Home » Uncategorized » May 7th – Open Thread

May 7th – Open Thread

George InjuriesAnyone wanting to discuss the George Zimmerman 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.  Together, let’s stop the railroading of this citizen’s rights.


95 thoughts on “May 7th – Open Thread

  1. Nettles, the Blog just keeps getting better & better. Great use of pictures, space and information. (The commentors on here ain’t bad either!) 🙂

    • Thank you! The commentators here are wonderful!

      Just so you know, if you click on the picture of the brothers, you will link to the defense site. If you click on the picture about ethics you will link to the court’s link site.
      Keep that handy, in case you need to find them fast.

  2. If I understood Mr. West right, he told us that Francine helped W8 with her March 19th “letter” and that she “escorted” W8 to the August 2012 meeting with BDLR.

    Why did Francine go with W8 to Jacksonville and who paid for the trip? BDLR said he hadn’t seen the letter before, but he must have known about it or why else bring Francine to Jacksonville too. Understatement of the world, but something is afoot.

    • We don’t know why Francine went to Jacksonville with W8, but the state paid for her expenses. My speculation is that Francine is a sort of “minder” for W8, because without a “minder,” W8 is reluctant to appear or answer questions. Francine may also be an “enforcer” of sorts, whereby being present induces W8 to tell a certain version. Of course, that is speculation too.

      MJW points out that de la Rionda never said he hadn’t seen the letter (or known of it) before Sybrina produced it during her deposition. De la Rionda’s questions to West were all about whether or not West had any evidence that the state knew of the letter before Sybrina produced it during her deposition. West said he didn’t know when the state became aware of it, and further, that when he asked the state to disclose when it became aware of the written statement, the state refused to answer.

      In a nutshell, what I see happening is that the state has erected a facade comprised of lies, and is requiring the defendant to disprove the lies.

      • The way the state is refusing to provide the defense with any address or contact info for Wit 8, is requiring them to schedule their depositions of this witness through the SA’s office, and is escorting her to and from the depositions and interviews… it’s crossed my mind that she might currently be in jail. Wouldn’t that be a hoot 🙂

        • In the FDLE reports, in talking about W8 being “escorted” to the April 2nd interview, in redacting her address, it says she lived in the ???????????? of Broward County.

          That was where they found her at the 2nd address. At the first address, they didn’t find her.

    • Was Detective Osteen at the August 2012 interview with BdlR? The testimony of Detective Gilbreath mentions Osteen directly interviewing Witness 8, but I’m either losing track of data or this is something I’ve yet to unearth. Help, please…

    • If Zimmerman is found guilty, it means that the state has proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, the elements of whatever crime he is convicted of (I doubt it would be murder 2), and that the state has disproved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman acted in self defense. In that posture, no criminal judge is going to find it more likely than not that Zimmerman acted in self defense, and I doubt a civil court judge would either.

      The calculus is entirely different if a motion for immunity is made before the jury is charged with hearing the case (although O’Mara said, in a press conference right after the April 30 hearing, that Zimmerman does NOT want a judge to decide, he want a jury to decide), or if a jury hangs, or if a jury acquits. I wouldn’t give Nelson a chance at granting immunity, if the jury acquits. Not sure what I do if the outcome is hung jury.

      Assuming acquittal, I’d reserve motion for immunity for the civil court judge, and I would be tempted to rack up some costs for Crump to pay when the court grants immunity.

      • I thought it was interesting in the lawyers.com blog to read that the decision to forego pretrial immunity hearing was made BEFORE the judge ruled on the Motion to Continue. So the lack of time was not the driving factor after all.

        I feel somewhat comforted by this. It has upset me that GZ couldn’t avail himself of that hearing because the Judge wouldn’t give him enough time. Now I learn, the strategy had been decided prior to her ruling on it.

        • I read O’Mara’s remarks differently, in that the judicially imposed squeeze for time was a factor in the decision to forego a pretrial immunity motion and hearing. IOW, defense initially planned an immunity hearing in order to avoid trial, but a combination of other strategic factors (unnamed, but they all point to some form of corruption of the legal process and decision making) plus being squeezed for time by denial of the motion to continue cemented the decision to skip filing the motion required in order to obtain the only pretrial slot Nelson would give – two weeks in April.

          If the judge is as much of a skunk as I think she is, Zimmerman just has the tough luck of the draw, and, even though it stinks because it takes that much longer to resolve the charge against him. He’s better off with a jury.

        • Yet we heard it both ways . I was also pissed that time was involved in the decision., Even among ourselves, the “facts” are sometimes elusive.. Do you agree with that ?

          Thankfully, we are not quitters and are all truth seekers.

          • If the trial date was say, 12 or 16 months from now, I don;t think O’Mara would be saying that he had decided to forego a pretrial immunity hearing. Time (to trial, and the April immunity hearing deadline imposed by Nelson) of course was a factor in making that announcement.

            That said, the question of when he made the decision is pretty much a sideshow to the main event. It doesn’t matter if he made the decision in July last year, or just last week. If the judge is unfair, better to limit the scope of her decisions, and better to get it over with quickest.

            • I hear you but I still want the facts and the truth even about little things and those that may not matter now.

            • We’re in that same boat, wanting to know even the little things. I’m as curious as the next guy, but have limited attention, etc., so have to pick and choose where to direct my search and comprehension efforts. As a result, some things get absolutely none of my attention. I’m confident that my selections for research and study are -not- optimal.

      • As a layperson, I think the likliehood of a hung jury is signifigant. The issues surrounding this case are very polarizing – especially regarding larger political and social issues. O’Mara will connect the dots concerning the facts of the case. Zimmerman gave a specific and complete account, the more independant witnesses saw and heard the closer they match Zimmerman’s account. The versions that impeach Zimmerman’s account have serious issues. Against that, the state has an argument of emotion. It will be easy for them to lead an emotional juror down that path.

        If you accept that, preserving an assertion of immunity makes sense. As you point out, a conviction precludes immunity as a matter of law. The first step would then be having the conviction overturned through the appeals process so that the basis for that finding of fact is rendered invalid. IMO, that would take an extraordinary circumstance of misconduct by the state or the court ignoring black-letter law.

        Conversely, I think an aquittal would give an appeal court an out – that whatever harm that could be caused to Zimmerman was remedied (in a practical sense) by the jury and that any claim of tort can be resolved in that appropriate court – thus allowing the appealate court to dodge larger, political issues. That would be a finding of equipose, that the evidence asserted has equal weight.

        Somewhat following the example in [i]Jarkas[/i], I think having to decide a hypothetical appeal against the backdrop of having to reboot the dog-and-pony show would add more weight to the more intellectualand fact-based approach to deciding the outcome for Zimmerman – opting for resolution over appearance.

        Just my lay opinion, of course.

        • Thanks for a very interesting post. Hung jury could be bad news for George with no money for another defense.

        • Welcome! Thank you for your perspective. You’ve raised some interesting scenarios. Is it possible a jury could return an emotional decision?

          I realize the State has to play on emotions but I thought that was the court system was all about. Emotions stripped away, a bare laying of the evidence, make up your mind.

          I was surprised and extremely disappointed watching Judge Lester rule when he was clearly mad in the bond revoke hearing on June 1st. Emotionally strings has gotten them this far, but will it continue? Will a jury return an emotional decision? I hope not.

          This case is a disgrace.

    • Thanks for another legal opinion to further confuse the hell out of me. NONE of them agree.

      How about this strategy I put together based on all the legal views I have read.

      First, the jury must be sequestered and George does not take the stand during trial.

      Trial begins and ends.

      The jury remains sequestered awaiting instructions before deliberating.

      O’Mara then says the state has not proved it case and asks the judge to dismiss the case.

      Nelson refuses.

      O’Mara then asks for the immunity hearing to which he is entitled according to all legal opinions I have read. This must be done out of earshot of the sequestered jury.

      Only then, does the jury deliberate, after Nelson makes her decision.

      Jury makes a decision.

      Depending on their verdict, George then has other other options for immunity, including civil liability. Legal opinions vary widely on these options… entirely too much for this post… plus he can go back to DCA using several other options and/or the Supreme Court, AND he can APPEAL based on many different errors made so far.

      This is all terribly confusing for the average layman.

      Did I make sense?

      • My remarks were a mix of legal “fact,” and a preiminary opinion of what I would do, in O’Mara’s shoes. The legal fact is that if Zimmerman is convicted by a jury, he can kiss immunity goodbye.

        As for opinion of what I’d do in O’Mara’s shoes, I took him at his word that he was not going to seekk immunity from Nelson, at least not before the jury returns. As a legal “fact”, I think he can ask for a finding of immunity any time before the jury is charged (although Nelson might deny this to him – this ends up being another legal argument); and I know from the Jarkas case that he can ask if the jury returns hung. I see no legal impediment to asking Nelson for a finding of immunity if Zimmerman is acquitted. I wouldn’t ask her because I think she is a legal slouch, and I doubt her judicial scruples.

        Any time a motion for immunity is denied, defendant can appeal the decision. And, if immunity is granted (before a jury acquits), the state can appeal.

        Yes, you made sense. There are lots of options. It is easy to conflate them and otherwise become confused.

        • I think he can ask for a finding of immunity any time before the jury is charged (although Nelson might deny this to him – this ends up being another legal argument)

          That nailed it. Entirely too many legal arguments on single issues. I think Florida should revisit he immunity portion of the law and clearly define it. This is NOT the first time that immunity has been so confusing. Another suggestion is for an independent “immunity board” that would make that decision. That is not a good choice of terms.

          • There are all sorts of ways a case can be disposed of, that look like immunity, but aren;t called immunity. Corey herself had a murder where the shooter left the scene, showed up a couple hours later, was arrested. The shooter and the dead guy had some history. The shooter was arrested, and eventually Corey decided she didn’t have enough evidence to get a conviction, so she no-billed the case.

            Now, that isn’t the same as a judicial finding of immunity, but it’s as good as immunity from criminal trial! So, the prosecutor (state attorney) can play the role of immunity board, and so can the police, and so can any of the criminal judges – trial, appeal, and SCOFLA.

            I don’t think the principles at work in the FL system are bad, not since the Dennis decision anyway. I don’t find the substantive or procedual framework all that confusing, but a big chunk of that is I understand the lingo, and it’s easy for me to separate the vast volume of BS put out by the press and assorted commentators, from the actual principles at play.

            One thing that makes following any given case confusing, is that outsiders aren’t privy to the moves until they are made. Not saying chess is easy, but the rules are (fairly) easy. But following and predicting a chess game is hard, because you don’t know what the chess players are thinking until they make their move – and even then you may not grok what they are thinking. It’s much easier to “predict” after the game is over; hindsight is 20/20, and so on, etc.

            • That is NOT the kind of board I had in mind.

              Legal terms are also confusing. Here is one example from you:

              You said the writ is not a writ. It’s a petition and only DCA can issue a writ (to the lower court) if I understood you. Why does it say writ?

            • Replying above, no reply button on your question. My copy of O’Mara’s April 4, 2013 filing in the DCA is titled, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari.” The first sentence of the pleading says O’Mara is petitioning the DCA to issue a writ (if he could issue the writ himself, he would). Page 11, Section “IV. Nature of Relief Sought,” “Petitioner seeks entry of a writ …” (if he could enter the writ himself, he would). Conclusion, page 42, “Accordingly, the Writ of Certiorari should be granted …” (if he could grant the writ without involving a court, he would).

              I did not say only the DCA can issue a writ. I said writs come from courts.

              • OK .. now I got but notice how everyone else calls it a writ.

                What exactly does this mean?

                if he could enter the writ himself, he would

                • I did notice how many people refer to the “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” which is a petition, as a writ. In the spirit of “no good deed goes unpunished,” I have concluded I should not have said anything, and just let the error persist. Live and learn.

                  My “if he could enter the writ himself, he would” was one of three sarcastic and repetitive statements, that amount to “if O’Mara could issue/grant/enter a writ, then he would not be composing and filing a petition for a court to issue/grant/enter a writ.” If you are wondering the difference between “grant” and “Issue,” there is none. If you are wondering the difference between “enter” and “grant,” I’d have to look it up, but “entering” no doubt has some precise and perhaps archaic significance.

      • Looking outsiude of a motion for immunity, I expect O’Mara will move for a judicial acquittal (even though he said that he’s determined to have the jury decide the case) at the close of the state’s presentation of evidence, and (if that motion is denied), again after presentation of the defense case. All that before the jury is charged to deliberate.

        If Zimmerman is acquitted, there are all sorts of grounds to take an appeal. We don’t know half of them yet.

        I’d be more agressive that O’Mara has been, but he has something resembling connection aspirations that I don’t have, and he certainly has a better handle on the temperament of the court system. He’s put up with quite a few significant legal errors by the court and the state, with nary a peep.

        Couple other comments. The jury will be sequestered. That has already been decided according to a CNN report that didn’t get any traction with the rest of the press. I also wouldn’t put Zimmerman on the stand in a trial; and I am of a (minority) belief that he can submit an affidavit in lieu of taking the stand for purposes of an immunity hearing.

        • All of your posts make sense and well worth the time to read. Thanks a lot for what you say.

          I hope you are correct about the affidavit if it gets that far.

          • Heh. You would say that on a post where I said “acquitted” instead of “convicted” (and how many grounds there would be for an appeal if he is acquitted – LOL). Anywhoooo, thanks.

            • We all make mistakes like that without preview or edit options hut I knew what you intended to say.

    • “O’Mara says it’s not a change in course, but more an “evolution” of the defense strategy.”

      IOW, now that we have the bulk of the prosecution discovery, they cannot prove their murder 2 charges. They have nothing. Also, after the state puts on their case before the nation, it will be much harder for Judge Nelson to act in the egregious manner that she has pre-trial. She can’t hide behind the nation’s eyes that will be on her.

      • The State is making a HUGE mistake, if they take what they have to trial. They best be looking for an exit strategy. I’m hearing the State is deposing witnesses now too. Perhaps one of them can help them come up with a plausible exit strategy other than, we falsely charged Zimmerman.

        • Smoke and mirrors got them this far. In for a penny, in for a pound. The state is deposing new defense witnesses, FWIW.

  3. As we await the answer from the 5th DCA about whether Mr. Crump will for FORCED against his will, to sit for a deposition, let’s review what he told the lower court on October 19th.

    Courtesy of Diwataman (my soon to be ex)

        • I have to enter something in the reply box when someone makes a post so I can see the link they posted if it’s at the bottom of their comment. I know that sounds strange but that is the way Yahoo does it. I have no idea why. Of course there is no way to know for sure there is a link I can usually determine that by the content and the last sentence.

          Have I made sense? Maybe I can just post a period but I have always used a question.

            • Using a ? usually gets a reply if I am lonely and feel left out. LOL.

              Thanks for asking about my surgery. I really cannot tell any difference yet.

    • Wow! Crump thinks the public is stupid.

      OT: Can you email some of the defense pictures you did for the debate page on facebook? I’d like to use them at the top of the daily threads. They are excellent.

      • Actually, I think Crump is seeding doubt for any civil lawsuit he might file. The burden is lower and if he intimate that the evidence is stronger than it is, he helps his chances later. I am not just talking about suing GZ, but the SPD, City of Sanford, etc.

      • I still finding it amazing that the court has not silenced Crump… That is truly tragic and sooo unfair to George and his defense.

        Where are you, Robert, Jr? We need you to fight back.

          • Are you saying I need to learn how to use twitter?

            Do you honestly think it makes a difference?

            Do you have a favorite link to simple instructions for twitter dummies?

            • LOL, NO! I still don’t get twitter. I’m not sure but I did get some reports corrected by supplying some information.

              You are a good researcher. Research the report and get an email address and email them. Yes I think it does work. The reporters will get the message people are watching and want accurate information, not misinformation.

              Twitter is public by an email, expressed nicely, could help develop a relationship and an understanding of another perspective.

          • You Go Nettles – Call them out on the bull chit, that’s what makes you great Nettles, you go the extra mile, it makes a difference! The blog looks great, I like the additional pictures & thanks for all your hard work, WE NOTICE!

            I worry about all the unknowns in the case, I know we are powerless over the unknowns but I have such a distrust for the State and Judge Nelson. Does the State really think they can get a conviction? I worry about voir dire, can the jurors really be vetted enough? What is GZ’s perfect juror? The Pinella Pinheads took a beat down Nationally for their verdict in KC’s case as they should have, some lost jobs, some moved, some were harassed as their names were released. GZ is going to have to put his life in their hands, will MOM/West have a jury consultant, and more importantly, can they afford one?

      • Mr. Crump exists in his own litigative world. He believes what he says. It is irrelevant to him whether the public is stupid or smart. He is like a miner, working his particular vein of litigative ore. If he doesn’t win today, he wins tomorrow. Things are so because he says so.

    • “The defense is concerned with the expert testimony because it supports what most have concluded, that Trayvon was screaming for help,” Crump said.

      This is why the media fails us. It is immoral to publish such a comment in a legal matter like this one. I blame Reuters and would call them co conspirators…REALLY, folks. This is sooo wrong .

      • Post a comment on the article. I did.

        I’m also sourcing the email of these reporters and will ask your point. Before printing what he said, ask him to provide proof. Otherwise, it doesn’t make your paper.

        • I am logged in but when I enter my comment there is no option to actually post it,

          Here is what I want to say. .You can use it if you wish and make changes.

          To: Barbara Liston

          “The defense is concerned with the expert testimony because it supports what most have concluded, that Trayvon was screaming for help,” Crump said.

          Where is the proof of that? There is NONE whatsoever.

          Did you investigate Crump’s statement? Of course not. Surely. you know that is not true. I am only asking that you please keep up with the case if you are plan to cover it factually and with integrity. Voice recognition is NOT an acceptable science and NO scientific conclusions can be made with any degree of certainty. Why publish this articled about that very thing and then quote Crump?

          I would suggest that you always question Crump. His numerous lies about this case in public are well documented.

          One has only to look at his affidavit filed with the court. Do you recall the 16 year old minor child who is the state’s star witness? It would be profitable to check it out.

          Too many journalists have been duped by this man and are now shamed by publishing his lies as truth. Please do not join that club.

          • Jordan sorry for the delay in responding. I had an issue at work tonight. I’ll see if I can source an email address for Ms. Liston and send off your comments. Well done!

    • Crump is depending upon no one fronting with Trayvon Martin’s real voice, which is very deep. His voice is too deep to be the one who was screaming.

      As a comparison, the boy Austin who is a witness, he was 14 at the time, and he also has a very deep voice.

      As a mother of white boys, I noted that their voice changes were gradual after about the age of 14 and yes I can tell all three of them apart when they make contact on the telephone.

      What is important is that the person screaming for help has a very distinct cadence. The only one who has a similar cadence is in fact George Zimmerman.

      • I debated about posting this but here it goes:

        I always thought you were a guy until you posted the picture of your grand daughter. One single comment you made had me backpedaling so I began looking at your older poss … STILL I found no clue. Then I wondered if I had said anything offensive or insensitive in the past so I began to race back through my history in knowing you. Way too funny now hut I almost had a panic attack.

        I am stunned by own lack of perception or is it how well you conceal your gender?

        My user name is actually my youngest daughter’s name but most folks know I am not female. I guess it is in the way we post.

  4. No suprise the Traynuts are trying to have it both ways yet again. On the issue of the screams their rational is well…….there were only two people there so if it’s not George it has to be trayvon. If you make this exact same argument regarding George’s injuries, the traynuts immediately balk.

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