Home » Uncategorized » May 5, 2013 – GZ Open Thread

May 5, 2013 – GZ Open Thread

GZ Daily Discussion

Anyone wanting to discuss the case, you have come to the right spot. I’d appreciate you sharing information that could help move the case to the goal of acquittal.

Constructive criticism of the legal team is allowed and will be valued. If your feedback is of things that should, could, would help the team to get the acquittal then feel free to share it. If your feedback is to mock, ridicule, vent or post unfounded accusations, please do so somewhere else.

Racist comments will not be tolerated. If you’d like to share something privately, you can email me at nettles@bell.net

Thanks for participating. Let’s do this!


85 thoughts on “May 5, 2013 – GZ Open Thread

  1. Good morning peeps!

    No reply from the defense yet to the DCA. If it was true that they requested clarification on whether to address the Crump motion, it would appear that there was no one at the DCA over the weekend to answer. Should be something available tomorrow I guess.

      • Nettles- I didn’t actually see the petition on the DCA website, but I had read that the defense requested more time for their reply as they were uncertain if they should address the Crump motion. Thank’s for the link. It is always best to get it from the source.

        It appears to me that the court must first answer their question about addressing Crump’s response. It would be an indication if they have accepted Crump as a respondent or not.

    • I just saw this on Fox. I dont have cable, but I am at my parents and saw, first thing that came to my mind, was Geo!! Then catching up here, saw your comment! How do people not realize this? Grrr…

  2. Nettles- With respect to your comment on the May 4 thread, about the judge insisting that GZ say in open court that he was giving up his right to a pre-trial immunity hearing, I agree it was done purposefully to make GZ look bad. On the radio station I listen to, it is ABC that provides the “news” every half hour or so. The day after the hearing ABC kept reporting that George Zimmerman gave up his right to a SYG hearing. It most definitely was meant to sound like he was not standing his ground when he shot TM, and therefore he must be guilty of murder. The radio station broadcasts from Washington DC. It is likely that the ABC news broadcasts are covered around the nation. Are they purposely trying to ramp up the citizenry, just as the media did when they incited nationwide protests because GZ had not been arrested? I can only imagine what the media will do when GZ is acquitted. Back then people were beaten and some were killed in the name of Trayvon. Imagine what an acquittal will do.

    • ” Are they purposely trying to ramp up the citizenry, just as the media did when they incited nationwide protests because GZ had not been arrested?”

      I do not believe that they are trying to ramp up the citizenry by this misguided report.

      I believe that it is just another example of sloppiness in the news media business. Sloppy reporting, sloppy editing, precious little review.

      The reporter filing the initial report may understand the legal nuances, but writes a sloppy report wherein he/she assumes that the reader understands the background.

      That report goes to an editor, who may or may not understand the same, nor understand that wrong inference can be drawn from the report. Is there a deadline? How much time to waste on this? Is the print reporter also doubling by doing an on-cam interview w/ a major network (tied in business wise)? Is that affecting the written product?

      The report may edited due to space considerations. The report goes on to other users, the hourly news update section. It may get cut or rejiggered again.

      There are many steps in the chain where even a good report gets watered down, or comes out with an altered interpretation grafted on to it.

      In the print media, the reporter normally does not write the headlines. A misleading headline can put a different slant on the original report. This gets on the net, and now the interpretation from the slanted headline gets more attention, and may leach into following reports.

      Just a few thoughts.

      • I disagree hooson. Misguided or otherwise, there are many many misguided folks in the radio listening audience who heard a very short and simple broadcast that George Zimmerman gave up his right to a SYG hearing. First of all he did not give up his right to a SYG hearing, he gave up his right to a pre-trial immunity hearing. O’Mara said from the beginning that he would not be seeking a SYG hearing. O’Mara said from the beginning that he would be seeking a self defense case based on the original self defense laws. He said that GZ had no ability to flee the situation which makes SYG moot. SYG says that you don’t have to try to flee before using deadly force. GZ had no ability to flee.

        You seem to be addressing a printed report, with misleading headlines or something. I am talking about a radio broadcast, where it would have been just as easy to call it what it was, a pre-trial immunity hearing. Using the Stand Your Ground language was clearly meant to inflame those that consider SYG laws to be an excuse to shoot or kill someone in cold blood, and then claim self defense. It cannot be missed that the efforts to repeal SYG laws was at the forefront. Scott immediately set up a committee in Fla. to address repealing or revising the Fla. law. Scott gave in to the BGI railroading of GZ from the get go. What is very sad is that if it were a black person that did the shooting, and he/she was invoking SYG immunity, the BGI would be all in favor of the law as it stands.

        I’m sure you are also aware that ABC has not exactly been in favor of accurate and correct journalism in reporting the Martin/Zimmerman incident. From the beginning they have come down on the side of Justice for Trayvon. Isn’t ABC the home of Matt Gutman?

        I respect your right to think and say what you do about the case hooson, but I haven’t chosen to wear the same rose colored glasses, especially with respect to the media. Sensationalism and getting the first word out, accuracry be damed, rules the day, while honesty and truthfulness in journalism doesn’t even fill the bottom of a thimble.

        • You made good points.

          Your criticism of ABC, I echo. I do take a different approach as to how a lot of these stories emanate in the media. We agree as to their ultimate negative effect on the public at large, regardless of how the media product comes into being.

          I am indeed fortunate that eyeglasses come in all shades. 🙂

          • When it comes to complicated legal matters the media usually has problems. This case is no different but with the added issues of the SYG law, it further complicates the issue.

            In this case for over a year the press erroneously has been reporting that the reason GZ was not arrested was the SYG law, even though that is not what the SPD or Wolfinger were saying. These laws that have been called a get out of jail card free card and a license to shoot blacks, among many other things is the cause and the end of this debacle.

            Now weeks before the trial, while everyone is expecting the SYG hearing to see what it is, now find that there won’t be any. There could only be one reason for that, it is reasoned that GZ can not prove his defense, otherwise why not use a law that is designed to keep him away from a trial and set him free.

            I had remarked last year at the CTH for a law that had been in effect for so many years it was used as a defense very sparingly, and it worked only about 2 thirds as a defense. The many editorials about the law and its abuse were erroneous and irresponsible, and now you can see why, the early mischaracterization of the law, lead to wrong conclusions.

            • Bori- From all that I have read about the SYG laws in Fla., the legislature was remiss in defining the how, when and where the law should apply. The Fla. SC has tried to narrowly define certain portions of the law, but it seems that the varying district courts in Fla. have interpreted it differently in many cases. Perhaps it is time for the Fla.legislature to address the vagueness in portions of the law. Then again it seems that Fla. thrives on vagueness and confusion which allows judges to interpret the law in whatever manner they see fit. As you said, the law has been in existence for years, and should have been clarified as to it’s application long ago.

              • You are absolutely correct. SYG sounded good at the time but we can how that did not work out and yes, it has been interpreted differently in different parts of the state. They just recently reviewed it but made no changes. Lawyers lobbied to eliminate the civil immunity portions.

              • To me it seems that the law was meant as an extension of the self-defense, affirmative defense, not as a separate standalone law. IMO that is what has created the differing opinions, whether it is a separate definition on self-defense doctrine or something else entirely, though the language is similar.

              • pinecone (minpin)

                Your right, no doubt that parts of the law need to be more narrowly defined, but SYG will stand in Fla. just as it does in 23 other States.

                Media Outlets employ Attorney’s, the Law could have been explained more clearly to the viewing audiences IF the MEDIA had chosen too, they didn’t. Orlando has countless Analyst that comment locally & Nationally when ask on any part of this case & they too comment on other cases.

                Just as Hornsby explained on BLAWG! BLAWG! BLAWG the differences! He would have been glad at any time to share his knowledge w/any media station so the public has a better understanding, BUT, the MEDIA has to be interested.

                imo, it seems the MEDIA has made minimal effort of doing little more than reporting on the latest hearing. The tension & passion are palpable as reflected in twitter & blogs, on both sides whether TM’s or GZ’s. Orlando could do a lot better than they’ve done but their audiences aren’t demanding it. The case no doubt is polarizing for all the reasons we understand that support GZ, perhaps the MEDIA isn’t interested in “digging deep” as MOM suggested, perhaps MEDIA is too intimated by the BGI, maybe they don’t want boycotts called against their TV Station, ratings are competitive, ratings mean money.

    • SYG has become their agenda. It only shows their stupidity but, hey, it’s working for them or so it appears. None of them care about the correct definitions of law.

    • Nettles, I understand (have understood all along) what SD was saying. I have said from the beginning (before I ever heard of CTH) that GZ was a scapegoat being used for political purposes. I recall asking the question on a previous blog at the very beginning ( before MOM & West), what COLOR is a scapegoat? That was when the media was still saying GZ was “white”, etc etc. People do need to understand the underbelly of the beast but imo, critcizing the defense team before all of the discovey is gathered does not help GZ nor his case. We don’t need to know everything the defense team is doing. I listened closely to Gladys and she was speaking as a mother. She told us we don’t know everything that they are doing. We do not need to know at this point. For everything there is a season and imo, this is just not the “season” for getting involved in the larger issues. that SD is tackling. Lets do everything we can to get George acquitted- and then worry about the corrupt underbelly of the political beast.

      • selfdefenseadvocate – I agree with your comment, no doubt GZ has become a scapegoat. I feel confident MOM/West are doing everything possible for GZ, stevie g shared RZ’s Jr.’s opinion on what the BLOGS that criticized the Defense Team during an interview. I will try to locate the comment/link he shared, but paraphrasing, he said “they don’t know the evidence, they aren’t helping, his family has the utmost confidence in the Defense Team.”

    • I’m not sure of your meaning Nettles but, I read the piece and it appeared to be a defense against what some particular posters said yesterday, including me, on the threads. I consider it to be dishonest to say that BDLR is not sending people to the CTH in order to see the vast amount of criticism about O’Mara. For any that have just connected to the CTH pages for the first time, via BDLR, I can guarantee that many of those will not go back and read the hundreds of pages in the archives when the criticism was properly placed on the Scheme Team and the “persecution.”

      I’ve noted your change at the top in welcoming constructive criticism of the defense team. I believe the defense team had welcomed the same constructive criticism when they got involved in some social media outlets originally. Much of the criticism of O’Mara at the CTH has clearly entered into personal attacks. To cite that someone wears pinky rings, is arrogant, narcissistic, is not looking out for the best interests of GZ and calling the family members “comfortably clueless” “naive” and many other demeaning terms, it no longer is constructive. I’ve said before, and I’ll repeat, it is not the job of GZ’s legal team, trying to win him an acquittal and freedom, to fight the entire nationwide BGI, which is supported from the president on down. It is not the GZ defense team’s job to fight the corruption in the Miami Dade school system. It is not the job of the defense team to follow the marching orders shouted out by the armchair lawyers/investigators who seem to think that their opinions are the only ones of value. It certainly isn’t the position of the defense to feel slapped upside the head because they should have said this or that in court, rather than what they did say.

      • I had no meaning actually. I thought the same thing you do when I read this. It appears to be in defense of the conversations and opinions here yesterday. I could be wrong.

        The assertion of why BDLR keeps saying the name of the blog in open court is a really good example of why I tuned out. He can’t possibly know why BDLR keeps mentioning it. Yet he tells us, as though its a fact.

        What is more likely? BDLR mentions the site b/c he sees it as a risk. Hmmm. Is this how BDLR handles the discovery that is risky to his prosecution of the Defense. Does he talk about it in open court and say here it is everyone. Or has he proven to us he hides things that are risky to his case? What did he do with the information that risked the credibility of his star witness? Bring it into open court right away. Nope, he “forgot” about it.

        To my mind, BDLR mentions the site because it gives him something he wants. As I said, haven’t read there in a while, but judging from what was being said on Diwataman’s blog right after the hearing, I’d bet money that on April 30th, May 1st you can read quite a bit of bashing of Mark O’Mara at CTH. And BDLR knows it too. I can picture him giddy as he watched the blog.

        I 100% agree Minpin, those who went to the site from BDLR’s “referral” are not interested in going to the pages with all the hundreds hours of work.

        The thread did verify what I suspected though. GZ and his team have isolated themselves with the details of the case. I think that’s a good strategy.

        • Bernie was accusing O’Mara (and West) of not doing his own legal work, and instead relying on blog-trolls. CTH is on his radar, I think, because of a months-old claimed ID of Witness 8 by CTH. In order to facilitiate his insult toward O’Mara, Bernardo chose to cite a website by name. If it hadn’t been CTH, it would have been JustOneMinute, Diwatman, or any other that may have been on his radar. Since no other is on his radar, he just grabs the old one, CTH. I don’t think there is any more thought behind his remark than that. He’s throwing baseless insults, and hoping to set his opponent off balance, or to waste time rebutting a nonsense allegation.

          • When he talks about doxing the witnesses on CTH, he brings up W9. That’s the one he wants people to say, who is witness 9? He comes across like he’s protecting her. The internet trolls doxed the poor girl.

            • W9 is Zimmerman’s cousin, the one who accused Zimmerman of molesting her. Either way, whether it’s W8 or W9, CTH just happens to be a pro-Zimmerman site (one of dozens) that for whichever reason (W8 or W9) came to prominence in Bernardo’s brain. I don’t doubt he or an assitant reads CTH, my point was only that it’s my opinion/speculation or whatever you want to call it that the only purpose Bernardo had in mind was to accuse O’Mara of not doing his own homework.

              Funny thing is, even if O’Mara wasn’t doing his own homework, that fact would not be relevant! Evidence and legal argument are presented to court, and Bernardo is best served if he focuses on the evidence and the legal arguments.

              • I agree. It’s telling that BDLR is so focussed on social media. Tells me his case is pretty weak.

                I do know who W9 is and that’s my point. If you are the prosecutor, and two of the witnesses got outed on the blog. One is your star witness (who is wants to protect) and one witness is a star ‘smear’ witness (who he doesn’t care about being outed) that will never be seen in court, which one would you bring up?

                My point is what BDLR does and says is intentional and strategized. He wants people asking who W9 is and this is one way of putting her inadmissible allegations into the public discussion.

          • BLDR is only driving traffic to the site. People can go there, read, and make up their own minds. I bet their views and visitors have increased since his remarks.

        • Nettles: Great blog! I haven’t had a chance to catch up with everything posted here and at Diwataman’s blog for a few weeks, but I was interested in knowing what you thought about O’Mara speaking at the same banquet as Crump, then posing for a photo with his arm around Crump. I apologize if this was already discussed. I plan to catch up soon! Thanks!

          • Hi Cupcake! Welcome!!

            I would have been upset if there was no one there to represent George. It was a media event, AP awards banquet and if Crump got another opportunity to speak to them without the George’s side having his say, I’d have been mad.

            I was watching the event live through twitter as the reporters tweeted information and pictures and one reporter asked the two lawyers to pose for a picture together. They both graciously did that and while I wasn’t too happy to see Mr. O’Mara being friendly with the man I see as ruining the Zimmerman family lives with lies, I thought neither man was in a position to refuse.

            In the picture I thought Mr. O’Mara looked comfortable and confident and I thought Mr. Crump looked awkward. That’s understandable as it’s Mr. O’Mara wanting to get Mr. Crump deposed.

            Overall, I was pleased with the message delivered. Mr. O’Mara encouraged the media to dig deep, there’s a story here. Now will anyone have the courage to do it?

            Here’s a link to a short presser they held before they gave their speeches that night.

    • Great article. I find the CTH to be most informative and if true then GZ’s defense team should be using this info and anything else so readily available on the internet at trial. Only 35 more days until justice trial begins. Justice for GZ and his family. Self-defense NOT murder.

      • Debi Temple – the Defense is made up of attorney’s & investigators not bloggers or their opinions….. or unnamed sources. They are focused on giving GZ the best defense they possibly can, they don’t have time, or imo, care what BLOGS/Bloggers have to say about them.

        It’s TM bloggers that read the negativity about the Defense Team and now RANT the “nutter’s think MOM is nuts.” They continue to point out: “SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE from the CTH, Show me the UNNAMED sources, SHOW me the links.”

        As “selfdefenseadvocate” shared upthread, “Lets do everything we can to get George acquitted- and then worry about the corrupt underbelly of the political beast.”

  3. O’Mara told In Session correspondent Jean Casarez that witnesses for the prosecution and the defense can’t seem to agree. So, he wants to have a hearing to decide if anyone should be able to testify about the voice at all.

  4. pinecone shared @ MAY 5, 2013 AT 2:29 PM

    To cite that someone wears pinky rings, is arrogant, narcissistic, is not looking out for the best interests of GZ and calling the family members “comfortably clueless” “naive” and many other demeaning terms, it no longer is constructive.

    RZ Sr. gave a good response to this criticism by SD, it’s unfortunate RZ Sr. felt the need to clarify things.

  5. Looking for the latest views on whether DedDee had that conversation with Trayvon or not?

    One more little thing:

    DId George say in one of his interviews that Martin had circled his vehicle? I am losing it. I thought I remembeedr that and then read otherwise elsewhere.

  6. Thanks captainlongschlongsilver @ MAY 5, 2013 AT 5:26 PM,

    I have NEVER thought that was TM’s voice in the background calling for help, not because I thought it sounded like GZ or TM. We know TM was astride GZ, we know GZ had documented injuries, and he tried to get TM off him, WHY WOULD TM SCREAM for HELP? TM didn’t stop the beat down when witnesses screamed they were “calling 911,” TM continued the beat down UNTIL GZ shot him.

    Then the question is always ask, then WHY did the screaming stop when TM was shot? DUH! Because TM was no longer a threat, no longer giving a beat down.

    I’d be surprised if BDLR would agree to exclude ANY testimony about the screaming. There isn’t much left of the States case now, Hornsby had said in Jan. that it would be a “wash” on the experts, they would cancel each other out. I can just hear CRUMP screaming to the media, ” they CONTINUE to want to SHUT TM up by denying it’s his voice.”

    WHY did Crump say, “SOMETIMES, we think GZ attacked TM.” Does this mean when having a LUCID MOMENT, they realize TM was the aggressor w/the first punch?

    • If I understood that interview correctly, Mr. O’Mara is saying that both the defense and the States’ experts vary on who was screaming. Some of the defense experts have said it was GZ and some have said it was TM. He said the State has had a similar return.

      So if the experts can’t definitively tell, Mr. O’Mara is going to motion that no experts testify. Let the evidence be presented and allow the jury to decide who was screaming.

      As you rightly point out, common sense leads a person to believe it was likely the injured who screamed for help.


      • I wonder if this suggests that the defense (and state) obtained samples of Trayvon’s voice in order for the experts to do the comparisons. There was a subpoena for samples IIRC.

      • Nettles – the thing I find puzzling is that MOM/West do not have to disclose their experts findings, SO WHY DID THEY? The Defense can hire as many experts as they won’t UNTIL their expert says it’s GZ. The Defense ISN’T bound by the same rules as the State, the Defense does have to PROVIDE the State with their discovery & what they are going to use at trial, BUT, the Defense does not have to provide the State with an opinion that doesn’t support the Defense, they can SHRED IT.

        • Maybe MOM meant the Defenses experts say it’s GZ & the States exerts says it TM, but some experts say they can’t tell.

          • He said they (experts) are all over the board. On his side and the State’s side. There is no good evidence out there to definitively answer the question.

            • This is important because if left up to the jury, out of sympathy alone, Sybrina testimony could tip the balance. I wished MOM had not shared this in public, though, as it does show his defense strategy. I think in hindsight he might have phrased differently.

              • Mrs. Gladys Zimmerman would help level the emotional response to Sybrina. Sybrina has been in the press a lot unanswered by Gladys. In court that won’t be the case.

              • I know we who support GZ feel that way, but someone could argue the Mother has no reason to lie, she wants only justice for her dead son, whereas Ms Gladys is trying to keep hers from going to jail.

                I agree that the testimony should cancel each other, if left to the jury any prejudices and biases will come into play.

                • I still can’t imagine any rational explanation for why Trayvon would be the one screaming. If the jury has any common sense whatsoever they would conclude the injured guy on the bottom was the one screaming. Maybe that’s what MOM is counting on.

            • If I’m the defense attorney, this is exactly why I ~would~ want the debate over who was screaming in the 911 calls to be conducted in front of the jury. The prosecution’s ‘experts’ are going to say it was TM, the defense’s experts are either going to say it was GZ or that a determination simply can’t be made (I’m guessing MOM will go with the latter because that is the honest assessment), some witnesses are going to claim they heard a child screaming, others will say they heard an elderly man screaming… but most importantly, you’re going to have TM’s dad being questioned as to why he originally claimed it wasn’t his son’s voice and then changed his tune after speaking with a personal injury attorney.

              IMO, with no one even being able to agree over the issue of who was being attacked and screaming for help, this one issue alone is enough to create reasonable doubt.

      • Didnt the FBI say there wasnt enough to determine whose voice it was? I would think the FBI would have the most up to date and reliable equipment to prove that. How could experts from each side say who was? LOL JMHO

  7. This is a new comment, not a reply.

    As we get closer to the trial, we will probably all revisit some of the older stuff.

    One is the interviews that George gave to SPD. I remember reading lawyerly discussions and the conclusion I recall from one of the blogs was that., if the defense knows what they are doing, the court will only allow ONE of those interviews to be used at trial because there is no MAJOR difference. Does anyone else recall that?

    Sorry, but I cannot remember exactly where I saw that discussion but I THINK it was at talk left.

    Does anyone else have an opinion or remember any of the discussions?

    This was before the Hannity interview, I think.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s