris Serino and his boss, then-Sgt. Randy Smith, but it was the department’s official position and had the support of [former Sanford police Chief Bill Lee Jr.] said Capt. Bob O’Connor, who oversees the department’s major-crimes division and also was part of the investigation.”

Well, what’s all this hubbub about manslaughter or murder? Why is the public split on it? I mean those in the Martin camp. You see, it really doesn’t matter and that’s why some attorneys believe the state overcharged. Of course, that major detail I said I’d explain later could be as simple as getting him to plead to something — PLEAD DOWN — but it’s not. It can’t be.

You see, back in the late 1990s, George Bush’s younger brother, Jeb, was governor of the great state of Florida. He pushed through a law, Florida Statutes, Section 775.087 (2)-(4), that became effective on July 1, 1999. What was it, you ask, that could have come from a conservative, gun-respecting, NRA-allied Republican; the same Jeb Bush who signed SB 436, better known as “Stand Your Ground” into law in 2005?

Why… the legislation enacted his initiative providing mandatory sentences for felony convictions of crimes in which a gun was used. Plain and simple.

For pulling a gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years is imposed. For certain felony crimes or attempted felonies, the 10 year mandatory sentence is authorized if the criminal possessed a gun (or destructive device). For firing the gun during a crime the mandatory minimum sentence is 20 years. For injuring or killing a victim by firing the gun during a crime, a mandatory minimum sentence from 25 years to life in prison is authorized. (See: Mandatory Sentences Under the 10-20-Life Law and Experts: Florida’s ‘10-20-Life’ empowers prosecutors but handcuffs judges, juries, defense attorneys)

So you see, forget about whether it’s second-degree murder or felony manslaughter because, either way, they are both felonies and if you are in Trayvon’s camp, all you want is a conviction. Stop worrying about a plea. The least Zimmerman could get would be 25-years. That sort of changes the perspective on Mark O’Mara now, doesn’t it? 

The Bond Conundrum

Judge Lester’s bond order regarding George Zimmerman will be released by the Seminole County Clerk of Courts today. Will it allow Zimmerman to be released or will it keep him in jail until the outcome of his trial? I don’t even consider Stand Your Ground a viable defense, so forget that.

In my opinion, the judge has an easy route to take. He can allow Zimmerman to be released on bond, but set that bond as high as $1,000,000 (or higher.) It would clearly take the onus off the court and lay it directly into Mark O’Mara’s lap. How, you say? It’s quite simple, actually. If Lester disallows bond, he may come across as a hard-nose — unbending and cold. On the other hand, if he grants bond, he could be perceived as having the wisdom of Solomon. I think he’s a shrewd intellectual. By washing his hands of it, Mark O’Mara would be left holding the cards. That means $100,000 will come out of Zimmerman’s bank account to free him. What does that mean? Would it cut into the defense team’s budget? Immensely! Will the defense come to a screeching halt? Will O’Mara try to convince Zimmerman to remain in jail so a proper defense can continue? There lays the conundrum. The money really belongs to Zimmerman. It would be his call to make.

Through Paranoid Eyes (The Clincher)

And his own words that are nothing but lies

In the last post, I wrote about the inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s stories about what transpired the night of the shooting. The following 8 photos are video screen shots taken from his reenactment. Below it will be an overhead view of the location, according to George, of where the fight and gunshot took place.

Approximate area where Trayvon stood according to Zimmerman.

The above photos show George’s reenactment positions during the confrontation. I have several problems with that. One, where was Trayvon hiding? The sidewalk paths are open except for the spindly trees — certainly no place to hide. Two, Trayvon was positioned southeast of George, who said he was heading back to his vehicle. In order for this fight to have occurred where George said, it meant he would have had to go to Trayvon. If it was the other way around, the fight would have taken place where George stood, on the sidewalk heading west. The third problem with the scenario George gave was that Trayvon shouted out to him. I’m not a fighter, but common sense tells me that if I am going to surprise someone with a punch, I am not going to say a word beforehand, which would give my opponent a warning first. I’d hit him and then ask him why he was following me.

Do you understand the problem? George would have to have turned toward Trayvon and walked to him. That’s all there is to it. Of course, there’s one more thing that makes absolutely no sense at all, and one of the commenters, CherokeeNative, brought light to it last night, before I had a chance to put this post up. THIS IS THE CLINCHER. To those of you who don’t read the comments, you can see from the next image why there’s a major, major problem with George’s account of the events the night of February 26. Had George been walking back to his truck like he said he was, from east to west, then why was Trayvon’s body found much farther south?

George must have surprised Trayvon, and that means he was never walking back to his truck from checking house numbers, like he said in his reenactment. Nor was he ever asked by the dispatcher to do such a thing.

Witness points to spot where Trayvon died

Through Paranoid Eyes

I don’t know if it’s just me? Or if anyone else noticed it, too? It seems that George Zimmerman likes to end his verbal discussions on a high note. By that, I don’t mean positive. He ends his sentences like he’s asking a question. He turned here? He walked over there? I lost sight of him? It sounds as if he’s not sure of himself and he’s subconsciously asking for a vote of confidence or a pat on the back or redemption or justification or something. I don’t know. Maybe, it’s just me, but I noticed something else that connects with it. Beginning with his written statement to police and in every subsequent explanation he’s given to date, he starts each account of the night of February 26 with an excuse for why he shot Trayvon Martin.

“In August of 2011, my neighbor’s house was broken into…” Most of the first page of the Sanford Police Department Narrative Report is dedicated to the past, not the present. Tell us what happened on this night, George, not about last August. Does he always think this way or is he seeking atonement for what he had done?

(Before I go further into my own assessment, let me say that, until some sort of confrontation took place, George was well within his right to get out of his car and walk around the neighborhood for whatever reason. He broke no laws, but was it the prudent thing to do? That’s another issue altogether. If he wanted to be a hero that night, there was nothing in the world to stop him. Not even his own better judgement, if such a thing exists. The law was on his side going into it.)

I’m going to look at the video reenactment of the night and compare it with the phone call to the SPD dispatcher. Right up front, I’ll tell you I don’t put much faith in George’s account of events. I base this not on bias or prejudice, but on George’s own words to investigators and the dispatcher, plus photographic evidence taken the night of the shooting.

At the onset of the video, George is shown leaving his home at 1950 Retreat View Circle, where he travels north and spots Trayvon at the first bend in the street,  curving to the right. He said he was on his way to the grocery store. Certainly, I can understand his suspicion because of other break-ins in the neighborhood, and here was someone, a person, he was not familiar with. Interestingly, in a subsequent interview with police, he stated that he was aware of everyone living in that complex.

As Trayvon walked east, after entering an unorthodox, but commonly used entrance, George continued driving ever so slowly, keeping a watchful eye on his prey. He noted, in great detail — and despite suffering from ADHD — every move his suspect made, even though sunset came at 6:23 pm that day. Sanford police logs showed his call began at 7:09:34 pm, 46 minutes into darkness. Granted, lights and rainy reflections from streets and porches may have impacted what he saw, but it was a far cry from daylight. George slowly passed the boy and pulled into a parking spot in front of the clubhouse, where he called the dispatcher on the non-emergency number. At this time, Trayvon was across the street, behind him. Of course, it’s only common sense that, until I pass you, I am following you. Once I pass you, you are following me.

It’s important to note that, throughout the police call, George had nothing but negative things to say about Trayvon. Something’s wrong with him. He’s on drugs or something. He’s up to no good.

At nearly one minute into the call, George said, “… now he’s coming toward me,” and, “Yup, he’s coming to check me out…”

Trayvon kept walking and went past George and the clubhouse, turning right on Twin Trees. “These assholes always get away,” George reacted as he lost sight of the boy. This is where he goes after Trayvon again by following him in his truck. At 2:09 minutes into the phone call, he exited the vehicle without provocation from the dispatcher. In other words, the dispatcher did not ask him to do anything, and that included no request for an address.

On the video reenactment, George stated that the dispatcher asked him if he could go somewhere where he can see him. Not true! The dispatcher made no such request. He also told the detective (during the reenactment) that Trayvon went around the back of the townhouses, away from view, and returned to circle his vehicle. He also said that he told the dispatcher of this move during the phone call.

He told the dispatcher no such thing. There was nothing said about circling his vehicle. Instead, during the phone call, you can hear George’s heavy breathing and the wind in the phone, indicative of someone running. He was chasing after the boy. Up to this point, no word was said on the phone about finding a street name or building number.

The dispatcher asked him, “Are you following him?”

He responded, “Yeah.”

The dispatcher advised him that, “OK, we don’t need you to do that!” By the way, I did speak with the supervisor of dispatchers with Seminole County and she told me it is strictly advice. George was under no legal obligation to obey the directive.

“OK,” George said, but you could still hear the wind in his phone. Moments later, he told the dispatcher that his suspect ran. He lost him! But it was quite evident he was still searching. The dispatcher then asked George for his name and where the police, now on their way, would find him. Would he be near his truck? When asked where his truck was parked, George wasn’t sure of the address. The dispatcher offered a solution. What about in front of the mailboxes, alongside the clubhouse? George agreed, but in the end, he wanted no part of that, because he interrupted the dispatcher. “Actually, could you have them [the police] call me and I’ll tell them where I’m at?”

“Okay, yeah, that’s no problem.” Little did the dispatcher know that this was George’s cue to continue his search. At no time did the dispatcher ask him for a physical address.

During the reenactment, however, he told a completely different story. In the video, he said the dispatcher asked him, “Where did he go, which direction did he go in?”

George answered, “I don’t know, I lost… ‘cause he cut down here and made a right. I guess it’s TWIN TREES LANE.” He goes on to say the dispatcher asked him if he could see the boy. He said he couldn’t. He claimed the dispatcher asked him to get somewhere where he could see him, but that’s not true. He was asked no such thing. Instead of backing out of the clubhouse spot like he told the detective on the video, in reality, George was desperately seeking Trayvon. And he knew the name of the street he turned on.

CLICK MAP TO ENLARGE

George Zimmerman Police Call w. Time Stamps and Notes

George Zimmerman video reenactment

END OF PART 1

In the second part, I will explore the shooting. How close to the truth was George?

Former Sanford Police Chief Speaks Out

This is a statement issued by former police chief Bill Lee:

Statement from Chief Bill Lee

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

It is disappointing that, in spite of his steadfast commitment to fairness and waiting for the results of a review of the Sanford Police Department and its investigation of the Trayvon Martin case, City Manager Bonaparte has chosen to exercise his rights under the employment contract to terminate my employment without cause.

I continue to stand by the work performed by the Sanford Police Department in this tragic shooting, which has been plagued by misrepresentations and false statements for interests other than justice. As the case progresses through the justice system, the evidence will show that our investigation was a proper effort to find the truth and follow the law. This has already been validated by evidence that has since become public as well as by comments from the special prosecutor.

 I appreciate the opportunity I have had to serve all the people of the City of Sanford, the City Employees and especially the men and women of the Sanford Police Department.

In a statement released by Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte earlier in the day, Bonaparte said he relieved the chief of his duties (meaning fired) because he had “determined the police chief needs to have the trust and respect of the elected officials and the confidence of the entire community.”

I spoke to two police officers in Sanford. Both said that you wouldn’t find a better or more intelligent person than Bill Lee. Notwithstanding, I can understand the city’s predicament, but if cans of worms are to be opened, let’s open them all.

I think it’s interesting to note that Norton Bonaparte was fired from the same position (as city manager of Topeka, Kansas) for mishandling a theft perpetrated by city employees. Apparently, “Bonaparte handled it as a personnel matter and meted out punishment to the employees rather turn the case over to law enforcement authorities. He didn’t inform council members of the case or the details until they demanded information.” (See: Topeka no stroll in park for Bonaparte and Editorial: Theft should be investigated)

No one is above the law, and no one is perfect. Pointing fingers sometimes point back and, sometimes, good people are let go for good reasons.

The Complex Perplexities of George and Shellie Zimmerman

Today was a very busy day, that’s for sure. I’m collecting my thoughts for an article related to the days events. I took a number of pictures at the task force forum I attended earlier, but the judge’s written order explaining why he revoked George’s bond must take precedence. It was quite direct. There’s also the issue of Shellie Zimmerman’s arrest on a nasty little perjury charge. Do I think they were planned together? No, absolutely not. Coincidence? That is more likely the case. The judge’s order was pending and so was the arrest warrant. One is through the court and the other is through the state. That’s two separate branches of the government and they don’t send love letters back and forth. Everything must diligently and properly go through the legal system. Period.

For now, it’s clear to see the judge and attorney’s office mean business. While some may look lightly on these offenses, the people in charge — the REAL ones — are not playing games. This is some serious stuff.

While I had set my sights on another topic, this is very important to address, so expect it to be my next post. Was the judge too critical in his ruling? Was Shellie’s arrest a bargaining chip for the state? That’s what I’ll be focusing on.

I will say this about the day. I had an opportunity to shake Tracy Martin’s hand and offer my condolences. He was very gracious. From everything I’ve witnessed so far, Trayvon’s parents are regular people, just like you and me. No different. Sybrina Fulton said she is not against guns. Her father is a retired Miami cop. She wants the law changed. Tracy Martin said he will be spending Father’s Day, this Sunday, at the cemetery — with Trayvon. Remember to keep those things in your mind as you consider this case.

New Photo of Casey Emerges

Bond, Revoke Bond

Call me old fashioned or set in my ways or something, but I got used to the courtrooms run by Orange County judges Stan Strickland and Belvin Perry, Jr. By that, I mean, when we went to the Casey Anthony hearings, chances were good that the honorables would have been inclined to rule on new motions — ones presented that day — at a later date, giving the prosecution and defense (and us) time to ingest and digest the gist of what had just been presented. In other words, the judges routinely gave the opposing side an opportunity to work up a legal response to be argued at a subsequent hearing.

Don’t get me wrong. In no way am I questioning the manner in which Seminole County judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. (yes, another junior) runs his courtroom. As a matter of fact, I sensed from the start that this was a no nonsense judge; one who knows the law and how to interpret and implement it. Fair and firm… that’s what I’d call him. Balanced, too, but while attending the hearing last Friday, I never expected to hear a motion that had been filed a mere two hours earlier, followed by an immediate decision from the judge. Where did that come from, and why didn’t Mark O’Mara, George Zimmerman’s lead defense attorney, protest? Well, there’s more to the story, but first, the matter at hand. While the ending may have shocked us, it wasn’t the reason why we were there to begin with.

The hearing was to argue for and against releasing information pursuant to Florida’s rules of discovery, otherwise known as the Sunshine Law. The state said that the names of witnesses should be kept out of public view for their own protection. The defense agreed, and added that things should be kept at a slow pace for now. There’s no reason to release the information at the moment because there are a lot of people to interview further. This will take time.

The media wants everything made public because that’s the law, argued Orlando Sentinel attorney Rachel Fugate in response, and, eventually, the names will be made public anyway. Why not now? So far, she said, the state and defense haven’t shown good cause why any information should remain behind closed doors, and to be honest, it all depends on which way you look at things. Here, the crux of the matter goes well beyond protecting innocent witnesses, unlike the Casey Anthony case, which she compared it to. Casey never admitted that she killed anyone. George did, and that’s part of the problem, aside from race and outrage being major factors. Most of the public agreed with the prosecution in State v. Casey Anthony. Here, it’s deeply split.

Aside from race, the state contends that George Zimmerman’s statements to investigators add up to a confession, and because of that, they are exempt from disclosure. Of course, the defense disagrees. Yes, the defendant admitted he shot and killed the victim, but it was not a murder. It was in self-defense.

Judge Lester called it a matter of what’s inculpatory and what’s exculpatory. One says it’s a fish; the other says it’s a fowl, he added. Inculpatory is evidence that can establish a defendant’s guilt, while exculpatory is evidence that tends to clear a defendant of guilt.

In the end, the judge decided to follow the law and release the discovery documents, but not without poring over them, piecemeal, in camera, and redacted, which means he will most likely censor some of what’s released, like in the first document dump. And just like Judge Perry, Judge Lester reminded the attorneys that this will be no trial by ambush! What you see is what you get.

Incidentally, defense attorney Mark O’Mara said he expects to see a new round of discovery by Monday or Tuesday, so keep your eyes open, folks.

§

When Judge Lester abruptly revoked George Zimmerman’s bond on Friday, it caught me off guard. Like I said at the beginning of this post, I pretty much thought the court would allow time for the defense to prepare. After all, the motion was filed that morning. But I missed something along the way.

At the April 27 hearing to discuss the motions filed by media attorneys, O’Mara stated that his client had misinformed the court about his financial standing at the bond hearing held a week earlier, on April 20. (This signaled the prosecution to go on the offense and dig up some damning information.) While George sat silent in the courtroom, his wife Shellie, out of camera view, lied under oath about their financial situation. He was fully aware of what she was saying and doing. Instead of being flat broke like she testified, he had amassed a small fortune in excess of $135,000, give or take a few truckloads of chicken feed.

That’s not all. There was a problem with the passport — or passports — George held. At the bond hearing, he surrendered his U.S. passport and “tendered it to the court.” It was due to expire in May anyway. So far, so good, except that he failed to inform the court that he held another passport. It seems the first one was lost and he had applied for a replacement in 2004. Passports are good for ten years, so that means the new one is still good for another two years. Meanwhile, the old one resurfaced and that’s the one he turned over. While there is nothing illegal about it, the state had every right to cry foul. George is, after all, a defendant in a murder case, and the state takes EVERYTHING seriously. So does his team of defense attorneys.

And then there’s the judge.

While Judge Lester overlooked George’s indiscretion concerning the passport, he may have done so because of George’s overt lies concerning his finances. Obviously, that was the case in court last Friday, and because defense counsel had previously mentioned the money issue back on April 27, it was no real surprise when the state smacked George with its MOTION TO REVOKE BOND that day.

Did the defense see it coming? I don’t really know, but I will say this. Upon entering the courthouse, you have to pass through a security screen which includes removing your shoes. When you get to the 5th floor courtroom, you must pass through another security checkpoint before entering. As I was placing my personal items back in my pockets, Mark O’Mara came upon me. We spoke briefly. I told him how polite and respectful he was to me when Bill Sheaffer introduced us during the Anthony trial. Mark, if you recall, was hired as a legal consultant for WKMG. If you think back, you may remember Mark NeJame was also with the CBS affiliate. Anyway, whenever O’Mara and I saw each other again during the trial, we always exchanged greetings. He’s a real gentleman. This time, I did wish him the best in the courtroom and he didn’t seem preoccupied with anything that may have been coming down the pike. After the hearing, I spoke to him again, and he agreed when I said it wasn’t a good day.

“No, it wasn’t,” he admitted.

If I had to take an educated guess, I would say that the defense team did not expect this broadside from prosecutor Bernie De la Rionda, and to be honest, I don’t think it was the motion itself as much as it was De la Rionda’s blow-by-blow vocal delivery and the judge’s abrupt decision to revoke bond. It was a veritable wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am, slam dunk, bada-bing sorta thing.

Here’s the bottom line. George Zimmerman lied. While you may not have heard his own voice doing the lying, he did so through his legal counsel and through the testimony of his wife, in sickness and in health; through good and through bad. And the bad part about it was that he manipulated his attorneys and his spouse. That, in my opinion, is what really perturbed the judge the most. And lying to the court, of course. It’s a cold day in hell when you can pull the wool over a judge’s eyes, let alone get a chuckle out of him for trying.

While he sat in the Seminole County jail awaiting his bond hearing, George played his sudden fortune like a Wall Street pro, only he did it in code, assuming the law would never understand a word of it. Well, George, those plastic decoder rings you used to get in cereal and Cracker Jack boxes as a kid were invented a long, long time ago, before Dick Tracy, and it doesn’t take much of a brainiac to figure out that $135 = $135,000 in code-speak. Duh. It’s stuff like this that truly makes me wonder if George actually thinks of himself as some sort of comic book superhero who’s above the law. It’s not Superman… it’s… it’s Zimmerman!

Despite George’s immature attempt at deception, I’m going to go out on a limb and take a stab at how the judge will respond to a second bond motion filed by the defense requesting his release. Sure, it will be granted, but the judge is out of town this week, so George will have to sit and stew for awhile. God knows, he earned it. Of course, when the hearing is eventually held, he will kiss a good chunk that money in limbo good bye. Bond should be set to the tune of $1,000,000 if you ask me, which, when decoded, translates into a $100,000 down payment; still a mere pittance to a guy like him and his loyal minions, but a huge slice of the pie when it comes to the not so small matter of mounting legal fees.

[Since this writing, the defense team has decided against filing a new motion for a bond hearing at this time. See: Update For Motion On Bond]

Until the hearing comes, George and his defense team will need to do some serious head banging. He profoundly impacted his credibility with the judge. To those who disagree, listen to O’Mara’s own words. “There is a credibility question that now needs to be rehabilitated by explaining in a way what they were thinking, when they did what they did, and we’ll address it… I think that explanation or apology, if it is, should go directly to the person who deserves it. In this case, that is Judge Lester.” (See: George Zimmerman returns to Seminole County Jail)

Take a look, too, at what the Orlando Sentinel put together from their own reporting and research. This is something a jury will not ignore.

Zimmerman’s untrue statements

• The night he shot Trayvon Martin to death, police say Zimmerman told them his record was squeaky-clean. In fact, he had been charged in 2005 with resisting arrest without violence during an altercation with a state alcohol officer. Zimmerman wound up in a pretrial-diversion program, a scaled-down version of probation offered to nonviolent first-time offenders.
• When he was booked into the Seminole County Jail on April 23, he told the booking officer that he never had been in a pretrial-diversion program before, documents show.
• At his April 20 bond hearing, while making a surprise apology to Trayvon’s family, Zimmerman said he didn’t realize Trayvon was so young. In his call to police moments before the shooting, however, he described Trayvon — who was 17 — as in his “late teens.”

These things, plus the money deception, will not bode well for the defense. The judge will give George an opportunity to explain himself, but what does O’Mara think? “My understanding was that Judge Lester seemed to indicate that he wanted testimony. That is a very complex decision to make about what effect that would have, not only at the hearing itself, but any future testimony, so we haven’t made that decision yet.”

I don’t think I’m even close to going out on a limb when I say that George can kiss the old stand your ground defense good bye. Since it will be Judge Lester’s decision to make, wasn’t it really stupid of George to lie to him, of all people? Wasn’t that a blatant lack of common sense and honesty? Or was it stupidity? Couldn’t the night of February 26 have been the same thing? A blatant lack of common sense and honesty?

Because I am so sure this case will go to trial unless a plea deal is made — which I strongly doubt, George is going to have to do something to regain his credibility, but I don’t know what. His defense team is doing its best at damage control, but how much good will it do?

From the George Zimmerman Legal Defense Website, Details Regarding The Request For A Second Bond Hearing For George Zimmerman:

(Edited for content)

While Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that he allowed his financial situation to be misstated in court, the defense will emphasize that in all other regards, Mr. Zimmerman has been forthright and cooperative. He gave several voluntary statements to the police, re-enacted the events for them, gave voice exemplars for comparison and stayed in ongoing contact with the Department of Law Enforcement during his initial stage of being in hiding. He has twice surrendered himself to law enforcement when asked to do so, and this should demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman is not a flight risk. He has also complied with all conditions of his release, including curfew, keeping in touch with his supervising officers, and maintaining his GPS monitoring, without violation.

Why did George stay “in ongoing contact with the Department of Law Enforcement” when he first went into hiding? Because he thought of himself as one of them? A cop’s cop? Among his peers? The first thing a defense attorney worth his weight in salt would say to a new client is to shut up. That’s why this statement is meaningless. Of course it was his initial contact because, on advice of counsel, he stopped talking after that.

He has twice surrendered himself to law enforcement when asked to do so, and this should demonstrate that Mr. Zimmerman is not a flight risk. He has also complied with all conditions of his release, including curfew, keeping in touch with his supervising officers, and maintaining his GPS monitoring, without violation.

This, too, goes without saying. Isn’t that a given? This is what he was supposed to do, and most people comply with the law. Besides, once the cash was out of his hands, where was he supposed to hide? With what? Once the defense learned of the money, it was transferred into a trust fund where George couldn’t touch it. Neither could his wife.

The audio recordings of Mr. Zimmerman’s phone conversations while in jail make it clear that Mr. Zimmerman knew a significant sum had been raised by his original fundraising website. We feel the failure to disclose these funds was caused by fear, mistrust, and confusion. The gravity of this mistake has been distinctly illustrated, and Mr. Zimmerman understands that this mistake has undermined his credibility, which he will have to work to repair.

“We feel the failure to disclose these funds was caused by fear, mistrust, and confusion.” This is damage control at its finest. This is why exemplary defense counsel deserves to make the big bucks, and I’ve got to hand it to Mr. O’Mara, who I totally respect and admire. That sentence says it all, but it’s a classic contortion of relativity and relevance. It’s pointing the finger one way while speaking in another direction. Why? While focusing on George’s innate fear, mistrust and confusion, which we can all relate to, its actual intent is to confuse us and take the heat off him.

If George was really fearful, mistrusting and confused, why did he lie to the court? If he did nothing wrong, what was he fearful of there, of all places? The court was the first place he should have trusted. After all, the truth shall set him free. Right?

Bond, Revoke Bond

The Seminole County Courthouse

I decided to take a trip up to the Seminole County courthouse to take a look around. I want to familiarize myself with the building. It’s a lot different from the one I got so used to during the 3 years I covered the Casey Anthony story.

I plan on attending today’s hearing regarding what evidence the public will get to see before the trial. I have a noon doctor appointment and the hearing is slated to start at 1:30.

If the picture quality is poor, it’s because I used my cell phone.

A shot in the dark heard 'round the world

Blackfields & McWhites, Part 2

It really saddens me that Trayvon Martin’s tragic shooting has set people on such opposite paths that it’s gotten downright frightful. In all seriousness, I don’t expect a race war to break out, but there’s no doubt, two paths exist and they are as opposite as north and south, east and west, night and day, and yes, black and white. I spoke with someone the other day who is completely convinced that George Zimmerman will be exonerated for plugging a hole in the 17-year-old boy’s chest and sending him to the morgue, that I was compelled to ask him why he supports the rogue neighborhood watch captain gone wild. He had no real reason; he just felt that way.

“Mark my words,” he exclaimed, “he did the right thing.”

He was quite furvent about it — was, that is — until I hit him with a blunt force statement. Sometimes, you’ve got to fight fire with something much hotter in order to cool the flames. I told him there are only three reasons why anyone would offer their complete support without all of the facts in hand, and they are that:

1. He is a racist;
2. He fully supports the policies of the NRA or;
3. Both 1 and 2

The fact is, this person had no real facts at all when he made the statement. Nor did any of the people who earlier donated over $200,000 to help George pay for his defense. And the money keeps pouring in.

To be fair, I could question some of Trayvon’s supporters as well about racism. Certainly, the New Black Panther party is one. However, there are two stark differences between Trayvon and George and what transpired the night of February 26. One, Trayvon didn’t have a gun and, two, he didn’t stalk George. Still, what strikes me as peculiar is the simple fact that plenty of those people have taken such a firm stand regarding their support for the shooter, that they seem to have no idea about other things, many of which are related to nothing more than what we typically consider to be simple common sense. Yes, George had a legal right to carry a concealed weapon, but that gave him no license to kill. Would he pack his pistol while walking on the beach? Why not? He could, but would it be practical or sensible? What about inside a church? A job interview? Walking into a police station? You see, there are many possible scenarios where being armed makes no sense at all, but what about someone else?

What about a police officer who shoots his/her cheating spouse and romantic partner in a fit of jealous rage? Don’t tell me it’s never happened. A cop has a license to carry, and one to kill, too. Even many white supremacists can carry a weapon just like George, so you can’t use the excuse that he had every right to shoot his target. White supremacists plot to kill minorities all the time. While not calling George a racist, how does anyone other than his close family members and friends know whether he really is one or not? Why give him the benefit of the doubt in every possible way and offer nothing to the victim? You see, my point is all about what’s good for the goose. Why shouldn’t it be good for the gander, too? What makes some think George, a complete stranger, is worth defending? To the point of exalting him? We don’t know the real George. None of us.

Enough of that. Let’s get down to the facts as we know them now. Yes, George Zimmerman had every right to walk anywhere he wanted in the housing development he does not own. So did Trayvon. At the same time, I can walk down the aisles of a supermarket I don’t own, and you’d better believe if I were eyeballing a young mom throughout the store, things would get edgy and a manager would be called. While George was the Neighborhood Watch captain at The Retreat at Twin Lakes, he was not the only one. As a matter of fact, the community newsletter routinely solicits other residents to come forward. In other words, he wasn’t police chief there. As a matter of fact, he wasn’t a cop at all. I’ve heard that he wasn’t acting as a Neighborhood Watch captain that night. Therefore, the implied policy against carrying a weapon shouldn’t apply. Okay fine, but I disagree. Neighborhood Watch people are always on call. There is no time clock. He mentions his capacity as such in almost every call he’s ever made to police — REAL POLICE, and in each case, the “perp” was always black. Never white or Hispanic.

George told police he stepped out of his truck to check house numbers and the name of the street he was on, and Trayvon attacked him from behind as he was returning to his vehicle. It was then that he shot the boy in self-defense. There are multiple problems with that scenario, though; the biggest one being where Trayvon was killed. It was in the common sidewalk area between the back yards of rows of townhouses. It was nowhere near George’s truck or where it was parked. It was a lie. Street names are found on the street and house numbers are located on the fronts of houses, not in back yards. Once he found the information he needed, why didn’t he return to his truck and call the dispatcher back instead of going behind the townhouses with flashlight in hand? There can only be one answer: To find Trayvon.

Police investigators told Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, that his son had confronted George at his truck, as George had said, yet nothing exists to substantiate his claim. Certainly, there’s nothing in the police recording of his phone call that evening, from 7:11 pm, when he placed the non-emergency call, through 7:15 pm, when the call ended. He never said anything about Trayvon approaching him in any threatening manner. As a matter of fact, the last thing we know is that he was chasing after the teen when the dispatcher asked and then advised him against it.

Approximately 80 seconds later, the first 911 call came in from someone who reported hearing screams for help. That means the fight was in full swing by then, but for how long? 27 seconds after the first emergency call, Trayvon was dead.

According to ABC News, Sanford police had Trayvon’s phone records within days of his death, yet his girlfriend was never called and questioned about the incident. While I find it rather disconcerting that the police department did not do a thorough job, I can’t place all of the blame on them the night the shooting took place. One of the misconceptions about that phone centers on the length of time it took for SPD to take a look at the device. Why didn’t investigators check it that night? The answer is simple. It was wet and the charge was low. In order to bring it back to life, it had to dry out while someone searched for a charger — something Trayvon didn’t carry with him.  (See page 16 of evidence document.) And they needed the pass code.

Benjamin Crump is the attorney for Trayvon’s mother and father. He told the media that the boy talked on and off with his girlfriend for nearly 400 minutes the day he died. According to him, and based on those phone records, Trayvon’s final moments were spent talking to his girlfriend, initiated by a 7:12 pm call. She overheard the start of the altercation. In her recorded interview with an investigator working with Assistant State Attorney Angela Corey, she stated that Trayvon told her a (white) man was watching him from his vehicle. He put his hoodie on because it was still raining. Meanwhile, the man continued to watch him. She told Trayvon to get back to his father’s house. He agreed. Then, she could tell he was running because of the sound of wind she heard in the phone’s mouthpiece. Trayvon thought he had lost the guy at that point. Suddenly, he said the guy was getting close to him and within seconds, the altercation began.

“Why are you following me for?” Trayvon asked.

George responded with, “What are you doing around here?” 

Trayvon’s girlfriend kept asking him what was going on, but he never answered her. Instead, she said she heard a bump, like someone had hit Trayvon. She also heard what sounded like the phone had landed in the grass. She was asked if she heard any screams for help, and the sound of a gunshot. She did not. Before the phone went dead — and she frantically tried to call him back later to no avail — she faintly heard something else in the background — a voice telling the assailant to get off.

“Get off! Get off!” The investigator asked her whose voice it was and she said Trayvon. Then, the phone went dead.

Bill Lee was the police chief in Sanford on the night Trayvon died. He is now on temporary leave. According to the Huffington Post Website, Lee told HuffPost as early as March 8 that “Zimmerman disregarded a 911 dispatcher who told him to stand down and wait for the police to arrive.”

Lee described the events leading up to the shooting, and it corroberated the girl’s later account to the SAO investigator. Zimmerman, he said, told Sanford authorities that Trayvon noticed he was being followed and asked what the problem was. This is when the altercation took place.

What we now know is that George was, in fact, injured as he said he was, but was he beaten so badly that he came within an inch of his life as his father said in an interview?

According to the Sanford Fire Department report on the night of February 26, EMTs found Trayvon Martin unresponsive and declared him dead. George Zimmerman, on the other hand, was a bit bloodied up, but otherwise fine. Their report was filed at 19:41, or 7:41 pm. He was conscious and showed no outward signs of external hemorrhaging. His mucous membrane was normal. So was his color. Everything was within normal limits, including his breathing quality. His GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale: 0-15) was 15, with 0 being comatose and unconscious, and 15 being fully awake and conscious.

The report stated that he had abrasions on his forehead, bleeding and tenderness in his nose, and a small laceration on the back of his head. All injuries had minor bleeding. He denied LOC (loss of consciousness) and neck or back pain. He had PMS X4 with paresthesia. PMS X4 means that his pulse, motor and sensation were good in all four limbs. Paresthesia is interesting. Generally, it means tingling sensations in a person’s skin. Or it could be a change in bodily function generally associated with a disease. It could also be a hallucinated sensation that insects or snakes are crawling over the skin; usually a side-effect of extensive use of cocaine or speed. George did tell paramedics he was on Librax and Tamazepan, which have been shown to cause agitation and mood swings in less than 10 percent of patients, but I seriously doubt those medications had anything to do with his paresthesia.

While many people believe George’s injuries will play well for the defense, I am less sure. Why? The following day, a doctor at Altamonte Family Practice examined him and found no concussion. The doctor advised his patient to seek x-rays and other professional advice, including a psychological evaluation, but he chose not to. Ultimately, his refusal to pay more attention to his injuries may work against him because there is no further proof of the extent of his injuries beyond the initial photographs and the reports from paramedics and his doctor. Clearly, from the shape he was in from those photographs taken the night of the incident, he was nowhere near death, and within minutes of his initial examination, EMTs concurred. Incidentally, the doctor noted that he made the appointment in order to receive a legal clearance for returning to work. He was ready to rock ‘n’ roll. One down, who cares?

We can ask many questions about why Trayvon’s blood was drawn that night for drugs, but not George’s, which is routine in cases like this. We can point to shoddy work by the Sanford Police Department, which is partially true. We know that George was known to SPD as a friend. Did that have any bearing on his treatment by law enforcement that night, on the scene and while in custody? The lead investigator later wrote:

(Edited for content)

[The] investigation reveals that Martin was in fact running generally in the direction of where he was staying as a guest in the neighborhood.

Investigation reveals that on August 3, August 4, and October 6, 2011, and February 2, 2012, George Zimmerman reported suspicious persons, all young Black males, in the Retreat neighborhood to the Sanford Police Department. According to records checks, all of Zimmerman’s suspicious persons calls while residing in the Retreat neighborhood have identified Black males as the subjects.

The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained in his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely if he had identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party’s concern. There is no indication that Trayvon Martin was involved in any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.

Based upon the facts and circumstances outlined in this narrative, I believe there exists probable cause for issuance of a capias [arrest] charging George Michael Zimmerman with Manslaughter, in violation of Ch. 782.07 FS.

This is precisely what I have been saying all along. Had George just acted like the cop he wanted to be instead of a stupid vigilante out to get “those assholes [that] always get away,” Trayvon would not be dead by his hands. For anyone to donate money to his defense is almost as reckless as he is because no one has given this complete tragedy much thought, just like George on that fateful night. 

Why did George carrry his gun that day? Most people with concealed carry permits don’t, other than bounty hunters, private investigators and the like. While not illegal, what did he expect to find at the grocery store or Target he said he was on his way to? Pit bulls?

Ultimately, this will come down to who looks and acts more honest and presentable to the jury. While the defense has George’s injuries and witnesses who haven’t abandoned him yet, not to mention his own personal pit bull, Frank Taaffe, what else do they have? (Personally, I think Taaffe did more harm than good. Always changing George’s account of the events.)

The State, on the other hand, has Trayvon’s girlfriend and it will be very tough to discredit her without looking like a creep. That’s not Mark O’Mara’s style, and he won’t outright call her a liar. They also have Trayvon’s dead body; a kid doing nothing wrong to begin with, and his mourning parents.

This was just so horrible. For the life of me, George must be held accountable for something. So help me dog.

[Note to Laurali — The Arizona iced tea can fell out of Trayvon’s pocket when the paramedics were moving him.]

Sanford Police release Zimmerman timeline

The Orlando Sentinel published a precise timeline of events leading up to Trayvon Martin’s death. Released with the document dump last week, it shows what George Zimmerman doing just prior to the shooting. In less than two minutes from the time Zimmerman ended his call with the dispatcher, Trayvon was shot dead.

1911:12 - Call received from George Zimmerman reporting suspicious person

1913:19 - Zimmerman relays that suspicious person is running from him

1913:36 - Dispatcher asks Zimmerman if he is following suspicious person

1913:36 - Dispatcher advises Zimmerman “Okay; we don’t need you to do that”

1915:23 - Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends

1916:43 - 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help

1917:20 - Shot fired; screams from Zimmerman cease

1917:40 - Officer T. Smith arrives on scene

1919:43 - Officer T. Smith locates and places Zimmerman in custody.

Source: Orlando Sentinel, Rene Stutzman

Blackfields & McWhites, Part 1

“FBI may charge George Zimmerman with hate crime”

That was the heading of an online story published at the WFTV Website on Monday, May 14, 2012. WFTV-Channel 9 is the ABC network affiliate located in Orlando. The opening paragraph was very revealing in the sense of what it failed to do. It revealed nothing new or, for that matter, particularly newsworthy.

SANFORD, Fla. —  WFTV has learned charges against George Zimmerman could be getting more serious.

State prosecutors said Zimmerman, a neighborhood watchman, profiled and stalked 17-year-old Trayvon Martin before killing him, so the FBI is now looking into charging him with a hate crime.

What’s so strange about this kind of journalism is that it fuels the fire. It’s called baiting. While starting the article with a leading statement, WFTV has learned, it offers nothing new beyond what we didn’t already know. What, exactly, did WFTV learn, and what does the word could mean, as in the charges could be getting more serious? THAT’S NOT NEWS! IT’S GUESSING! The article later adds a revelation:

FBI investigators are actively questioning witnesses in the retreat at the Twin Lakes neighborhood, seeking evidence for a possible federal hate crime charge.

Of course they are! That goes without saying. If the FBI is investigating any crime, agents from the bureau routinely interview everyone in sight of the crime. And everywhere else, for that matter. The remainder of the story is nothing more than superfluous fluff, a term I last used early in the Casey Anthony case — long before the trial and, quite possibly, while critiquing another WFTV piece. You see, soon after I began writing about Caylee and her mother, I was reminded of how biased the news could really be. In college in the 1970s, I wrote an article, An unbiased look at news slants that explained how it’s done every day. I’ve republished it over the years (with improvements) and it’s an easy read. It describes how simple it is to write a news story in a manner that subtly offers an opinion.

While attending most of the Casey Anthony hearings beginning in October, 2009, I got a lot of advice from many of the local journalists covering the case. They were familiar with me and my work. It wasn’t just advice, though. There were rumblings going on in O’do, the unofficial slang word for Orlando. Was WFTV on State Attorney Lawson Lamar’s payroll or something? I mean, it took me no time at all to see how blatant it was that the station got the jump on stories coming out of the State, and nothing at all from the defense. It was apparent that WFTV was pro-prosecution, in my opinion, and I was far from alone in my thinking.

In many of the posts I wrote before covering the trial for Orlando magazine, I made my assertions clear about bias. How I know I was far from alone in this regard was because of the feedback I garnered from other journalists covering the case. What’s up with that station? I was asked. 

Here’s the deal. I’m not about ready to accuse a television news organization of unfair reporting. You are smart enough to figure it out yourself; but doesn’t it seem like the WFTV headline about charging George Zimmerman with a hate crime is a bit premature and racially baiting? The article contains no meat or any legs to stand on and it only serves to provoke the Trayvon Martin camp of supporters.

I don’t know. Perhaps May 15 was a slow news day around Orlando. It’s interesting to note that the story broke at 4:47 pm, just in time for the 5:00 o’clock news hour, and only one station reported it. Huh. Do you think it has anything to do with ratings?

(By the way, other news outlets reporting on the WFTV story don’t count.)

George, Trayvon and Other Trials and Tribulations

Lately, I’ve been pondering a few things about George Zimmerman and his victim, Trayvon Martin. When I’ve had the time, of course…

The Age Factor

On his February 26 recorded phone call to a Sanford Police Department dispatcher, George Zimmerman described Trayvon Martin as black and in his late teens after being asked. When he took the stand at his bond hearing, he apologized to Trayvon’s mother and father, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin, and saying that he thought the boy was closer to his own age of 28. That, at best, is a 10-year age discrepancy — a huge difference. What intrigues me the most is that, from a distance, Trayvon looked like a teen; hence the description to the dispatcher. Surely, as the two men approached each other, it should have been even more apparent to Zimmerman that Trayvon was, in fact, a mere teenager, especially moments before the fatal shot was fired. In my opinion, it makes the apology superficial.

Clearly, Trayvon’s age will be a factor during the second-degree murder trial. Why did George contradict his own statement to the dispatcher about the boy’s age while on the stand? How will his defense attorney, Mark O’Mara, explain this faux pas to the jury? This is not an easy math problem to solve with tangents, cosines and mirrors.

Sunset came at 6:23 PM that day. Sixteen minutes later, at 7:09, George called the police. How long had he been tailing the teen in order to decide his approximate age? Certainly, once darkness fell, it should have been more difficult to make any sort of call regarding age, unless enough light was cast from street lamps, but still, it meant a clean enough look to respond to the dispatcher’s query regarding the youth’s age.

What made him tell the dispatcher that Trayvon was in his late teens? Why did he change his tune on the stand?

The Myspace Page From 2005

You can read the page here.

“I love the fact that I can still go back home and crash on my boys couch as if i had never left, I can hit my boy up to handle a lil somethin with my sister and he’s at my house with his boys on bikes before i hang up with her! They do a year and dont ever open thier [sic] mouth to get my ass pinched.”

Is Georgie Boy admitting that his pals do time in jail for him? They never rat him out? What sort of upstanding, law-abiding citizen allows his “friends” to take the blame? A hero?

“Im still free! The ex hoe tried her hardest, but the judge saw through it! Big Mike, reppin the Dverse security makin me look a million bucks, broke her down! Thanks to everyone for checkin up on me! Stay tuned for the A.T.F. charges……”

Ex hoe? How about it ladies?

“I dont miss driving around scared to hit mexicans walkin on the side of the street, soft ass wanna be thugs messin with peoples cars when they aint around (what are you provin, that you can dent a car when no ones watchin) dont make you a man in my book… Workin 96 hours to get a decent pay check, gettin knifes pulled on you by every mexican you run into!”

Does that sound racist? Does it prove anything? Can it be used against him in court?

Here’s what I’m hearing in the hood. Well, it’s not really any kind of hood, mind you. Call it word on the street. Zimmerman was only 21-years-old at the time of this particular Myspace page. What would you expect from a 21-year-old, right? It’s an odd question, though, because Trayvon was only 17 when he died and I’m hearing all sorts of excuses for homeboy Zimmerman acting that way when he was 21, but nothing in favor of Trayvon four years his junior at the time. Why was it OK for Zimmerman to act like a street-punk gangsta at 21, but not OK for Trayvon at 17, if, in fact, he acted that way at all the night he died? You see what I mean? What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, right? Only this time, it cost a boy his life; hardly punishable by one year in jail, served by one of Joe G’s friends, the name Zimmerman went by on his Myspace page.

Here’s something else to consider. According to the Miami Herald Website, another one of Zimmerman’s Myspace pages under the username “datniggytb” was taken down last month. datniggytb? Huh? Why was it swiftly removed? Any ideas, folks? Could this have been factored into the arrest?

Personal Observations

A lot has been said about the donation site and other support pages set up by Zimmerman’s defense attorney. In my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong with it. Yes, public funding will save Florida’s taxpayers a ton of money since he can no longer claim his client is indigent. Yes, it is a bit tacky, but there’s no reason why he or anyone else, for that matter, cannot ask for handouts. Ultimately, it’s up to you (and only you) to decide whether to fill his coffers or not, which leads me to…

Life is full of radicals. They come from the far left and right. On the left, there are those who would be very happy to proclaim that a vote against Barack Obama is racist. I’ve heard it myself. Do I believe it? Is there any truth to it? No way! We are a diverse nation, filled with liberals and conservatives, Republicans, Democrats and independents. When it comes to voting, ethnicity no longer plays a role. We vote for who we please.

There are those who believe that a donation to George Zimmerman’s defense fund is truly racist, too. I wholeheartedly disagree. While some of the money might come from white supremacists and bigots — true racists, indeed, there’s more to it than a simple explanation. For sure, Zimmerman’s going to get funds from the NRA, either by the organization itself or its members, and from gun supporters in general. That’s mostly because of “stand your ground” laws in place in several states. And, of course, the Second Amendment; the right to bear arms. This particular aspect has nothing to do with racism. Because the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case is such a complex issue, I don’t think it’s as black and white (pun intended) as a superficial explanation or excuse. It’s much deeper. It could be either/or, or it could be both/and, if you understand my meaning. We must keep our minds open. Not all of Zimmerman’s supporters are white any more than all of Trayvon’s supporters are black. Besides, Zimmerman describes himself as Hispanic/Latino on his old Myspace page. I look beyond his race and see a cop wannabe who grew up reading way too many comic books. Nothing more.

On a more personal note, I have been noticeably absent from my blog. I am not trying to elicit any sympathy or anything, but my father suffered a stroke. He has been in the hospital all week and I have many important family obligations to attend to. My mind is focused on mostly that, plus other very personal things going on in my life. SnoopySleuth has been doing an exemplary job of maintaining my blog and I appreciate it more than she probably knows. All I can do is thank her for her efforts, and thank you for your continued support. I promise, things will loosen up, but it may take a bit of time. Soldier on!

Mere Oversight?

Several days ago, George Zimmerman’s attorney told the media that his client had nothing to do with any Websites bearing his name. That turned out to be untrue, but at the time, Mark O’Mara didn’t know that. He must have found out soon afterward because one site in particular, TheRealGeorgeZimmerman, did, in fact, belong to George. It was just taken down, but not before Ol’ Georgie Boy amassed a small fortune of $204,000. Oh my. At last week’s bond hearing, O’Mara declared him indigent. I understand that, to someone like Donald Trump, $204,000 is not much money, but to you, me and most people, including George, that’s a nice chunk of change. Granted, this is going to be an expensive run, but still…

My problem is two-fold. Did George keep the Website quiet by not disclosing its ownership until it became a bone of contention? In other words, was he deceitful about the site the moment O’Mara came on board? While that’s an issue, there’s something else that concerns me more; one that may shed light on George Zimmerman’s honesty. On CNN last night, O’Mara said he had no idea about the money at the time of the bond hearing, when he declared his client indigent. While it’s true that we, the public, have no idea how much money was in George’s PayPal account at that precise moment, it’s clear that O’Mara had no idea the account existed, let alone how much money was in it. 

If George was harboring information from his attorney, how much can we believe? In my opinion, he’s already changed his story about the fatal incident on February 26. Now this misrepresentation. He sat in court, sitting on a nest egg, while his attorney argued his indigence. I humbly ask you, can we trust anything that George says? Did George even know he had that money while he sat in court?

Trayvon’s parents’ attorney, Benjamin Crump, wants the bond revoked. I don’t think it will be. What do you think?

The Pyrrhic Victory of George Zimmerman

I try to avoid being controversial, but for those who don’t know me, seldom will I back away from something because it’s too sensitive an issue. Some things just irritate me to the point where I have to write about them.

In April of 2009, I published an article titled, Casey Anthony Must Die! Six months later, the presiding judge, Stan Strickland, called me to the bench to compliment my work for being fair to both sides; the prosecution and defense. Nearly a year after my article appeared, Casey’s defense team filed a motion demanding that the judge step down. They accused me of being pro-prosecution and based it on that post. Therefore, the judge was biased, but there’s no proof the judge had even read it. And had the defense team taken the time to actually read it, they would have known the title had little to do with Ms. Anthony’s demise. In fact, I thought it preposterous that 2,000 years ago, Romans crucified Christians for no other reason than their own pleasure, and here it was, 2,000 years later, that God-fearing Christians, of which there were many, wanted Casey’s head on a silver platter with no trial at all. It was the hypocrisy that riled me. Today, the hair is standing up on the back of my head. Again.

Teenagers are willing to take risks. It’s the nature of the beast. We need look no further than college campuses to see how far they are willing to go to have fun. Even high school kids do things we wouldn’t fathom as adults, but how quickly we forget that we were young once, too. Sometimes, kids break into their parents’ liquor cabinets and drive drunk. Sometimes, they just take risks for the thrill of it, like driving 100 miles-per-hour to find out how well they can take a sharp curve in the road. Who doesn’t think they have a full life ahead of them when they’re 17-years-old? Foolishness comes with the territory, and Trayvon Martin was a boy, not a man.

I have spoken to adults about real-life incidents like the above examples. When a thrill-seeking teenage boy slams his vehicle into an oak tree, killing him and a few of his best friends, I have been told that, while being a terrible shame, those kids, especially the driver, got what they deserved for being so selfish, silly, stupid and sinful. They should spend the rest of eternity in Hell; all based on one fatal mistake made at a time in life when the brain is far from being fully developed. Who cares what they could have grown up to be?

Take Trayvon Martin. He was suspended from school for 10 days for having a plastic baggy in his possession that contained trace amounts of marijuana. Sure, he was wrong, but so are many other people dating back as far as I can remember, and at pushing 60, I can tell you a lot about the Hippie days of my youth. Did he deserve to die because of it? Absolutely not, but you wouldn’t know it by the remarks made by many people on various blogs, forums and other places where venting is allowed regarding the tragedy that took Trayvon’s young life and what led up to it. As a matter of fact, one such person wrote that it was bad parenting that caused the boy’s death. He should have known better than to walk outside in a world filled with hoodlums. In fact, he was one of them. Of course, the fact that Trayvon walked all the way to a 7-Eleven store and back unscathed had no bearing whatsoever on George Zimmerman’s act of holding up the fort of his own gated community, according to that commenter. To serve and to protect. Oh wait… you have to be a cop to say that, and it’s bad enough for Trayvon’s parents right now without laying another guilt trip on them. It was their fault. Imagine that!

Today, this unfortunate event has spurred all sorts of non-violent social and political unrest, although it has calmed since Zimmerman’s arrest. It’s pitted whites against blacks and blacks against whites in something that needn’t be racial at all except for the perception by some that the Sanford Police Department swept it under the rug for that very reason. I don’t know about that, but I can certainly understand why civil rights leaders attached themselves to this case and how it never would have gotten this far had it not been for the dedication of attorney Ben Crump and others who were willing to keep pressing. This is not just about one boy. It is about the fear of every parent of color living in a predominantly white society. Sadly, it’s also split conservative and liberal values and reaved Republicans and Democrats when this should be nothing more than an issue of justice — plain and simple; and justice comes from a courtroom and nowhere else.

Until this plays out in court, we will continue to argue over truths, half-truths and lies. Factual information will become so distorted that we end up knowing nothing. I saw firsthand how convoluted the facts became throughout the Anthony case, from the beginning to the end. People fought like cats and dogs over a family they didn’t even know. Friendships were lost, smear campaigns took hold, and in the end, nothing was gained. Not even a conviction.

Here we are again. Another tragedy and so much at stake. Tell me, will I lose your friendship today? I hope not, and for the sake of argument, I will readdress a timeline I published one week ago. According to Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, and from what investigators told him, George Zimmerman said that he began following the boy and in no time, Trayvon walked over to his truck.

“Why are you following me?” Trayvon asked.

“I’m not following you,” Zimmerman responded after rolling down his window.

Here’s where it falls apart:

7:04 PM:  Trayvon received a phone call from his girlfriend.

7:08 PM:  Trayvon’s phone call with his girlfriend ended.

7:09 PM:  Zimmerman spotted Trayvon while sitting in his truck and called the non-emergency police number. Log records showed the incoming call was received at 7:09:34 PM.

7:10:35 PM: Zimmerman told the dispatcher that Martin was coming toward him.

At no time during this period did Zimmerman say anything to the dispatcher about a verbal exchange between the two, while seated in his truck, nor is there any record of it on the phone call. As a matter of fact, Zimmerman said the boy was running away. This may have had something to do with why a charge was filed. Almost simultaneously, Trayvon was walking toward him and running away, and no verbal exchange took place.

7:11:48 PM: Dispatcher asked Zimmerman which way Martin was running. This is when he exits his truck.

7:12 PM:  Trayvon’s girlfriend called him back.

7:13 PM:  Zimmerman said his truck was parked at a cut-through. 15 seconds later, he lost sight of Trayvon.

It’s very important to note that Zimmerman was in his vehicle until he got out and chased after Trayvon. The dispatcher warned him against doing so upon hearing wind resistance from the cell phone.

7:13:41 PM: Zimmerman ended his call to the dispatcher.

Meanwhile, Trayvon was still on the phone with his girlfriend.

7:15 - 7:16 PM: Trayvon told his girlfriend he thinks he lost the guy. She then heard voices:

Trayvon: Why are you following me?

Zimmerman: What are you doing here?”

Trayvon’s phone cut out at 7:16 (approximate.) His girlfriend said it sounded like the phone was dropped. Who hit who first is a big issue, but it does seem Trayvon got the upper hand.

7:16:11 PM: First of seven 9-1-1 calls came in. A high-pitched male voice is heard screaming for help, and then…

7:16:56 PM: A GUNSHOT IS HEARD.

According to the initial police report, officers Ricardo Ayala and Timothy Smith arrived on the scene at 7:17 PM, seconds after the fatal shot.

When interviewed by the police, Zimmerman was unaware that Martin was on the phone with someone who would offer up a different account. So were the investigators.

What is so sad about this is that people are making up their own facts to suit their versions of events. Of course, the events are mostly based on what we’ve learned from the media and each side’s support group made up of friends and relatives, plus some eye and earwitness accounts. In truth, Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman did not exchange words early on or it would have been recorded. By his own admission to the dispatcher, he reported seeing this boy walking, looking strange and on drugs or something before there was any interaction, and no confrontation while in his truck occurred as he described to the police, if Tracy Martin’s account from investigators rings true.

As far as I’m concerned, all I want is the truth, so help me God. Just give me some truth. Whatever transpired leading up to Trayvon’s death, it had to have happened within the final minute after his cell phone fell silent and that’s all there is to it. One person’s account of events is not adding up.

Aside from a tragic death and the family devastated by it, this will be no picnic for George Zimmerman. For lack of a better way of expressing it in words, he may have won the battle that fateful night of February 26, but the war is far from over. The heavy cost of winning that battle was astronomical, and the horrible consequences now following George are destroying him from within. He will never have a reason to celebrate, even if he beats the second-degree murder charge in court. There will be no sense of achievement, and that, my friends, describes a Pyyrhic victory to a tee. Ad victorem spolias. Just ask the Romans.

I strongly encourage you to read Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries by Daniel Trotta.

Welcome to the Hood

I thought I’d show you around the neighborhood where George Zimmerman will be spending a good part of his time until — or unless — things change. He does have a bond hearing on Friday.

Orange County is run differently than Seminole. In Orange, the sheriff’s office is responsible for maintaining peace at the courthouse, just like in Seminole. In Seminole, the office also maintains the jail. Not so in Orange, which is one of the few counties in Florida that has its own force. The jail is about 5-miles away and defendants must travel to and fro when ordered to appear in court.

The Orange County Courthouse is conveniently located in downtown Orlando, where there’s lots of parking and nearby restaurants — many within walking distance. The Seminole County Courthouse is a mere 4.5 miles from me, straight up US 17-92. The jail is in its backyard, on the same property.

Unfortunately, the courthouse and jail are not within walking distance of any restaurants, and even driving to nearby spots is somewhat of a pain. My guess is that whenever the big show comes to town, meaning the trial, there will be a battery of catering trucks available. If there’s a trial. 

The Seminole County Courthouse is not nearly as large as its sister in Orange county, but it has a somewhat majestic appearance in its simple elegance. It sits alone, in scale, at least, because there are no other tall structures nearby, like in downtown Orlando. Seminole County is very small compared to Orange.

CLICK PHOTOS TO ENLARGE

To the right of the courthouse, Bush Blvd. winds around the back to the jail.

On the other side of boulevard is the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office building.

To the jail…

You can see the back of the courthouse:

This is the visitation center:

The Intake facility. You don’t want to go through those doors…

The back end of the jail:

Hopefully, my 50 cent tour gives you a halfway decent idea of what we will most likely get used to seeing for the time being. I don’t think this case will take three years to run its course like Casey’s arrest and trial, but most importantly, I don’t believe that George Zimmerman will be sitting in jail the whole time like she did, either. Why? The fact remains, he did turn himself in to authorities voluntarily, and he did so before the charges were formally laid out. That should give him a decent chance at bonding out by the end of this week. Since his arrest, the furor has died down and I no longer feel his life is in grave danger. Well, for the most part, anyway, but I guess it will mostly hinge on whether the New Black Panther Party (NBPP) still has a $10,000 bounty on his head. A lot of people could use the extra money these days, and it stretches well beyond the barriers of ethnicity. I sure would hate to see him turn into a martyr.