Home » Uncategorized » June 27, 2013

June 27, 2013

Justice

Questioning of Rachel Jeantel is expected to continue today. As a reminder, here are the transcripts of the two interviews she gave. The March 19th interview is with Crump and the April 2nd interview is with BDLR. March 19th Audio Interview: http://youtu.be/OxXvVTVZpI0 Transcript to March 19th Interview: http://sdrv.ms/WD0AVX April 2nd Audio Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfVTM8sqz4k&feature=related Transcript of April 2nd Interview: http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/deedeestatetranscript.pdf

I noted in the March 19th interview, she told Crump she learned of Trayvon’s death the next day. Then the clip suddenly ends. That was not what she said yesterday.

My undivided attention is needed at work during court today so I’ll catch up later tonight.

For newcomers, please know that racist remarks will be trashed. If you are presenting yourself as a George Zimmerman supporter, please keep in mind this man is in a fight for his life. Conduct yourself in a way that won’t bring heartache and/or embarrassment to the Zimmerman family.

Anyone who wants to share something privately, email me at nettles@bell.net

Links to Live Streams (Thanks Carole):

WAT~ http://wildabouttrial.com/trial_videos/watch-the-george-zimmerman-hearing-live/

Local WFTV~ http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream//

Click Orlando~ http://www.clickorlando.com/news/-/1637132/19533480/-/fm5b93z/-/index.html

Advertisements

119 thoughts on “June 27, 2013

  1. Timeline: GZ connected with Sean at 7:09:34. GZ said “Shit he’s running at 7:11:43. Sean typed that into the computer and hit enter at 7:11:59.

    Rachel’s call with Trayvon dropped at 7:11:47. So TM running was him running right down the pathways towards Brandy’s house. Rachel reconnects with TM at 7:12:06 and they talk until the “phone just shut off” at 7:15:43.

    George talked with Sean until 7:13:41.

    Witness 11’s call to 911 was 28 seconds after Rachel’s last contact with TM. W11’s call was logged at 7:16:11 and we heard 45 seconds of what went on. Gun shot was at 7:16:56

    • I did not get to watch all of w8s testimony, I did not yet watch the cross. But what I find most interesting is the only racial slurs that were being thrown around that nice according to w8 were coming from TM. Oh and just how involved she did not want to be. That Jane chick too.

      • IMO it has been a problem for State. Because from the NEN call when GZ said TM ran, to the calls and testimony of w8, &w11 911 call…. TM obviously back tracked to the T or stayed close considering where GZs keys were and where TM died. GZ was indeed heading back to his car to meet police and TM obviously was not as close to Brandys house after 4 mins.

      • I believe it fits GZ’s account of what happened that night. W11 said she estimated it took about 30 seconds from the time she heard the commotion to the time her call connected.

        • I agree. GZ hung up with Sean at 7:13:43 and decided to walk to Retreat View Circle to get the house number (he knew the street name). He likely spent some time looking down the street to see if Trayvon came out between the houses on his way to back gate.

          Then walking back he told Singleton he looked down the dog walk again and didn’t see him. That very well could have taken 2 minutes to accomplish.

          Rachel confirms that no screaming had started when the phone hung up at 7:15:43. So the travelling down the T to John Good’s back yard likely occurred in that 45 seconds we hear in W11’s 911 call. It really all does fit.

          Self defense. No doubt.

          • Right, there was 45 seconds of screaming on the 911 tape from W11’s phone call and she says she estimates it took her 30 seconds from the time she hears something to the time the call connects to 911. So that, coupled with GZ’s movements after HE hung up from NEN, it all fits and proves his claims of self-defense. I hope whoever does the closing arguments can help the jurors to see the timeline fits GZ’s account.

        • I believe it fits GZ’s account of what happened that night. W11 said she estimated it took about 30 seconds from the time she heard the commotion to the time her call connected.

          Pretty much exactly what I’ve been saying all along: the timeline absolutely corroborates Zimmerman’s account, and proves that the altercation started in the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, and not in the vicinity of Brandi Green’s home:

          7:13:40 – Zimmerman NEN call ends
          7:16:41 – W11 first hears concerning sounds (estimated)
          7:15:43 – W8/Martin call ends
          7:16:11 – W11 911 call connects

          (Note that the estimated 30 seconds is likely not precise, or else W8 heard much more than she admits.)

          There is simply no possible way that Zimmerman went down 380 feet to Brandi Green’s house (not knowing where he was going, or where Martin was), found Martin, and then chased Martin back 380 feet to the sidewalk “T”, in two minutes. It is also not plausible that the two would not have exchanged any words during that traversal to be overheard by the myriad ear witnesses, until arriving back at the sidewalk “T”.

          The other timeline I find interesting is the one ferreted out by West today in cross-examination.

          7:11:40 – Zimmerman NEN call (*** he’s running)
          7:11:47 – W8/Martin call ends (with Martin in the process of running, per W8 testimony today)
          7:11:57 – Zimmerman NEN call (we don’t need you to do that / okay – Zimmerman stops moving (end of wind noise a few seconds later))
          7:12:06 – W8/Martin call begins (with Martin literally “right by” Brandi Green’s home, per W8 testimony today)

          (Note: 26 seconds is a perfectly reasonable amount of time for it to take Martin to run from his previous location to Brandi Green’s home, 380 feet south of the sidewalk “T”)

          Begin 2 minutes of Martin “walking” (W8 could hear wind) and “talking softly”, per W8 testimony today

          7:12:07 – Zimmerman NEN call (“he ran” / don’t know where he is / etc. – Zimmerman in vicinity of sidewalk “T”, not moving)
          7:13:40 – Zimmerman NEN call ends

          Witness 8 testimony from today absolutely corroborates Zimmerman’s claim that he never left the vicinity of the sidewalk “T”, and implies that Martin both made it to Brandi Green’s home and also remained in motion after arriving.

          • I’m guessing the defense will have some sort of timeline like this entered into evidence. I don’t know all the rules of evidence so I hope this is possible.

        • Just thinking out loud: we have gone from the unverified 2:40 or so to about 30 seconds as the most critical time during which the action started. Is that close?

      • that 28 seconds could be when he was returning from the other direction towards the t. I see no problem for George. I do see a problem for TM who was hiding in the bush near the T.

  2. Bill Sheaffer – LEGAL ANALYST – “The UNRAVELING of this case DUE to the State Attorney’s office & the way they CONDUCTED DD’s interview allowing Sybrina Fulton to be there as well as in her home, the INSERTION of Crump, LE in allowing Crump to ride ALONG to retrieve DD.” Sheaffer describes the States Attorneys Office as “abominable.”

  3. DMan’s place does not appear to be covering the trial day by day with observations by Rick as things progressed during the day and it seems like steve stopped here, too. Is there a reason?

  4. Bill Sheaffer has suggested “it’s time for West to rap it up, there comes a time when the jury may find sympathy when the testimony drags on.”

    imo, West is garnering important information much to BDLR’s anticipated meltdown, he’s about losing what’s left of his mind, but it has gotten long, I’m going to take a break myself & run an errand.

    • This was in response to BDLR asking how she knew GZ got out of his car. I believe her answer was “He walked up to him,” not “You want that too.” Listen to the inflection there, and think about what makes sense. She wasn’t asking a question; she was giving an explanation. (FYI, I’m on the other side of the case, but I appreciate your efforts. Keep up the good work.)

        • Thanks for the response, and I saw it also, but I’m not convinced she conceded that. If you look at the totality of her testimony and prior interviews, she often answers isolated questions inconsistently, so if she’s asked again in a different context, you’ll get a different answer. None of it shakes the gist of her testimony, but as we’ve seen, her speaking style often requires followup for clarity. So without a followup, I maintain she said “He walked up to him.” This witness does not give nonsensical answers, and “You want that too” without a question mark makes no sense.

          • I understand why you might think that’s what she said, but I’ve just played it with the volume way up, and I do not hear the words you’re suggesting. She says “You want that too?”

            The key to understanding for sure what she said is not just what you hear – which I agree is sometimes difficult to understand, but also Bernie’s reaction to what she said. She said “You want that too?” Bernie’s response was “I wanna know the truth, whether, did he say that or not. If he didn’t say that, that’s fine.”

            So, both from an aural perspective (what you hear) and from the contextual perspective, it’s clear that she said “You want that too?”

            • Your argument is that because Bernie also heard “You want that too?”, then that’s what she said. But Bernie is no better than most of us at translating her language. The fact is there’s no question mark at the end of her statement there. We know what her question marks sound like both from her interviews and from her testimony this week. It’s not there. So we either conclude she *declared* “You want that too”, or we look deeper into the context of the conversation.

              I would also add that a close listen reveals the presence of 5 syllables rather than the 4 in “You want that too”, and those last 2 syllables are clearly “to-um” rather than a monosyllabic “too”. Again, she was answering Bernie’s question about how she knew George had left his car. What possible sense would a *declaration* of “You want that too” make? She does not have a habit of giving nonsensical answers. I don’t speak Creole but my ears have a slight sensitivity to some flavors of Caribbean patois. I’m no authority, but I hear clearly the *declaration*, “He walked up to him.” No question mark needed there.

              • I don’t speak Creole but my ears have a slight sensitivity to some flavors of Caribbean patois. I’m no authority, but I hear clearly the *declaration*, “He walked up to him.” No question mark needed there.

                No offense, but whatever you’re smoking must be as good as whatever Trayvon decided to keister for his bus ride up to Sanford.

                BDLR heard, “you want that too.”
                O’Mara and West heard, “you want that too.”
                Every sane person who has ever listened to the recording has heard, “you want that too.”

                And for good measure: after listening to the recording, Witness 8 herself admitted that she said, “you want that too.”

                Are you honestly so clouded by your justice for Trayvon bias that your brain can manufacture words out of whole cloth? I don’t think even Reich could pull “He walked up to him” out of “You want that too”.

                • You’ve heard the alternate explanation, one that makes a lot more sense than a nonsensical question with no question-mark tonal inflection and the wrong number of syllables. Your response is that everyone agrees with you. Hey, I’m not here to argue with you, so enjoy your delusion, k?

                  • You’ve heard the alternate explanation, one that makes a lot more sense than a nonsensical question with no question-mark tonal inflection and the wrong number of syllables.

                    The most logical conclusion regarding a fifth syllable is that it is, “hmm” – as in, “you want that, too, hmm?”. (or “huh” or “uh” etc.)

                    Your response is that everyone agrees with you. Hey, I’m not here to argue with you, so enjoy your delusion, k?

                    The speaker herself admitted that she said, “you want that too”. Who, exactly, is delusional?

                    (These shall be!)

                    • So now you’re changing the phrase to correct a deficiency in the argument. Good, but the most logical conclusion is still that she was giving the explanation Bernie was asking for, not asking a question in response to his. There remains no question mark in her voice, and there’s no explanation in “You want that too huh” or whatever. It. Makes. No. Sense. Her explanation is “He walked up to him”, and whether you believe her or not, that answer makes perfect sense.

                      Also, her first syllable is clearly “he”, not “you”.

                    • She did agree, but I saw her mostly on autopilot at that point. As I said above, and as we’ve all seen, it’s important to ensure this witness knows exactly what she’s being asked if you want an accurate answer. As we’ve seen, a followup often yields a different answer on these details. As to why I’m arguing it, well, it’s because I hear “He walked up to him” clear as a bell, and it’s the only response that makes sense in the context of that conversation. I can’t begin to figure out what “You want to too, huh” even means. It’s obvious she wasn’t asking Bernie a question.

                    • So now you’re changing the phrase to correct a deficiency in the argument.

                      You’re the one who introduced an alleged, fifth syllable. I’m merely showing how, even if such a syllable can be heard, it still fits “you want that too”.

                      Good, but the most logical conclusion is still that she was giving the explanation Bernie was asking for, not asking a question in response to his. There remains no question mark in her voice, and there’s no explanation in “You want that too huh” or whatever.

                      After almost a full day of hearing the mostly dull, monotone (sounding almost medicated) intonation of Witness 8’s testimony, you would seriously make an issue out of the inflection of her voice in that response?

                      It. Makes. No. Sense. Her explanation is “He walked up to him”, and whether you believe her or not, that answer makes perfect sense.

                      No, her response was, “you want that too” (as she herself admitted).

                      “He walked up to him” was in response to yet another BDLR leading question, where he made a yeoman’s effort at rehabilitating “you want that too”.

                      Also, her first syllable is clearly “he”, not “you”.

                      Not according to Witness 8, who admitted to saying, “you want that too”.

                    • “‘He walked up to him’ was in response to yet another BDLR leading question, where he made a yeoman’s effort at rehabilitating ‘you want that too’.”

                      So am I understanding that you heard her say “He walked up to him” in that interview?

                    • So am I understanding that you heard her say “He walked up to him” in that interview?

                      No. I will defer to Mike McDaniel’s transcription, as I recall it accurately portraying what I originally heard. Salient part bolded:

                      BDLR: OK, let me go back a second, when you said Trayvon told you the guy was in some kind of car.

                      Dee Dee: Yeah…on the phone.

                      BDLR: On the phone. Did Trayvon ever expand on that? Did he ever say something else about that , now he’s out like that…like, uh…whether the guy had gotten out of the car? Did he ever describe, “Yeah, the guy, now he’s out of the car, he’s chasing me.” I know you said the guy, he said the guy was following him. But did he ever say the guy got out of the car?

                      Dee Dee: You want that too?

                      BDLR: I want to know the truth whether…did he say that or not? If he didn’t say that, that’s fine. I mean, I don’t, I don’t need to know….

                      Dee Dee: Like, when he like walking.

                      BDLR: I know Trayvon is running, right? Or walking…

                      Dee Dee: Yeah.

                    • Thanks for the transcript. I’m surprised her response to Bernie’s followup doesn’t resolve the matter finally. Bernie says he just wants the truth, but of course that makes no sense to her since she’s just provided the explanation he was asking for. So she again refers to someone walking, and here she’s actually asking a question, trying to figure out what Bernie’s talking about. It’s clear to me that he (like you) has misunderstood her, and she’s trying to clarify it for him with the better enunciated reference to “walking”. Once again, her response makes no sense unless she’s earlier said “He walked up to him.”

                    • Thanks for the transcript. I’m surprised her response to Bernie’s followup doesn’t resolve the matter finally. Bernie says he just wants the truth, but of course that makes no sense to her since she’s just provided the explanation he was asking for. So she again refers to someone walking, and here she’s actually asking a question, trying to figure out what Bernie’s talking about.

                      Right here, W8 is referring to Martin, not Zimmerman, walking:

                      BDLR: I want to know the truth whether…did he say that or not? If he didn’t say that, that’s fine. I mean, I don’t, I don’t need to know….

                      Dee Dee: Like, when he like walking.

                      It’s clear to me that he (like you) has misunderstood her, and she’s trying to clarify it for him with the better enunciated reference to “walking”. Once again, her response makes no sense unless she’s earlier said “He walked up to him.”

                      What’s clear is that Bernie has deviated from W8’s coached narrative, and he’s confusing her. So her follow-up answer is a non-sequitur. It doesn’t change the fact that – as she has admitted – she said “you want that too” immediately prior.

                    • “Right here, W8 is referring to Martin, not Zimmerman, walking…” Seriously, friend, do you really believe her reference to “walking” is to the one who’s been on foot the whole time? Or does it make more sense that she’s referring to the one who’s now out of his car, the one to whom Bernie has just asked how she knew he was now out of his car? Seriously.

                      Did you see a coached witness the last two days? I saw a raw unpolished honesty, someone obviously unprepared to give a good impression. That coaching meme is of the same thread that concluded there were two of her, that she would never sit for deposition, that she would never testify at trial, that she would self-destruct at trial, none of which occurred. No one coached her, least of all Bernie.

                      “He walked up to him” is the only statement that makes sense here.

                    • No, not at all. I imagine she easily answered over 1000 questions during her two days on the stand, some of which she simply got wrong, none of which altered the gist of her testimony. She didn’t lie. She auto-answered. Happens to the best of us.

                    • High pitch at the end of a sentence often indicates you’re asking a question. If there was no question mark in a transcript that doesn’t mean anything. Just bad transcription. It was clearly ‘You want that too?’

  5. I’m certain that Rachel got busted lying when Don West asked the couldn’t hear Trayvon line. Then the tape got played for the court and she put her hand over her face. When Mr. West asked her what she said, she admitted she said she couldn’t hear Trayvon. That’s why I kept calling him, Trayvon, Trayvon.

    Then there was an objection, a long break, the jury left the room and Rachel left the stand briefly and came back. She likely met someone in the washroom. She may have been coached to correct that because she said different after the break. She was saying it was Trayvon. It’s a contradiction to what was said before she took that break.

    She speaks so unclearly, they aren’t hearing what she says and I think she got away with one there.

  6. While running errands, listened to Rush Limbaugh, he has lots on about Racheal, siting the RACIST COMMENTS made by TM! Some don’t like Rush, but he has the BIGGEST LISTENING audience of ANY Talk Radio program! KUDOS to RUSH – getting the word out the case for some that may not be following.

    A reminder: Rush hails from Fla. where he is getting a lot of local media, but of course RUSH researches all media nationwide for his program.

  7. Nettles ~ looking at your link w/the picture of DD, that doesn’t even look like her, that girls necks isn’t 7 inches wide. Enquiring minds.

    Poor DD, she has been called the “black honey boo boo or java the hu for licking her lip” by GZ supporters at the OS. TM supporters claim to be appalled but YET the endless attacks on GZ/SZ & their weight, their ill informed opinions & conviction of GZ before he even had a trial make me sick. Their really over the top there, ignorance & freedom of speech rules for TM supporters. I laughed at GZ supporters swatting back today.

  8. West is frustrated here now, but after “you want that too” he should next go to “trayvon was tired”. Show the enemy no mercy for you shall receive none. Gut her West.

    • Did the judge deny west a chance to play tape with that lunch break/ interruption on purpose? If she “heard it” after break, meaning, she finally admits that she says “you want that too?” does that mean the jury cannot see how she lied on the stand?

      It so debra is pure evil.

      • She did end up telling him in front of the jury, that after having a chance to listen to the recording, she now recalls she said that.

        West wanted the jury to hear the tone but as usual the Judge was protecting the prosecutor.

  9. Jenna heard a loud ‘3 part exchange’ = “You got a problem?” “No I haven’t got a problem.” “Well you do now!”, then scuffling noises moving down from the T. This matches George’s story EXACTLY.

  10. Sounds like MOM may have partially opened the door for “prior bad acts,” the Judge will rule tomorrow. Arguments to be heard in the morning. Scheaffer said it is an 8 on a scale on 1-10 as far as errors.

    • I don’t understand how BDLR is able to make that leap. He asked Ms. Lauer if she knew about GZ hitting the woman he lived with or something like that, then asks if she knows about the restraining order, blah, blah, blah.

      Knowing about the restraining order (as I do too), doesn’t tell me if GZ was a hothead. More first-hand knowledge would have to be attained before I’d feel comfortable saying he’s a hothead. Just b/c there was one or the charge against GZ for the assault, doesn’t prove he was guilty as charged.

      Why can BDLR insinuate that if Ms. Lauer knows about the allegations, then she is indeed in possession of proof that GZ is a hothead?

  11. Diana Tennis ‏@TennisLaw 42m
    Reputation evidence can use specific acts. This iffy but If door opened, not worth what defense got out of her. Not with JDN making call

    Richard Hornsby ‏@RichardHornsby 6m
    @beautyfool71 @fox35 @TennisLaw It’s called opening the door.

    https://twitter.com/RichardHornsby

  12. FRIEND: TRAYVON MARTIN ENCOUNTER RACIALLY CHARGED

    The exchanges got testier as the day progressed.

    When asked by West if she had previously told investigators that she heard what sounded like somebody being hit at the end of her call with Martin, Jeantel said, “Trayvon got hit.”

    “You don’t know that? Do you? You don’t know that Trayvon got hit,” West answered angrily. “You don’t know that Trayvon didn’t at that moment take his fists and drive them into George Zimmerman’s face.”

    Later in the morning, West accused Jeantel of not calling police after Martin’s phone went dead because she thought it was a fight he had provoked.

    “That’s why you weren’t worried. That’s why you didn’t do anything because Trayvon Martin started the fight, and you knew that,” West said.

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-27-09-32-21

  13. I’m beginning to think it’s John Good that formed the basis for the state’s motion in limine to prevent the defense from pointing out that the state failed to call a witness. At this point, the jury will be thinking John Good is the best witness to the events. They’ve heard a lot about how he was the only person to go outside prior to the shot, and that he was geographically very close to them fighting. Lots of witnesses have pointed out that they saw him outside or heard him go outside, and West stressed his importance in the opening statements. If the state doesn’t call him, won’t they be thinking ‘huh, wait…. what about that guy who was the best witness?!’

    • Interesting and troubling, but not surprising.

      Don’t you think assault/attack is a better description for the incident than fight. George did not have the will or means to fight back.

    • I don’t think its John Good. In trying to minimize John’s impact, BDLR was asking Mr. Good if he heard the noise of punches. Which may have caused him to question if there was punches. Then he asked, if he saw the guy on the bottom’s mouth moving, leaving John to question if it really was the guy on the bottom or was he making an assumption.

      If the State doesn’t call John Good, you can be sure the defense will.

      IIRC, the defense is prohibited from bringing to the jury’s attention the failure to call someone in the case that may lead the jury to wonder why. The defense can call them and point out to the jury the state didn’t call them, but if the defense doesn’t call them either, they can’t mention the state didn’t. I think it’s likely Chris Serino.

      • I think the state knows they can’t minimize John’s statements too much. He will testify that he heard screams that were occurring simultaneous in time to his witnessing of the guy on the bottom getting his ass beat, who was wearing red. You don’t need to see mouths moving to put two and two together and realize that the guy getting beat was screaming for help, if it’s clear the ‘yelping’ sounds consistent with someone in great pain come simultaneous in time to the MMA style beat down.

        And yeah, I’m not saying the jury won’t hear from him at all. I’m sure that the defense will call him, but that will be in the rebuttal stage. I’m just saying that if the state doesn’t call him in their phase, where they’re trying to show their case which they have the burden of proof on, it will be very telling. Surely the jury will wonder why the state didn’t call who was inarguably the best eyewitness to the event, but instead called people like Selma who saw and heard nothing important. Why call people like Selma but then skip Good? So I think the state does not want the defense to point that out for the jury’s recollection in closing arguments. Like you say though, they should be able to do so anyway because they will call him.

        That’s my theory anyway. We’ll see if they call him 🙂 I feel that they would have done it already if they were going to. Putting Good on later in their case rather than earlier would be bad strategy, I would think.

        • Nelson will continue to push the State toward the finish line as far as she can. Her hands are considerably more tied in front of the jury*, but I’ll find a hat to eat if she grants the defense’s inevitable motion for judgement of acquittal when the State rests. (The defense knows it, but will move anyway, and preserve for appeal – and for inevitable overturn by DCA.) Nevertheless, the defense will have to put on a case – and they’ll use that to their advantage. Witness 6 will be called. Witness 8 will be re-called (and pressed on the “just a fight”, “he’d tell me he’d call me back if he was going to get in a fight” testimony). Ping logs might even get introduced (though I would have expected that on cross-examination of the phone record authentication witness?).

          * Her hands are tied considerably in front of the jury, but not tied completely. She’s displaying obvious bias in allowing counsel to be heard at the bench, in ruling on objections, and in ruling on proffered evidence. The battle over jury instructions will be very, very interesting.

          • It made no sense today for Nelson to deny O’Mara the ability to proffer Rachel’s testimony when she lives hours away, but then allow Bernie (hi Bernie) to proffer the testimony of Jenna when she lives locally.

            • My understanding is the defense asked for it later. There are a couple more witnesses who may make their presentation even stronger.

              If I understood Mr. O’Mara’s comments on Anderson Cooper last night, he is going to be putting Trayvon’s past on the record if the prosecutor deviates from the minutes of that night.

              Rachel provide colorful racial statements and evidence of fighting in her deposition.

              Are the parents prepared to have their son’s real reputation made known?

          • You said:The battle over jury instructions will be very, very interesting.

            I have learned from reading about this case and several others that the verdict may very well determined by the specific jury instructions. When the SYG provision was added to our previous self defense laws, the instructions changed and they became less favorable to the defendant and yet, have never been “fixed.”. I think you know the history, why that happened and yet still favors the state.

            Even so, Nelson can do whatever she wants as our friend, Howie, likes to say.

  14. Since Daryl Parks did a complete 180 and now claims this case IS NOT ABOUT RACE, you tweeters should send him youtube video links … link after link wherein the man who made Parks his protege (Crump) repeats over and over and over how this case IS ABOUT RACE. “Trayvon was racially profiled” is all we’ve been hearing from over a year. NOW, since Rachel used ‘cracka” and “nigga” it’s not about race. These ppl are totally unbelievable. Tweet his butt, show him videos, quote Crump and see if he can stand the heat. He barely could today. My guess is there wasn’t a person there that bought that load a crap.

    • One of the reporters tweeted that Sybrina gave Tracy a disgusted look when Rachel was talking about white ass crackers (I find this term very offensive).

      Did Trayvon pick that term up from his father?

      • The walkback from the family about this case being racial, coming on the heels of testimony of TM’s apparent racial profiling himself, raises an alarm to me. After 16 months of the case being about racial profiling and discrimination, now all of the sudden this is not about race, let’s forget about that aspect it never existed makes me think that this is something or there is something that they don’t want to be found out about. It could be that TM was involved in a prior racial attack, or something along those lines but they want this dropped, now. Fishy, very fishy.

        • You said: It could be that TM was involved in a prior racial attack, or something along those lines but they want this dropped, now. Fishy, very fishy.

          So what, bori? Really? Do you think that could possibly come into evidence? I know that SD keeps digging but I am not following him on the Miami Dade issue cuz I do not have time. Didn’t Nelson make some specific rulings about past acts? I cannot see the defense opening that door. Does SD think that whatever he finds could make a difference in the trial?

          By now, most of us already know far too much about Martin’s past so why would his parents be concerned? Enlighten me, my friend, even if you are guessing.

          • 2 quick things come to mind, they might be protecting someone else, who committed a similar attack, using the same terminology or epitaphs, too much attention to TM’s racial profiling and assault might make someone make the connection.

            The second reason, might have to do with the family dynamics right, and how Sybrina and Jahvaris are trying to position themselves as legitimate civil rights spokesperson, for the future. This could damage their reputations in the mainstream, where the money is at. They don’t want to have to go around with trash can in forever. Speaking fees, and the lecture circle can be very lucrative, but being considered a far out racist, could change that.

          • There is another reason that I forgot to mention, that deals directly with the case unlike the other two, that TM’s character will be an issue, and RJ will probably come back as a Defense character witness, in which case those statements and others could enter the record.

  15. Ok guyz, I’ve run the numbers and I’ve figured out something shocking. George must be actually be a tortoise disguised as a human! Think about it. Clearly George got out of his truck in hot pursuit of Trayvon, who was super scared and trying to get away. We know Trayvon was running away in fear because that’s what DeeDee said. Anyway, 4 minutes later he catches up to Trayvon a stone’s throw away from his truck. Approx. 25 meters away. That puts his chasing speed at an average 0.2 miles per hour. Of course, this means Trayvon was running away slower than this, so I guess Trayvon was actually a secret snail. Why didn’t the medical examiner report that?!

    Maybe 4 minutes is a bit long, so let’s be super conservative. Let’s say it was a 35 meter chase over a 1 minute period. That means the hot pursuit was at 1.3 miles per hour. LOL. A slow jog is faster than that.

    I guess it’s possible they were running around in circles. Maybe Trayvon was running away southwards but managed to juke George, and started running back northwards again. But that’s a really risky lie for George to tell. If he’s lying, by restricting his reported movement to walking along the top of the T intersection, he couldn’t have known whether he got captured on a CCTV or somebody’s phone camera or something way down south of that. Or whether people heard running way down south. The idea that George would have the foresight to lie that well is ridiculous IMO.

    The Witness Jenna today told statements entirely consistent with George’s story. It started at the top of the T after a loud ‘3 part verbal exchange’ consistent with George’s story, and then immediately afterwards a scuffle sound moved southwards. It really annoys me how HLN are still puzzling over the idea that Trayvon came back. One woman on Nancy Grace said it’s ‘inconceivable’ that Trayvon came back because Trayvon was scared and trying to get away. Seriously? What’s inconceivable is that there was a chase. George wasn’t even running when he got out of the car. Can we, beyond a reasonable doubt, trust that wind noises on a phone means that somebody is running? What a joke. He wasn’t even in the wind BEFORE that point since he was in his car, so obviously wind noises would start after that even if he was just stood still in the wind.

    Sorry for rant. Just annoyed at HLN.

    • But I think you are not considering the what seems to be the prosecutions theory, which it seems to be that GZ followed TM down the path, then caught up to him near Brandie’s Townhouse, and apparently chased him back up towards the T. Which does not make sense and it is opposite the evidence but seems to be the only way they can match the contradictory testimony of the witnesses and defeat GZ’s own testimony.

      • Possibly, but I haven’t heard the state spell that out for the jury yet. And DeeDee’s testimony doesn’t seem to fit into that. She said Trayvon started running at around the same the time the phone got disconnected, which means it can be pretty accurately put into the timeline at around the same time that George got out of his vehicle. That fits with George’s story and NEN call. Then she said 30 seconds later or so she reconnected and Trayvon had lost the man, so he had slowed down. But then suddenly the man was behind him again, getting closer. Then Trayvon said ‘Why you following me for’? She also said Trayvon was ‘just trying to get home’. There’s nothing she said about how he started running again after that, and certainly nothing how he had juked George around some townhouses or something and started running away from his house before she heard the ‘bump’ and the grass sounds. So I can’t see how the jury would buy it.

        • Based on the witnesses, the questioning and answers, the prosecution aims to prove that GZ followed TM down the path, and caught up to GZ at some point south of the Townhouse of W 1, while W 8’s seems problematic it could be reconciled with the phone cutting off, at which point everything is conjecture, if GZ’s statements are not taken into account. IOW the State seems to imply that a; fight started further down the path, b; TM ran and was followed by GZ, c; they tussle, d; GZ shot TM, e; GZ got up walk back and forth to the top of the T at which point he probably dropped the keys at the top of the keys, set up his story. I think that was why the State wanted the testimony from Mora that she observed GZ walk back and forth from the body to the T and that he looked worried or concerned. They are trying to imply the possibility of GZ dropping the keys and trying to conjure a cover story, and that was indicated by his pacing.

          I am still trying to figure out how W 11 figures in this scenario, since she blows the theory smithereens, since she corroborated GZ’s story to a T but as BHD (bald-headed dude) did try to impeach his own witness later, IDK. The phone testimony was not only to authenticate the calls but he the State wants to establish them as the timeline, to fit their theory.

      • There is no evidence that GZ went down that path. That is the part that is truly conjecture.

        The defense will argue that GZ continued along the one path until he found an address and then proceeded towards his truck. This is consistent with the location of his car keys and some other objects that were on the ground near the t-intersection. It is also consistent because he slammed his torch into the box that is at the T.

        There is ample evidence that TM was the one who backtracked and then hid in the bushes as he was waiting for his victim.

        • I know this but this is why the testimony of W 1 and her change of left to right was meant to imply.

          BDLR tried to imply the same thing by having W8 repeat that TM was by his house when GZ approached TM. That seem to be their objective to suggest that GZ followed down the path, remember the statement about the time, that the phone records were the best timeline available.

          • BINGO

            You have that correct. She changed her testimony so that it appeared like that.

            The question I have is who was coaching her? Was she coached by Crump? Or was it BDLR who asked her to change what she was saying?

            • I think you know what I think, BHD (bald-headed guy) was ready for her testimony as matter of fact he tried to rush right through that part, maybe hoping that MOM would miss it.

              This has always been a weakness of their case, how to counter the testimony of GZ and match it to W 8 so that it would flow into a cogerent story.

              The problem still remains that witnesses like W11 and W6 who may not see the stand unless the Defense calls him, destroys their timeline and testimony and lends a plausible explanation for W 1, that TM was returning to confront GZ.

              The problem we have is that we know the case, will the jurors see it or will they be confused by the contradictory testimony.

      • I am waiting for the medical testimony regarding George. He has back problems and they are the type of problem that would mean he probably did not do any running. Also, it will be interesting to see comments about the boots that he was wearing because they would have hampered him in regard to running.

        So, the witness who heard sneakers probably heard TM running, perhaps she heard him running toward Brandi’s townhouse and then heard him running back again.

        This could mean that the witness who claimed to hear left to right movement actually heard TM running back from Brandi’s townhouse where he most likely had dropped his other loot.

        BTW I think that someone else witnessed what took place. Someone is lying about what he was doing and what he saw. That someone could be roughly 15 years old. On the other hand that witness could be a relative of TM. In other words something is not adding up in everything that we have been reading or hearing so far.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s