Once Upon A Time...

Once upon a time, Pudgie the Bear was skipping through the woods when Trigga the Tree Troll stopped him.

“Why are you running in my forest?” Trigga demanded, as one of his giant tree limbs stopped Pudgie dead in his tracks.

“I… I… I have every right to be here,” Pudgie quickly responded. “Why did you stop me?”

“Because these are my trees. You are robbing my forest of flowers, leaves, grass, mushrooms, berries, roots and nuts!”

“No. Not me!!! I like honey!” Pudgie cried, but Trigga wouldn’t relent. The young bear tried to fight his way out, knocking chips of bark all over the place. “I’m going to make compost out of you!”

“No you won’t,” Trigga replied, and just like that, his powerful limb lifted up and came smashing down; knocking the stuffing out of poor Pudgie’s body, sending it flying all over the place. 

§

Attorneys Natalie Jackson, center, Benjamin Crump, center right, and Daryl Parks, far right, representing the family of Trayvon Martin sit stoically as George Zimmerman’s not guilty verdict is read in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla. Saturday, July 13, 2013. Zimmerman was found not guilty in second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel/Pool)

After the verdict came last Saturday night and my journey was over, I was tired. From the very first article I wrote; from the very first hearing I attended to the very end, I put in a lot of hours. One of my friends asked me if I would be alright. How would I handle it now that it’s over? Would I be depressed? No, I answered. This is the life of a writer of true crime and courtroom drama. A climbing crescendo, long and winding, coming to a tumultuous climax and compelling completion is what it’s all about. Cut to the end. If we can’t deal with it, we’re in the wrong business. That’s just the way it is. Death becomes a way of life.

By Sunday morning, most of the civilized world that paid attention to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman trial knew the outcome. All that was left to do was to discuss it, but not me. I needed a break. Throughout, there were multitudes of directions each and every one of us had taken — like a hundred road intersection — converging into a massive mess of a traffic jam. Which one of us had the right of way? I don’t know. I still don’t, although a jury of six women decided for us. Yield! Move on or get run over! I suppose I could write a lot about the verdict, but what’s done is done. To perpetuate the story is, to me, unbearable. I won’t let it dog me. 

The Pavlov’s Dog Affect

From the beginning of the trial — jury selection or voir dire — we were warned by the Court and deputies to turn off all cell phones or set them to vibrate. This included iPads and other tablets and devices. No noises would be tolerated in courtroom 5D. Even Siri became a serious problem. Initially, we were given two strikes — a warning, then an ejection. That changed after the second or third day when (then) Chief Judge Alan A. Dickey changed the rule. It was one of his final orders before leaving his position, which was part of routine circuit rotation. Judge Nelson wanted it to remain two strikes but, instead, it became one, you’re out, although someone in your news organization could replace you; however, if your replacement made a noise, it would be strike two and your outfit would be banished for good — to the media overflow room you go. 

Unfortunately, I heard dings, dongs, boing after beep and ring after cell phone song from the gallery. Out went a few journalists and members of the public, until the rest of us were conditioned to be scared to death. That’s a fact. For the remainder of the trial and days beyond, whenever I heard a digital noise of any kind, no matter where I was, I cringed. If I happened to be in the produce section picking out peppers when a cell phone pinged, I panicked. It was either mine or someone else’s and it meant immediate ejection from the courtroom. I called it PDSD — Post Dramatic Stress Disorder. It took some time, but I finally broke free and now feel safe when my phone barks.

Dog Eat Dog

This wasn’t my first go ‘round in criminal court. I was credentialed during the Casey Anthony trial. When journalists from all over the country and elsewhere began to come together at the courthouse for the Zimmerman trial, it was nice to see familiar faces again. We couldn’t believe it had been two years, but it was. After friendly hellos, hugs and handshakes, it was all business. Of course, there were plenty of new faces, too, from local news stations and major networks, including cable. 

It’s the nature of the business to out-scoop each other, so there’s always a competitive edge. There’s eavesdropping and lots of interruptions while talking to someone involved with the trial, as if their questions for Ben Crump seem more important than the rest. Generally, they’re not, but that’s the way it goes. Don’t get me wrong, most of the media reps are very nice, but there are a few egos that get in the way; more so from producers than from on-air personalities. Like what I discovered during the Anthony case, the more famous the personality, the nicer they seemed, and the more intrigued they were with local news people.

There was an emotional tie inside the courthouse and, most certainly, inside the courtroom. Aside from the actual trial, I mean between journalists. I could clearly sense that, after the strike rule went into effect, plenty of those people sitting on the media side would almost kill to get one more of their own in that opened up seat. They hoped and hoped a cell phone would accidentally go off, although everyone cringed when it did. We all knew it was to be expected. It’s the nature of the beast. Goody! Goody! The problem with me was that there were no replacements. I was the only blogger inside that room with credentials. Some may have resented that fact, but most didn’t. When I was asked who I was with, I proudly said, “Me!” I represented no one but myself.

Throughout jury selection and the trial, that’s the way it was. When the State rested, everyone’s attitude changed. Gone were the vibes that begged for someone’s phone to go off. There was almost a camaraderie among us. The end was near and we all sensed it. Once again, in a matter of days, we would be going our separate ways. Surely, Mark O’Mara and his defense team wouldn’t take long and we knew that, too. How did we know? Because most of us realized the State did not put on a good case. It was a letdown. Is that all there was? They sure didn’t prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, the defense wouldn’t need to put on much of a show. Besides, they had cross-examined the State witnesses very effectively.

With the last few days of trial at hand, what we had waited for and built up to was going to come down. A verdict was nigh and it would be over. Time to say good bye to those who cared enough. Some just packed up and left. They knew we would meet again at the next big one. Surely, there’s always a Jodi Arias out there to cover.

On the final day, last Saturday, I could feel the electricity in the entire courthouse. The building was supercharged. I asked Rene Stutzman, who covered most of the case for the Orlando Sentinel, if she could feel it, too. “Yes,” she responded. “Absolutely.”

I spoke to one of the administrators on a floor not associated with the trial in any way. She also acknowledged that her coworkers felt it, too. It really cut into their levels of concentration. Of course, some of that could have been attributed to protesters, but they didn’t come until the final three days and, even then, it wasn’t that many. No, this was a powerful trial; one that touched the entire area surrounding the courthouse.

As a final aside, I must say that Judge Nelson was one tough judge. No, I’m not going to humor your thoughts on bias, one way or the other. This has nothing to do with that. Comparing her to Judge Belvin Perry, Jr., Perry was a pussycat. He gave us an hour-and-a-half for lunch each day and there were lots of restaurants in downtown Orlando to choose from. Plenty of time to eat, in other words. Nelson, on the other hand, gave the jury an hour each day and if there happened to be any unfinished court business after they were excused, it cut into our lunch time. That meant less than an hour, generally, with NO restaurants nearby. Well, WaWa. Despite it being cold in the courtroom, I couldn’t bring perishables, so I brought MorningStar Grillers Prime or Chipotle Black Bean veggie burgers on a toasted English muffin. No butter. Plain. I heated them in the lunchroom microwave, where I ate almost every day with a handful of other journalists. Sometimes, we’d talk shop as I nibbled on fresh tomatoes and assorted fruit. Today, there are no more daily events to discuss among my peers, but I am sticking with the diet. Plus salad. Those veggie burgers grew on me, especially the Grillers Prime.

And in the end…

After nearly five years of writing about local murders, I hope nothing else like the last two cases comes along again. In the Zimmerman trial, one must understand the residents of Seminole County in order to grasp the verdict. It is a predominantly conservative Republican county made up of a mostly Caucasian population. Gun rights is an important issue. It is not a racist area, although it used to be many, many years ago, but never as much as the surrounding counties. Ultimately, the jury based its decision on the law and how it’s written; not so much on the absolute innocence of Zimmerman, as if he did nothing wrong. In the eyes of the law, Casey Anthony did not murder her daughter, did she? Or was it, more or less, because the prosecution did not prove its case?  

In the Zimmerman/Martin confrontation, it was the ambiguity of the final moments that cemented the verdict. All you need to do is to look at something else in order to figure it out. Take a DUI (DWI) traffic stop, for instance. If you refuse all tests — field sobriety and breathalyzer — and keep your mouth shut in the back seat of the patrol car, there’s hardly any evidence against you other than the arresting officer’s word. The less evidence a prosecutor has, the less chance of a conviction. That’s what happened here. There just wasn’t enough evidence. Without it, the jury could not convict George Zimmerman — not as presented by Bernie de la Rionda and his team. There wasn’t even enough for a manslaughter conviction, was there?

On the night of February 26, 2012, something horrible took place. Was it poor judgement or bad timing, perhaps? Was it both? Had Martin arrived at the Retreat at Twin Lakes only five minutes earlier, Zimmerman would have gone on to Target. Had Zimmerman only left the Retreat five minutes earlier, Martin would have walked safely home to watch the NBA All-Star Game. Who started it and who ended it can and will be argued about for years to come. I formed my own opinion, but I choose to move on now. A verdict has been rendered. Let the rest of the media hound on it. They get richer and richer off the story and I never made a dime. In the end, trust me, Trayvon Martin did not die for naught.

As for me, what does my future hold? I may re-stuff Pudgie the Bear and write fiction. Yup, you know… Once upon a time, we had characters like the Lone Ranger. In those days, good guys always wore white and bad guys never got away.

George Zimmerman is congratulated by his defense team after being found not guilty, on the 25th day of Zimmerman’s trial at the Seminole County Criminal Justice Center, in Sanford, Fla., Saturday, July 13, 2013. (Joe Burbank/Orlando Sentinel/POOL)

Cross-posted on the DAILY KOS

The Court of July

The Gregorian Calendar has been the most widely accepted date-keeping standard since 1582. It means that, in most parts of the globe, July 4 is just another day of the year. In the United States; however, it’s not. It’s our birthday and we love to celebrate. Yankee Doodle. Feather in the hat. Macaroni salad. It’s a time for festivities of all kinds, including some of the most impressive fireworks displays the world has ever seen. We call it Independence Day because it’s the date signed on one of our nation’s most cherished symbols of liberty, the Declaration of Independence from the British Empire in 1776. This is a holiday to eat apple pie. It’s also a great day to munch on a hot dog while taking in an American staple — a good, old fashioned baseball game. How much more patriotic can we get than that… baseball, hot dogs and apple pie? Well, we can celebrate the US Constitution and our system of justice. That’s a good part of what it’s all about. Many of us saw it in action during the Jodi Arias trial, and before that; Casey Anthony. Now, there’s George Zimmerman. Charged in the February 26, 2012 shooting death of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, his second-degree murder trial began began June 24.

Speaking of baseball and Casey, and I’m not referring to the 1888 Ernest Thayer poem, Casey at the Bat, July 5, 2011, was the day Ms. Anthony received her declaration of independence from the justice system. Not guilty. While most Americans have been able to enjoy an extended four-day weekend this year, death took no holiday in Seminole County on July 5. Court was in full session. Ironically, two years later to the date of her verdict, the State of Florida rested its case against Mr. Zimmerman. While some might call this the 7th inning stretch, although the defense did put two people on the stand, Zimmerman’s mother and maternal uncle, I do not. Sadly, I have heard lots of people in the courthouse and elsewhere refer to trials almost like sporting events. Who won this day and that day. Points made in the courtroom are points on a scoreboard. Most certainly, any time a matter of life and death is brought into an equation, it’s not a game. Young Martin is dead. He will never play another game of baseball. Zimmerman might not, either. Nelson’s courtroom is not a stadium and she is not an umpire calling balls and strikes. We are not eating Cracker Jacks in a peanut or popcorn gallery. Did I say Cracker?

What we have is the Constitution in action; the right to a fair trial. Part of our Declaration of Independence guarantees that we are all equal.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

There is no doubt that the United States is still a land of golden opportunity. Everyone has a chance to follow the path to success. We see it in action every day, but in some situations, it’s not really equal; not that it has to be, because we do not live under any sort of Utopian rule. We do not live “where nothing in society will belong to anyone, either as a personal possession or as capital goods, except the things for which the person has immediate use, for either his needs, his pleasures, or his daily work.”

That statement is attributed to French thinker and novelist, Étienne-Gabriel Morelly. Where am I going here? Proof positive of the American system at work. Look at Jose Baez, speaking of the Casey Anthony case. He walked into a gold mine. What was he before she came along? An ambulance chaser? A DUI lawyer? While I am making no derogatory claims about his background, Casey got his name from two women sitting in a holding cell at the Orange County Jail. This is not hearsay. Baez told me. The rest, they say, is history. Mark O’Mara, on the other hand, worked very hard throughout his career as an attorney to get to this point. He earned it through his strong convictions and efforts. Granted, Mark NeJame referred Zimmerman to him after turning him down, but he wouldn’t have done so had he given any thought that O’Mara’s credentials were less than stellar. While some of you may wonder why I bring this comparison up at all, let me remind you that you can read about daily trial events in the newspaper. You can see and hear all about it online, on radio and on television. What I am is a pundit; a purveyor of private opinion made public. It’s my own brand of commentary, and here’s some more of it…

§

A very powerful conservative blog, strongly favoring Zimmerman, splintered over O’Mara. Some believed his intention, all along, was to sabotage his client. Well, look at him now. He has done a splendid job dissecting many State witnesses, neutralizing some while turning others into Defense allies. This is the “mark” of a great attorney in the making, although I knew all along it was in him. He’s a natural orator and thinks fast on his feet. There aren’t too many in the field of law that can pat you on the back while stabbing you in the gut — and — at the same time, keep you smiling. That’s O’Mara. That’s class, no matter what his courtroom adversaries and the public may think. His partner, Don West, on the other hand, is blunt and direct; straightforward to a fault. He is quite effective, too. In my opinion, they complement each other. West goes in for the kill and O’Mara soothes the pain. Or is it the other way around? O’Mara numbs you first. Either way, it’s a talented team.

But has it always been effective? No, it hasn’t. Take the case of Ms. Rachel Jeantel, the State’s reluctant key witness. She was the last person who spoke to Martin before his death, other than Zimmerman. That is a matter of fact that cannot be disputed. The problem lies with her testimony, and what is left in its wake is quite complex. It falls into two vastly different camps; the thems that believe her and the thems that don’t. Granted, she lied under oath on more than one occasion, so why should anyone choose to believe her now?

In order to understand Ms. Jeantel, one must consider her style in the courtroom, not just her substance. Let’s say she will never be a diplomat. Nor will she ever be a United Nations interpreter, although she is multilingual. English is just one language and it’s not her first, obviously. De la Rionda established that she grew up in a Haitian family speaking Creole. From what I’ve learned, she lives in a ghetto section of Miami. She and her friends understand urban-speak. She knows hip hop. She comes from a different world of imperfect grammar and Ebonics, living in a different generation; under separate rules of engagement. Ghetto people of all generations have no respect for the police. If you must ask why they disrespect law enforcement, then you know nothing about inner-city culture. Why then, would anyone, in all seriousness, ask her why she didn’t call 911 after Martin’s phone disconnected? So the police would come banging on her door to interrogate her? We’re not talking about someone with visions of white knights in shining armor, anticipating that “help is on its way.” That is so delusional in her world where whites, let alone knights do nothing for her. Is it any wonder why she was adversarial? Her friend was dead at the hands of what?

What we got was a frightened 19-year-old girl, 18 at the time, who lied about going to the hospital because she didn’t want to see Trayvon laid out dead in his coffin. She lied under oath because she was questioned in front of the boy’s mother. She didn’t want to hurt or offend her. Was it wrong? Yes, but it shouldn’t have discredited all of her testimony. Admittedly, she also lied about her age, but she said she did so because, as a minor, she knew she could deflect the media from herself to her mother, meaning there could be no direct contact.

Where she had me at hello was when she told the Court that Martin called Zimmerman a “creepy ass cracker.” Who would possibly make something like that up to hurt the person she cared so deeply about? Immediately, one would think of anti-racism, like antimatter. Pot? Call the kettle black. Profiler profiling profiler. West jumped on it upon cross-examination.

“Do people that you live around and with call white people creepy ass crackers?”

“Not creepy,” replied Jeantel, “but cracker, yeah.”

“You’re saying that in the culture that you live in — in your community — people there call white people crackers?”

“Yes, Sir.”

This was, in my opinion, an attempt to transfer the racial profiling onus from Zimmerman to Martin. Did it work? The answer is two-fold. No and no. The term Florida cracker came from the cowboys that cracked their whips to herd cattle because they didn’t use lassos. That’s one version. There’s another theory for its usage. Slave foremen in the antebellum South may have used bullwhips to discipline slaves. Hence, they cracked the whip and became known as crackers. Is it really a bad word? Get real.

Without going into fine detail over what Jeantel said on the stand, I believe that the longer West crossed her, the more credible she became. He overdid it. Call it overkill. My father put it best when he later told me, “He made the sale, and then he bought it back.”

Incidentally, my father is quite conservative, but doesn’t support either side. What’s your opinion of Jeantel? 

§

Now, we’re left with several problems. One is that the State has rested. Did it prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? At this point, I would have to say no, but I do feel that the general consensus among media types is that Zimmerman is guilty of something. The man is, by no means, innocent of everything. The State did cast him in a very negative light, but will it be enough to convict? In my mind, he was a creep the night of February 26.

However…

Looking at (1) FLJI 74 MURDER - SECOND DEGREE

3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life.

While some may conclude that Zimmerman was depraved when he followed Martin, it’s not as simple as that.

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:

1. a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and

2. is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and

3. is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

This was the major contention on Friday after the State rested. This was what O’Mara fought vehemently for in his JOA, a Judgement Of Acquittal, argument. What Zimmerman did had nothing to do with ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent. The fight was started by Martin, he maintained. The judge disagreed and said the State had presented enough evidence for the trial to continue. The jury will return on Monday morning. The State will now cross-examine and we will see how they do.

Some people have wondered during court breaks whether this case would have made it to the courtroom had it not been for Civil Rights leaders. Is that true? I don’t know, but were the original powers that be too quick to jump the gun (no pun intended) and take one person’s perspective as the truth; the shooter, of all people? We cannot simply overlook the accounts of every witnesses, and that should have been enough for an arrest then, not 45 days later. Let the legal system sort this out. Ultimately, it’s all the victim’s family wanted out of this — a day in court. For that reason alone, I do not believe there will be riots at the courthouse if Zimmerman is found not guilty.

In my closing argument today, I will say that the State did not prove its case. With the possibility of a jury in doubt and the Defense lurking about, waiting to pounce, a conviction on second-degree murder is a long shot. This defense team is very strong and smart. I mean the entire team. In my opinion, it is O’Mara’s trial to lose, and I doubt he will, although I will not predict whether the six-member panel will contemplate a felony manslaughter conviction. Something really, really went horribly wrong that night. Just remember, this is not a game, the judge is no one’s teammate, and neither is the jury; not even among themselves, yet the verdict must be unanimous. No timeouts for them.

Real Lawyerin' Goin' Down

To say that Don West is less than brilliant would be a mistake. He’s an extremely intelligent defense attorney and is highly regarded in the Central Florida area, but Monday’s opening statement was not one of his best days to plenty of people. I’ll be the first one to admit, Larry the Cable Guy he’s not; so he might be wise to keep his jokes in the office and not bring them into a courtroom setting, but I did understand the message he was sending. No adult with a driver’s license living in Seminole County was ever expected to be free from all knowledge of George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. And he was right. No, the joke didn’t work; however, the point of opening statements is to give the jury a synopsis of the trial each side is about to present. Was West’s opening statement a synopsis? Not in the sense that it’s supposed to be a condensed statement. No, not by any means. Altogether, it lasted around two-and-a-half hours. But was it as bad as all that? I don’t think so. His job was to get the Defense message across, and while there may have been minor lags in some of the juror’s attention, I feel he did do that. He accomplished what he set out to do. Whether the jury absorbed it all remains to be seen, because it was a lot of information, but remember the old saying — you heard it here first! And I think that was the idea. You heard it from him first.

John Guy is a veteran Assistant State Attorney with the Fourth Judicial Circuit. He’s been at it twenty years, and his experience showed up in court during his opening statement just before West’s. He came across like a seasoned professional. Which is exactly what he is. He was clear and concise, and his message got completely across to the ten jurors who sat awestruck over what he had to say. While I did see fidgeting during West’s performance. the jury was glued to Guy. If you saw the jury stare at him once, you saw the jury stare at him the same way twenty minutes later. In other words, they could have been straight from a scene from The Day The Earth Stood Still — totally riveted! The man is in a class by himself.

§

I would describe Tuesday’s action in the courtroom as extremely interesting. There was some incredible lawyerin’ goin’ down in there. I have no desire to go on and on about the day, and I won’t, because you could simply read about it in your newspaper or online. Instead, I will offer one part of the day that really stood out to me, and it’s one that I can explain in a manner you should completely understand.

When State witness Selene Bahadoor took the stand, it pitted one veteran against another in a courtroom drama starring Bernie de la Rionda and Mark O’Mara. Bahador used to reside at 2841 Retreat View Circle inside the Retreat at Twin Lakes community. To get a good picture in your head, think about the “T” where George Zimmerman maintains he was sucker punched and beaten to within an inch of his life. Looking at the “T” from overhead, she lived on the right side, three doors down. That’s on the east side. Trayvon’s body was just west of the sidewalk heading south, virtually outside her back door. 

Why was it so crucial for O’Mara to discredit this witness on his cross examination? Because she told de la Rionda she saw two people flailing their arms and moving from left to right along the sidewalk. On cross examination, O’Mara got her to admit that, in her interviews and depositions, she never mentioned anything about running left to right. All she said was moving. Liar, liar, right?

She also told O’Mara she had no interest in being a media darling, but he told her about the interview she had with Matt Gutman from ABC News. She countered that it never aired. He pressed on. He asked her if she ever “Liked” the Justice for Trayvon Facebook page. She admitted that she had. He asked her if she ever signed a petition titled Prosecute the Killer of Our Son Trayvon Martin at change.org. Yes, she said, she did.

While some people may think all of this adds up to a bad witness, guess again. The State has their list of characters and the Defense has one, too. Robert Zimmerman and the entire Zimmerman family are much more slanted, as are Trayvon’s parents, yet they will be allowed to testify. They are family, you might say. Yes, but they are entitled to their own opinions, and that’s what this comes down to. Opinions do not disqualify you from testifying. When you take that oath, you are expected to tell the truth. Does it mean everyone does? Hell no! But it doesn’t mean you cannot have an opinion. If Trayvon had survived, you’d better bet his opinion of the shooting would be worlds apart from Zimmerman’s. Both would tell their stories and you could decide which version you want to believe, but it won’t matter. The jury is all that counts.

As for running from left to right, why is it so important to O’Mara? Because it would mean that the fighting started farther south; let’s say, closer to Trayvon’s house, and it would mean the fight didn’t start at the “T” intersection after all. Unless the Defendant was running back to his truck from the south side and they caught up there.

But that’s not one of his stories. And on redirect, de la Rionda asked her if any one of the investigators had asked her which direction the movement came from. She said no. As a matter of fact, none of the transcripts made mention of that question. No one asked her. That includes the Defense deposition of Ms. Bahadoor. Mark O’Mara never asked her the direction. Neither did Don West. What was that old saying? You’ll never know if you never ask. Or something like that.

Juries, Fryes and Trials; Oh My!

George Zimmerman and his wife Shellie arrive in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla., Thursday, June 20, 2013. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel/Pool)

§

Who are They?

How many times have we heard the word they when someone makes a statement about an alleged factoid picked up from somewhere — on the nightly news, perhaps? It could be true, it could be false, or it could be a mixed up mess of information that formed at a later date inside the head of the person now telling you about them.

“That’s what they said!”

“Who’s they?” I always respond. Invariably, no one ever knows who they are, but they heard it or read it somewhere. This was an everyday occurrence during the Casey Anthony case and it is the exact same thing here. It’s not all that unusual. After all, isn’t this how rumors start? So and so said… Thus, they are never clearly identified and, therefore, they don’t really exist. Do they? Well, maybe someone said something, but without a name behind the theys of the world, there is no way I would accept any kind of statement without substance.

In order to not accept the theys of this trial, it means we need to tuck them away in our pockets and leave them alone until the end. We need to try to look at this trial as open and fair minded as humanly possible — just like the jury. While this is a tough one to abide by, it’s something we need to remind ourselves of every day for the next month. We need to keep in mind that many of the legal analysts and reporters working for local, network and cable TV companies are, by their very nature, true-life criminal defense attorneys. That means their opinions could very well be skewed in the direction of the Defense.

If you are not aware, Mark O’Mara was hired by WKMG to be one of the legal analysts during the Casey Anthony trial. WKMG is the local CBS affiliate. I must say that Mr. O’Mara impressed me tremendously back then. No, not because of his legal analyses. It’s nothing personal, of course; I was simply too busy in the courtroom and writing for the magazine at night. Because of that, I never saw or heard any TV pundits. What struck me in such a positive way was how extremely polite and professional he was. He went out of his way to greet me by name when we were near each other. That was a truly nice gesture, and I never forgot it.

Individual and Traditional Voir Dire and Jury Selection

At 3:00 pm on Thursday, June 20, 2013, a jury was seated in case 12-CF-1083-A; the State of Florida v. George Zimmerman. One Hispanic woman and five white women. The four alternates are composed of two women and two men; all white. These jurors, carefully selected by the prosecution and defense teams, are not going to witness anything from TV legal analysts or correspondents working the field. Everything these ten people see and hear will come from within the confines of the courtroom. Bernie de la Rionda and his team and Mark O’Mara and his team will be the only theys they will hear. Certainly, their opinions are polar opposites and they all think they are right.

I never took the trip to the Pinellas County Criminal Justice Center in Clearwater to sit in on jury selection for the Casey Anthony trial. I wouldn’t have been able to afford a hotel room for the length of time it took, but I did watch the proceedings on live television. It’s just not the same. As this process was getting underway, several journalists and a handful of attorneys asked me if I had ever experienced jury selection. I said no. You are in for a fantastic experience, Dave, they all said, and they were right. To be able to see it all unfold in the flesh is an amazing thing. You can really sense the interaction between the hard working attorneys and the prospective jurors as they are questioned individually and collectively. During voir dire, the expressions on all of their faces were as diverse as the fields of work they are involved in, including being unemployed and retired. Homemakers. Engineers. Teachers. Book readers. Fifty Shades of Grey? A colorful lot, indeed!

Some of the 100 were dismissed early because of bias or other reasons, including hardships. I was very fastidious in my note taking as they filed in one-by-one for questioning. During the meager one hour lunch break Judge Nelson gave us each day, a couple of us discussed who we expected to make the cut and who wouldn’t. One in particular was E-6. We thought, for sure, that she wouldn’t make the grade, but in the end, she did, despite a vigorous campaign against her by de la Rionda.

While I paid close attention to each person interviewed, something about E-6 intrigued me. To be honest, she reminded me of Angelina Jolie a little. First of all, let me set the record straight by telling you that Jolie has never been my kind of woman and, to be honest, I am happily in love with someone I find to be much more beautiful, so please delete that element from the equation. This is just a descriptor. E-6 sat in the front row, in plain view.

She stated that she hadn’t formulated an opinion when questioned singly during the pre-trial publicity phase. OK, fine. During the general voir dire phase, she was very much involved in the process. That’s what caught my attention; her involvement, animation and posturing. It was during this phase that Judge Nelson made the announcement the jury would be sequestered. I watched this woman suddenly and dramatically change her demeanor. She became somewhat distraught looking, although not depressed. She certainly looked dazed. She stared into nothingness and rocked back and forth slightly. Slowly, she came out of it and eventually, I detected a slight smile. Eventually, she snapped out of it completely and became herself again. This was not an unusual reaction from anyone who’s told they would be locked up for a month. But, while I cannot say for certain, what I gathered from her was this, only in slow motion:

Oh no. Sequestration? No way. I don’t want to be a juror… Away from my two children. Away from my husband. No family life. No friends. No cooking. No fun. No sex. What will I do? This is a real problem. Hmm… What to do… No it’s not. I can see this working. This could turn out fine. I can take advantage of this. It could be my ticket. I can write a book!

While I have no idea what she was really thinking, it’s what it appeared like to me. Here we have an attractive young woman who will look good in the limelight of cameras after the trial. She will definitely have an intriguing story to tell. Yup, that could be it. To be fair, she has every right to do so, and she wouldn’t be the first one to tell a story. I am not criticizing her objectivity, so don’t even go there.

While I studied other possible jurors, I use E-6 to illustrate what really goes on in a courtroom during jury selection. There’s a lot going on, but what about the process itself? How do the jurors get selected in the end? I’m not talking about the Thursday afternoon arguments in front of the judge — meaning the peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. We all heard and watched it on TV. We absorbed it. If not, see it here.

What you couldn’t see were the three rows of forty people.They were seated in each chair for a reason. Similar to a draft lottery, this is the easiest way to explain it. As every summoned person enters the courthouse and sent to the jury room, they are given a new name, like L-01 or S-69. As voir dire progresses and some are eliminated, others move on to the next level. That’s where the forty people come in. They are randomly given seat numbers 1 through 40 and that’s where they sit in the courtroom. Seat number 1 is in the front row and seat number 40 is way in the back. Odds of that person, or anyone in the back row, being chosen are next to nothing because the numbers are called in order, starting with number 1.

Personally, I feel that both sides are content with the jury of women, although de la Rionda tried several times to strike E-6. In the end, the jury will be made up of women because the jury pool happened to turn out that way. The ratio was 2-1 women. I am sure they will be fair and just. 

§

During the traditional phase of voir dire, when those forty people were addressed as a group by Mark O’Mara, I noticed something peculiar. At an earlier hearing, on April 30, something O’Mara may have said must have sparked an idea in my head. I had to search extensively though my notes and comments before I found something I wrote on an article comment posted at the Daily Kos site. What made me think of it, I don’t recall, but this is what I wrote, in part, in that comment dated May 4:

I believe the Defense may argue that Zimmerman felt Trayvon’s cell phone was a weapon; that Zimmerman had no idea what the kid had in his hand. Was it a gun? Of course, that would change the whole scenario and the State could reasonably contend that it shows the gun was drawn earlier, which I feel is a good possibility. Trayvon fought for his life over that gun.

What happened in the courtroom this past Thursday, seven weeks later, set off all sorts of bells and whistles in my mind. I had an Aha! moment, whether it is something that will pan out or not. Watch this part of the video replay starting here. In it, O’Mara brings out a cell phone to illustrate a gun; something he could not bring into the courtroom. Was it a subliminal way of hinting at a dialog that may take place some time into the trial? To me, a cell phone has now been introduced as subtly as possible as a potential firearm. Could Trayvon’s cell phone have been perceived as a handgun? Just a thought, but George Zimmerman’s stories have changed over the course of time. 

Excuse me while I NIST the Skype

To be honest, I was never sold on the State’s expert witnesses. I was rather skeptical because they were originally hired by newspapers. I had a real problem with both experts. In her order, Judge Nelson wrote:

The State’s witness, Mr. Thomas Owen, has been involved in forensic audio work since 1981, He was retained after the shooting by a newspaper to attempt to identify the person(s) screaming in the 911 call.

For the software-reliant analysis, Mr. Owen used software called “Easy Voice,” a software program he markets and in which he has a small financial interest. Easy Voice recommends a sample length of 16 seconds to conduct its analysis. Mr. Owen only isolated seven seconds of screams from the 911 call. The seven second sample was rejected by the Easy Voice software program. To correct this problem, he ran the seven second sample twice (sometimes referred to as “looping”). Based upon conversations with sales representatives for the software manufacturer, he believed looping was an appropriate solution. As part of his technique, he adjusted the pitch of the known spoken voice sample of the Defendant to raise it up to the same pitch as the screams in the 911 tape.

The issues here are very central to the decision made by the judge in rejecting him. Mr. Owen markets the software. He has an express interest in the company. He looped the samples in order for the software to work, and changed the pitch of one of them. The judge further stated:

According to Mr. Owen, he also “cleaned up” the audio of the Defendant’s nonemergency call in an effort to identify a previously unintelligible word. Using audio editing software, he made a determination that the unintelligible word used by the Defendant was “punks.”

No other entity; governmental or from the private sector, was able to ascertain what Zimmerman said. And speaking of what was said, the second expert for the State, Dr. Reich, was full of mondegreens. What’s a mondegreen? Let me put it this way. At the end of the Beatles song, Strawberry Fields Forever, you may think you hear something that ultimately started a huge rumor back in the late 1960s — that Paul McCartney was dead:

“I buried Paul” was actually “cranberry sauce” spoken by John Lennon. It was very faint, but even at a higher volume, it was still easy to mistake what was actually said. 

Back to Reich. According to him, he heard words spoken by the defendant and the victim; disparaging words. No other expert concurred. It was virtually impossible to determine who was saying what on any of the 911 recordings, let alone make out anything else. According to Judge Nelson:

With regard to the identity of the person(s) making the screams, Dr. Reich reached the “tentative” conclusion that almost all of the screams heard in the 911 tape were made by Martin. In reaching his conclusion, Dr. Reich assumed the following: the screams could only have been made by one of two people, either Martin or the Defendant; the screams ended upon the gunshot being fired, leading to an inference that the person screaming had been shot; and the frequency of the screams indicated that the speaker’s vocal tract had not completely developed, leading to a conclusion that the person had not reached adulthood.

In addition to his opinion about the identity of the person screaming, Dr. Reich testified that he was able to hear words on both calls that have not been heard by any other witness. He identified an unusual speech pattern in the Defendant’s nonemergency call and, upon further analysis, claimed to identify several distinct previously unheard words. Similarly, he was able to hear several previously unheard words and statements in the 911 call. Mr. Owen testified that he was able to detect these words by commonly-used digital enhancement and transcription software.

While the judge could have allowed the testimony, I believe she made the right decision regarding State experts. The Defense experts were extremely credible and they debunked the junk. Was this a major blow to the State as some legal analysts contend? Remember, legal analysts are generally criminal defense attorneys and this is the side they will invariably take. Most importantly, keep in mind that the second-degree murder charge was filed long before any newspapers hired these guys and, in the end, the defense won’t be able to prove the screams came from their client, either. While it seems like a Defense victory, no one is the winner. Well… except for the jury that won’t have to put up with testimony that can only be understood by people in the field of spectrographs, human voice identification and biometrics, not to mention the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Oh, these glorious times of emerging nanoelectronics industries and applications in forensic testimony!

The Trial

Assistant state attorney Bernie de la Rionda, left, and lead defense attorney Mark O’Mara leave the courtroom after addresses a series of pre-trial issues with Judge Debra Nelson during George Zimmerman’s trial in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla., Friday, June 21, 2013. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel/Pool)

I expect the trial to be most gripping. While certain aspects of jury selection seemed boring to some, I never quite saw it that way. Sitting in the courtroom offers many advantages. We can see the quirks in every player. We pay attention to everything that surrounds us; the people we sit with on the media side, the public sitting on our right, the families of the Victim and the Defendant, and everyone on the other side of the gallery. There’s no way to feel the atmosphere of the room unless you are present. That’s not to say there’s nothing you can pick up by watching it on TV or on a live Internet feed. No, quite the contrary, but tension is not something that can be conveyed over an electronic conduit. Hopefully, I can do that in my writing — here, on the Daily Kos, and on my Facebook page, where you are more than welcome to friend me. I will update when I can, in my own inibitable way. 

During traditional voir dire, Bernie de la Rionda came across as a preacher — a teacher and a lecturer of sorts; like you’d find at a pulpit or lectern — in front of a congregation or large body of students. While I found him to be quite good, the following day, Mark O’Mara took center stage and he was more like a Sunday School teacher; a country lawyer with a more relaxed style. He changed the entire mood of the courtroom, including the potential jurors, and created a lot more banter between them. In my opinion, O’Mara could influence the jury by his very style, and de la Rionda should take that into great consideration. One fires up the crowd and the other settles them. 

De la Rionda is a man of great conviction. He is deeply religious and can quote scriptures from the Bible like there’s no tomorrow, regarding everything you throw his way. He is one of the best prosecutors in the state of Florida and has a solid team behind him. O’Mara? I don’t know anything about his religious beliefs, but I have known all along that he’s an excellent attorney and as sharp as they come. So is Don West. They are extremely crafty and cunning.

I would make the case that de la Rionda and O’Mara have very little knowledge of each other except for what they’ve learned since their first courtroom battle, soon after Zimmerman was charged. I believe this will be one of those all-time courtroom dramas that will be read about for years to come. I can’t wait until tomorrow. Please join me.

Please see Daily Kos

Voir Dire Straits

George Zimmerman enters the court room on the fifth day of jury selection for his trial in Seminole circuit court in Sanford, Fla., Friday June 14, 2013. Zimmerman has been charged with second-degree murder for the 2012 shooting death of Trayvon Martin. (Gary W. Green/Orlando Sentinel, Pool)

A lot could be said about the first week of jury selection in the George Zimmerman trial, but I will spare you most of the somewhat boring and quite tedious details. I must tell you that it’s an intense study into the human psyche. Some of those interviewed seemed to beg for the chance to sit on the jury; as if to say (quietly) OUT LOUD that there could be a book deal down the road. At least, that’s the perception made by some of my media peers.

There’s also the matter over knowledge of the case. No one in Sanford, let alone all of Central Florida, is expected to be mentally blind to the tragic shooting death of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. To deny knowing anything about it is to be so out of tune with current events, it’s close to incompetency. Or it’s a giant lie — obviously knowing more than one would admit to. Either way, this is the type of pre-trial publicity questioning that should qualify or disqualify a prospective juror. It’s like sifting through the weeds of a garden to get to the root vegetables; like carrots hidden under a lush layer of rich soil, waiting to be plucked and added to the recipe now simmering inside the Seminole County Courthouse.

When making a good stew, one must be very careful about the ingredients added. Too much salt is not good. Neither is too much pepper…. which leads me to a working segue — one of the potential jury prospects — E-7, a white male in his 50s with salt & pepper hair and a goatee. Soon after questioning began, I turned to the person to my left, a woman from ABC network news, and whispered that I recognized him from somewhere; like we had met or something. I couldn’t place him then and still can’t.

Initially, I thought he was quite smart and open. He seemed pretty square and strong in his tenets. I noticed he was a bit adversarial while facing Bernie de la Rionda, but he said he liked playing the role of devil’s advocate. OK, fine, but when Don West questioned him, I began to feel a bit leery and said so in my notations. I wrote that he was a bit cocky and sure of himself. Something about his earnest sincerity began to unravel. Here’s a guy who stated that he watches both FOX and MSNBC. Open minded? At first glance, yes, it appeared that way, yet he paid no attention to either side. That didn’t compute in my head. He was someone, I wrote, who says he knows nothing, but he “knows too much, perhaps. Or a know it all.”

The final thing I wrote was “I don’t think so,” meaning, he will not sit on the jury. 

When he left the courtroom after questioning, I was surprised when the judge called him back to ask about a comment made on Facebook. Did he write it? No need to explain why. Just say yes or no. He admitted to it and I knew right then and there he was doomed. This man, Jerry Patrick Counelis, is a pathetic human being. Sick. Everyone from both sides wants this to be a fair trial. Counelis tried to infiltrate the jury; to force his pro-Martin agenda on everyone else. Had he been selected, it would have been a terrible blow to justice.

Two days later, Counelis returned to the courthouse to express his concern over the lack of anonymity and privacy during the selection process. Huh? He was only happy to be questioned publicly Wednesday after leaving the courthouse. He gladly appeared on local and national television later that day and night and he has concern over WHAT? When I stopped for coffee at my local 7-Eleven on Thursday morning, an employee told me he was interviewed right in the parking only the day before. Because he protested loudly at the courthouse on Friday, kicking and screaming and attempting to get back to the jury room, he was trespassed until the end of the trial. In my opinion, a trespass was not enough. Instead, the man should have been arrested on the spot and held without bond until the end of the trial; then tried in criminal court. On what charges? Whatever could legally be thrown at him. He is the epitome of social immorality. Thankfully, he was caught by someone from the defense side and was stopped dead in his tracks. Imagine the dire consequences…

On Thursday, E-81 took center stage. She was an attractive woman who told de la Rionda that she thought Zimmerman was innocent. One of the first things that caught my mind was a simple statement that came out of her mouth. Trayvon Martin wasn’t beat up like George Zimmerman. He was dressed like a street fighter. Duh… he only had a bullet in his heart.

She made up things as she went along. Zimmerman had blood on his clothing. Down his collar and on shirt. Trayvon was a pot smoker. Guns. Street fighting. Parents weren’t aware he was going down the wrong path. George was just doing his job at neighborhood watch. Drugs made Trayvon aggressive. George was protecting his neighborhood.

She told de la Rionda she wouldn’t be able to erase it from her mind, which was pretty well made up. She told him she was quite educated. I laughed under my breath. Every American has a right to protect themselves. The more armed people; the better. She admitted she wanted to donate money to the Zimmerman defense, but didn’t.

When O’Mara took over the questioning, she mellowed to a good extent. Where she had been more adversarial to de la Rionda, she was amenable to the cordial defense attorney. When prompted, she said she could follow evidence and court instructions. If Martin’s alleged street fighting is “not presented at trial, she would not consider it,” she added. She said she had “no real concerns about leaving opinions out of the equation,” I didn’t believe her one bit and made note of it. 

Baloney! She sways in the breeze, but is fervent in her beliefs. I am convinced of it.

She was summarily dismissed later on.

This leads me to a very interesting and important part of jury selection. How many strikes does each side get? When we broke for lunch that day, someone sitting on the public side addressed the possibility that the defense was forcing the state to use one of their strikes on E-81. After all, she seemed to be more neutral by the time O’Mara was finished questioning her, but was she, and did it really matter? A local legal analyst said that the Defense had the State on the run, but was it true? Or was it merely another opinion formed by a criminal defense attorney turned temporary legal analyst?

In the state of Florida, one of the frequent questions concerns challenges from each side. This is directly from an e-mail sent out from the Court Services Administrator/PIO to all credentialed journalists:

Q. How many challenges does each side have in jury selection?
A. Because this charge is punishable by life in prison, each side will have 10 peremptory challenges and unlimited challenges for cause. Challenges are also commonly referred to as strikes.

Law.com describes peremptory as:

[T]he right of the plaintiff and the defendant in a jury trial to have a juror dismissed before trial without stating a reason. This challenge is distinguished from a “challenge for cause” (reason) based on the potential juror admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties or their attorney, personal knowledge about the facts, or some other basis for believing he/she might not be impartial. The number of peremptory challenges for each side will differ based on state law, the number of parties to a case, and whether it is a civil or criminal trial. The usual phrasing used by lawyers exercising the challenge is “Juror number seven may be excused.”

§

While I’m on a legal roll, let me continue by explaining why there are six jurors on this case:

Florida Statute 913.10 
Number of jurors. — Twelve persons shall constitute a jury to try all capital cases, and six persons shall constitute a jury to try all other criminal cases. History.—s. 191, ch. 19554, 1939; CGL 1940 Supp. 8663(198); s. 87, ch. 70-339. 

The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

In an 1898 ruling, the Court wrote, “a jury comprised of 12 persons, neither more or less” was a requirement. If that’s the law of the land, then what happened? Why six? In Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970), the Court reconsidered the size of a jury and affirmed the criminal robbery conviction made by six people. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment says nothing about jury size. From hence on, it rejected the earlier decision and held that six was sufficient to satisfy the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, which, in part, states that:

[…] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

In 1979, the Court again visited the issue of jury size and unanimity. In Burch v. Louisiana, 441 U.S. 130 (1979), they found that Louisiana law which allowed criminal convictions on 5-1 votes by a six-person jury had violated the Sixth Amendment (along with the Fourteenth Amendment) right of defendants to a trial by jury. In a state criminal trial:

We thus have held that the Constitution permits juries of less than 12 members, but that it requires at least 6.  And we have approved the use of certain nonunanimous verdicts in cases involving 12-person juries… This case lies at the intersection of our decisions concerning jury size and unanimity… But having already departed from the strictly historical requirements of jury trial, it is inevitable that lines must be drawn somewhere if the substance of the jury trial right is to be preserved.

In other words, if a jury is to be as small as six, the verdict must be unanimous. Therefore, in Zimmerman’s case, a guilty verdict can only be rendered unanimously or not a all.

§

I will have more to write about this case as the trial progresses. This coming week should prove to be much more exciting than the first one, although I do find the whole thing to be quite fascinating and educational.

There are questions I am asked during this tedious process I sometimes have trouble answering. One, for example, is about George Zimmerman. What does he look like in court? What are his expressions? I can tell you this. I sit behind the Defense. All journalists do. I cannot see George’s face unless he turns sideways. I occasionally put the live feed on one of my iPads, but it’s a battery drainer; however, I do have my spy, code name Pea Pod, who keeps me informed while I stare at the back of Zimmerman’s head. For those of you who cannot watch the trial, he is more animated now than he was during the hearings. He must be! Potential jurors are watching. He is taking notes and smiling. He is paying close attention to details. This is very normal. Jodi Arias was transformed into a librarian by her attorneys. During the Casey Anthony trial, her seat was adjusted to its lowest elevation so she would appear to be too tiny to have murdered her child. Poor, poor, Casey; sitting next to Cheney Mason, who was much, much larger. He put his arms around her to comfort her; squeezing her shoulder. He patted her hands as they rested on the table. Pity, pity, pity party.

In Zimmerman’s case, he pretty much has to fend for himself, whether you like him or not. He weighs over 100 lbs more than the day he shot Trayvon. The jury must be made aware of that. While he most certainly will never be a demure librarian, he will never be a cop or judge, either — something he aspired to be — no matter what the verdict.

And Trayvon? Whatever some of you may think, he was not a 6’3” monster weighing over 180 lbs, and the jury isn’t going to hear that he was.

See also: Daily Kos

The Prince and the Pea: Subjective or Objective Fear in the Petitioner?

In his ORDER SETTING BAIL on July 5, 2012, Judge Kenneth Lester made several stipulations clear about what attorney Mark O’Mara’s client, George Zimmerman, could and could not do. For instance, he would be able to travel anywhere he wants as long as it’s within the boundaries of Seminole County. If he finds it necessary to leave the county, all he has to do is pass it by the court for authorization. It’s a rather plain and simple directive and something a five-year-old should be able to comprehend.

However…

In his MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE dated August 22, 2012, Mr. Zimmerman, through his attorneys, cited two issues pertaining to matters addressed in the judge’s above order. Call them problematic. The Court, for instance, must realize by now, due to the great amount of national and international publicity, not to mention notoriety and animosity, that Zimmerman “and his entire extended family have had to live in hiding, fearing for their own safety.” Therefore, he should be able to move out of the county, too.

I disagree with Mr. O’Mara’s choice of words. He exaggerates. How? In many ways, but for now, here’s a ‘for instance.’ It’s one thing to complain about the woes that have befallen his client, but his client and only his client was responsible for the big mess he’s in — not his family. Daddy did not hold his hand the night he pulled the trigger. Therefore, why bother bringing up any issue over his family’s fears for their own safety? It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that there is nothing stopping them from moving out of the area any time they please. There are no restrictions on them whatsoever, and to suggest in that motion, albeit indirectly, that the Court was somehow responsible for this problem is, well, not showing a clear sense of responsibility. There is no way the Court can magically order the public to leave the Zimmerman family alone.

This is George’s unfavorably conducive style; his M.O. These are his edicts, sua sponte, not necessarily those of his attorneys. While his motions are filled with innuendos that tend to absorb what little substance they hold, it’s when he opens his mouth that we see him for what he is.

Full of Zimmermanure.

He not only speaks with a forked tongue, he also twists his tongue when he speaks. A good example of this came during his Hannity interview on FOX News. When asked if he would have done anything any differently, given ample opportunity to think about it now, he said he really hadn’t had the time to think about it, but after thinking about it, he wouldn’t have changed a thing. He regretted nothing and it was God’s plan. He had nothing to feel sorry about. Did that make sense? Wait. It gets worse.

Later in the broadcast, he turned and faced the camera, and in his best “My fellow Americans…” presidential-style address, he apologized to the nation, his wife, and everyone involved in the case, including Trayvon Martin’s parents. In my opinion, it was, at best, sickeningly insincere. Incidentally, a truly biased judge would have called him on the carpet for addressing Trayvon’s parents because, in his order, Judge Lester wrote:

“The Defendant shall not have any contact with the victim’s family, directly or indirectly, except as necessary to conduct pretrial discovery through his attorneys[.]”

Redundancy

My complaint, while being about the Petitioner, also includes his attorney and how he’s handling the case; his motions, in particular. In this very same Motion To Modify Conditions Of Release, O’Mara wrote:

“One of the conditions of release is that Mr. Zimmerman is not to leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this court.”

Right, Mr. Knechel, you already said that. Well, yes I did, but so did the judge and Defense, and just to clarify, this is a two-part motion. The second part addressed traveling outside the county, not moving out. The judge’s order covered it and the defendant acknowledged it, so what was the point of this final statement in Zimmerman’s latest motion?

“The restriction of Mr. Zimmerman not to leave Seminole County has had a deleterious effect on his ability to assist in the preparation of his own defense. Communications have been unnecessarily limited to telephone and occasional visits by counsel. Mr. Zimmerman must be able to travel to meet with his lawyers, and to attend to various other necessary matters to prepare this matter to move forward.”

Hmm… deleterious… injurious to health; pernicious, hurtful, destructive and noxious according to dictionary.com. My, what $5.00 words he uses that won’t impress any sitting judge let alone little old me. While I realize the motion also asked that Zimmerman be allowed to move outside of Seminole County, a request the Court denied, the rest of it is redundant. Here, verbatim, is what the judge wrote in his July 5 order:

“The Defendant shall not leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this Court[.]”

How much clearer can one get? All the defense had to do was ask. Why was it necessary to dedicate the brunt of this motion on something that was already covered a month-and-a-half earlier? And if O’Mara were really fearful of Zimmerman’s safety while residing somewhere in the entire county of Seminole, how much safer should he feel while his client is sitting in his office in downtown Orlando? Talk about deleterious! I’m serious.

Here’s the way I see George Zimmerman. When he doesn’t get what he wants, he whines and cries. He feels boxed in and claustrophobic. He gets restless and can’t sleep at night. His mattress turns lumpy. You see, George is starting to remind me of The Princess and the Pea with one major difference. He cannot get a comfortable night’s sleep until all his demands are met. The pea, in this case, is Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. who must be removed and replaced by a fairy tale friendly judge so Prince George, his friends, his family and his fellow American loyalists will be allowed to live happily ever after.

Fearing Fear Itself

In Nit-Picking Nit-Writ, I addressed the PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION filed by the Zimmerman defense. I pointed out how O’Mara had offered evidence about the shooting on the night of February 26 and why it was not only unnecessary, it was useless. A writ of prohibition, in this case, only pertains to why the trial judge should be recused. It’s not for anything else. What O’Mara did was inflate a very weak document with superfluous fluff, like adding TVP to a package of fatty, grisly hamburger meat, and I don’t feel the appeal court is going to buy any of it. 

I do believe that Assistant Attorney General Pamela Koller offered up a much meatier argument against the Defense appeal. I will elaborate on that a bit and address the finer points of the State’s RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION. In particular, I want to look into the two types of fear that the district court will examine — objective and subjective.

In 2005, I wrote a post about how slants change your views of the news. Titled, An unbiased look at news slants, I last updated it in February of 2010. I think it should give you a foundation on objectivity and subjectivity.

Objective information strives to remain unbiased. Dictionaries and other materials of reference, such as encyclopedias, generally provide factual information. Traffic lights are red, green and yellow. Yellow means caution, green means to go and red means to stop.

Subjective information is formed by personal opinion. Editorial sections in newspapers are subjective. While editorials and letters to the editor can be based on fact, opinions are usually based on personal interpretations of facts. Humans are responsible for global warming. Global warming is caused by natural earth cycles, such as the Ice Age. In these cases, separate and valid viewpoints can be substantiated by citing legitimate sources.

We know that George and Shellie Zimmerman lied to the Court about access to money and a second passport they claimed they didn’t have. The judge acknowledged that in his order revoking bond and Team Zimmerman then proceeded to call it biased, including the judge’s reprimand. (It’s interesting to note that the defendant still managed to post bail despite the Court setting it much higher than what was originally granted.) The fact that bail was granted at all after the second request could be considered a testament to the judge’s fairness. 

The Judge’s Order Setting Bail infuriated the Defendant and his counsel. How dare the Court look at his lies at all, let alone “judge” his actions and lack of respect for the court. To do so was nothing short of biased, they claimed, so they filed their writ of prohibition with the higher court. The bottom line now is how the Fifth District Court of Appeal will look at this motion — as an objective or subjective complaint — and rule accordingly, based on objectivity. Does Zimmerman have a leg to stand on? Is his distress based on a paranoid fear of persecution in general (subjective) or has this judge exhibited (objective) behavior in the past that truly legitimizes his concerns?

Let’s look at this objectively. In its response to the writ, the State wrote:

Petitioner complains about rulings in the past in his background section, but it is well established that “[t]he fact that the judge has made adverse rulings in the past against the defendant, or that the judge has previously heard the evidence, or ‘allegations that the trial judge had formed a fixed opinion of the defendant’s guilt, even where it is alleged that the judge discussed his opinion with others,’ are generally considered legally insufficient reasons to warrant the judge’s disqualification.” Rivera, 717 So. 2d at 481 (quoting Jackson v. State, 599 So. 2d at 107; see also Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So. 2d 494, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (It is well established that a trial court’s prior adverse rulings are not legally sufficient grounds upon which to base a motion to disqualify).

In other words, this is not merely a complaint about Lester’s language in the bail order, it’s also about his prior rulings in Zimmerman’s pretrial motions. This is something that should be taken up post-conviction, if necessary, not now, and it epitomizes my description of superfluous fluff; not worth the paper it’s printed on. What the defense wants to do is set a silly precedent; that every single defense motion denial is biased. This would then have to include every case that has ever come before a court. Overturn every verdict because motions were denied! All in the name of George! Clearly, this is subjective thinking. “I think,” O’Mara could opine, “every motion that was turned down was done so by judicial bias.”

Of course, it’s every defense attorney’s dream, but most are smart enough to know it’s nothing more than a whimsical flight of fancy. Cheney Mason tried the same thing during the Anthony case and got nowhere.

The State cited Rolle ex rel. Dabrio v. Birken, 984 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008):

Likewise, we recently pointed out that a “mere ‘subjective fear’ of bias will not be legally sufficient, rather, the fear must be objectively reasonable.” Arbelaez v. State, 898 So. 2d 25, 41 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240, 242 (Fla. 1986)). We do not find Mansfield’s allegations of fear to be objectively reasonable. See also Asay v. State, 769 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2000). Our cases support the trial court’s denial of the motion to disqualify, and we affirm the trial judge’s order. 

Notwithstanding, Lester had every right to keep Zimmerman behind bars because the State went on to say that:

The judge again set a bond for Petitioner, and Petitioner is currently out on bond. Thus, the grounds listed by Petitioner in his motion are facially insufficient.

… and that the Petitioner is manipulating the system. From Cf. Brown, 561 So. 2d at 257 n. 7:

(“We hasten to add that our holding should not be construed to mean that a judge is subject to disqualification…simply because of making an earlier ruling in the course of a proceeding which had the effect of rejecting the testimony of the moving party. At the very least…there must be a clear implication that the judge will not believe the complaining party’s testimony in the future.”).

While the assistant attorney general cited many examples of why this particular writ of prohibition is without merit, it is, by its very nature, nearly as subjective as the writ itself. Both sides came to their respective conclusions based on their own interpretations of case law. As the appellate court looks at this issue with complete objectivity, it should see that Judge Lester has not been prejudiced against George Zimmerman — and most assuredly, not personally. In my opinion, based on what the Defense and State both submitted, the original motion to disqualify the trial judge in this case was legally insufficient. Judge Lester made the right choice, and so will the appellate judges,  C. Alan Lawson, Jay P. Cohen and Kerry I. Evander.

Poor Prince George is not just afraid of a li’l old pea, he’s also afraid of his shadow. Oh, and don’t even get me started on (d)(1) and (d)(2). That’s a whole “nother” bedtime story.

Cross posted at the Daily Kos

Statement in Response to Zimmerman’s Motion For Stand Your Ground Hearing

FROM TRAYVON’S PARENTS AND THEIR DEFENSE TEAM:

Let it be clear on the record, that we feel confident that the unjustified killing of Trayvon Benjamin Martin should and will be decided by a jury.   Many of the legal architects of the Stand Your Ground law have already opined that it does not apply in this case.  A grown man cannot profile and pursue an unarmed child, shoot him in the heart, and then claim stand your ground.  We believe that the killer’s motion will be denied during the Stand Your Ground Hearing, and as justice requires a jury will ultimately decide the fate of a man that killed an innocent child. 

There is only one version of this story that represents that Zimmerman was attacked by Trayvon Martin, and that’s Zimmerman’s self-serving version.  Everyone will agree that the killer’s credibility is clearly questionable.

Trayvon’s parents do not feel that this is a man that feared for his life the night he shot and killed their child, this is a man whose only fear is spending his life in prison.

The "Gratest" Show on Earth

I’m in the middle of researching the obvious — whether or not it’s feasible for the Zimmerman camp to file a motion to appeal Judge Lester’s order yesterday, to not recuse himself. I will look deeply into the logistics of such a move, but in the meantime, I want to give my old (and original) blog a shameless plug. Please take a peek. Meanwhile, isn’t this case starting to grate on your nerves?

FROM THE GALLERY…

Who would ever do such a thing?

Lester: No Judge to Rush

I could be wrong, but I do think it’s rather revealing that Judge Lester has taken his good old-time deciding whether or not he’ll step down from the bench. Granted, he’s been on vacation, but Zimmerman’s recusal motion was filed on July 13, well over two weeks ago, and as far as I’m concerned, the accused hasn’t had enough time to get nervous yet. He still thinks he’s the boss. Now, if I were in charge, I’d make him wait the full 30 days that’s allowed under the law before rendering a decision. Really rattle him. Then, I’d drop the bomb — that the judge has decided to remain on the case.

I’m not saying this because I expect Lester to be personally biased against the defendant. No, that’s hardly the reason. I just don’t think it’s right that George should get his way this time, like he’s been used to most of his life. Throw a tantrum. After all, he’s the one who lied to the court by ordering his wife to hide the truth. That means that he’s responsible for his wife facing a perjury charge. Now, he blames the court for it.

Even his attorney, Mark O’Mara, said his client lost his credibility. Soon after Zimmerman’s bond was revoked, he told Charlie Rose on CBS This Morning, “Judge Lester gave us all a very strong signal that he and he alone will run the courtroom and that everyone is going to tell the truth. So I’m certain that not only the Zimmerman family but all other witnesses that come before Judge Lester had better tell the truth and nothing but the truth if they’re going to be treated fairly.”

He readily accepted the judge’s fairness. Treat me right, I’ll treat you right.

According to a USA Today report, O’Mara said, “He [Zimmerman] should have jumped up and said she is lying. He should have done something, and he didn’t.”

I could go on and on with remarks made by Zimmerman’s own defense, but the fact remains, he lied and that’s all there is to it. O’Mara acknowledged that it would take a lot of work to regain the judge’s trust, and he admitted it was a huge mistake. He expected the judge to have a strong opinion. Rightfully so! This is nothing new, and it leads me to believe that, had the more prudent O’Mara prevailed, he would have worked out the messy kinks because he knows how much the judge and most in the legal field admire his honesty and professionalism. I believe the motion to recuse was Zimmerman’s idea, and his alone; just like taking command of his Website again. Not to mention his parents’.

Here’s the deal, in my opinion. Judge Kenneth Lester will “Stand His Ground” and remain seated. Why? Because Florida and federal law is on his side, and I don’t think he will relinquish anything to a punk, whether it’s “appealing” or not. He doesn’t strike me as a quitter.

According to The Law of Judicial Disqualification or Recusal, Florida Rules of Disqualification: Rule 2.330. Disqualification of Trial Judges, Zimmerman’s defense cites:

(d) Grounds. — A motion to disqualify shall show:

(1) that the party fears that he or she will not receive a fair trial or hearing because of specifically described prejudice or bias of the judge; or

(2) that the judge before whom the case is pending, or some person related to said judge by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, is a party thereto or is interested in the result thereof, or that said judge is related to an attorney or counselor of record in the cause by consanguinity or affinity within the third degree, or that said judge is a material witness for or against one of the parties to the cause.

I can clearly understand the first motion to recuse against Judge Reckseidler based on (d)(2), but will the motion against Lester stand on the merits of (d)(1)? On his motion against Lester, Zimmerman added:

(f) Determination — Successive Motions. — The judge against whom an initial motion to disqualify under subdivision (d)(1) is directed shall determine only the legal sufficiency of the motion and shall not pass on the truth of the facts alleged. If the motion is legally sufficient, the judge shall immediately enter an order granting disqualification and proceed no further in the action. If any motion is legally insufficient, an order denying the motion shall immediately be entered. No other reason for denial shall be stated, and an order of denial shall not take issue with the motion.

This means if the judge denies the defense request, no explanation is to be given. A simple “NO” will suffice. End of story. Time to move on.

As I wrote in my first article, Why Judge Lester Will Refuse to Recuse, a defendant cannot simply lie to a judge and get away with it. If a judge cannot respond without showing any kind of opinion regarding said lie, what’s the court to do? Evidence proved Zimmerman lied and the judge responded with disdain. Lying in court is against the law, and if all a person has to do is lie to the judge to get him/her recused for voicing concern, it would be anarchy in the courtroom. This would mean that every time a judge cries, “May God have mercy on your soul” after a death sentence is pronounced, the defendant should get the case thrown out of court. Not guilty on a technicality. The judge voiced his opinion on the verdict and a personal belief in religion. Separation of church and state!

Now, we come to a matter of law. Let’s quickly examine Section 455 of Title 28 of the United States Code, Disqualification of Justice, Judge, or Magistrate Judge. The most important part of this section is that in order to warrant a recusal, the judge’s expressions of opinion about the merits of the case must have originated outside the case.

Held: Required recusal under §455(a) is subject to the limitation that has come to be known as the “extrajudicial source” doctrine [or factor]. Pp. 3-16.

The general rule is that a judge should be disqualified “where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding…” This pertains to a prior opinion, and that would mean Judge Lester would have to have had an interest in the case before it was assigned to him. Surely he heard about it in the news? That’s not relevant. (See: Liteky v. United States (92-6921), 510 U.S. 540 (1994).) Under Liteky, the judge is expected to form opinions based on what is presented during the proceedings, not before. Remember that a judge formulates an order based on case law, and each side presents its own case law examples. Such is the situation regarding this recusal motion and the state’s very own response.

If we go back to the Casey Anthony v. State of Florida case, we saw multitudes of examples where Judge Perry admonished Jose Baez. If ever there was a situation that appeared to be biased and prejudiced, that was the one. Had Ms. Anthony been convicted, would it have been overturned on appeal based on the less than cordial interaction between Perry and Baez? I seriously doubt it, and do you want to know why? Because, in the end, the defendant was found not guilty of murder. The End. If the judge showed any bias or prejudice toward the defendant or any of her attorneys, the jury failed to notice. Why? Because the system worked and it will work again.

Judge Lester is tenacious. He has no reason to relinquish the bench. He saw right through George Zimmerman from Day 1 and he will see him right through to the end. That’s my judgement. That’s my opinion.

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.

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

George's Reenactment and other links

Some rather interesting information was published today. Until I can decipher it all, please add your links and discuss the day’s events here. I’m trying to make sense of it. We all are.

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.

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!

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.