Jun 22 2012

Zimmerman Faces Anonymous Witness

Published by at 6:12 pm under All General Discussions,Trayvon Martin Case

The information out on the Trayvon Martin case today is truly damning, and surprising. One of the more intriguing audio clips is this 45 minute ‘last interview’ between SDP and Zimmerman.  It should be noted this happened on February 29th, before the public outcries from certain political circles had really spun up. In this clip at time mark 14:07, SDP investigator Serino drops a bomb shell about an anonymous call he received that day. The caller – depicted as a witness – claims there was much more to the altercation, including a verbal give and take long before any punch landed. This could be Dee Dee, or it could be someone else. But it blows a hole in Zimmerman’s statements.

One thins is clear, Serino says the witness claims Zimmerman tried to detain Martin and was not jumped at all.

I will continue listening to audio to see if Zimmerman continues to try and gild his alibi, but that right there is serious.

Also interesting in the clip, is how Serino echos many of the concerns back then those of us not buying Zimmerman’s claims asked. For example, why not roll down the window and ask Trayvon what was going on from the safety of the truck? Zimmerman’s response is he is scared, but then he goes on foot looking for the kid? The whole vigilante thing comes out in this first installment of a 3 part interview. Even the question of how can you not know the names of the 3 streets in the neighborhood (especially the one you turn in from at the entrance which you have to give to anyone when giving directions to your own house) came up.

Then there is this damning analysis at FDL:

The third thing I noticed is that his description of the confrontation makes absolutely no sense because he claims that after Trayvon punched him in the nose knocking him down, Trayvon got on top of him and was using both hands to cover his mouth and nose to prevent Zimmerman from shouting for help. Yet, even with both of his hands free, Zimmerman claimed only to have attempted to wiggle and slide his body farther underneath Trayvon and away from the concrete sidewalk, thereby inadvertently exposing the gun he was carrying in his waistband hoster.

Yeah, with my hands free I would be gut punching and a few other things – but recall there are no injuries to Martin.

Zimmerman did not explain how Trayvon would have been able to see his gun from his position straddling Zimmerman’s body. Apparently, Trayvon was such a vicious and superhuman thug that he could see through Zimmerman’s clothes and legs.

I caught that one as well, using Zimmerman’s own reenactment to prove it could not happen:

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, however, the bullet must have changed course somehow in the 2 to 4 inch distance between the muzzle of his gun and Trayvon’s chest because it entered Trayvon’s chest 1 inch to the left of the midline and 1/4 inch below the left nipple. It traveled straight through from front to back without deviating up or down, left or right and exploded the right ventricle of the heart and right lower lobe of the lung, collapsing both of his lungs (See page 125).

Odd too that no high velocity blood spatter blowback from the shot impacted Zimmerman’s jacket front or sleeves, according to the crime lab.

I tell you what, that is really, really, really damning.  That bullet path indicates a gun level, at arms length. Not one coming up from the waist pointed upward through arms grasing around Zimmerman’s head or neck.

Trayvon then either slumps forward or Zimmerman pushes him aside — he does not recall which — so that Trayvon ends up lying face down. Zimmerman climbs on top of him, straddling him. Then he grabs both of Trayvon’s hands and stretches them out, so that Trayvon is in a Y-position.

Unfortunately for Zimmerman, Trayvon was found with both of his hands under his body, not stretched out in a Y position.

Hard to keep so many details straight when you make things up on the fly.

Update: For all you timeline junkies this is the recording where police play the recorded dispatch call and you can hear how the timeline from Zimmerman makes no damn sense. Especially the supposed stop at the clubhouse. Amazing

68 responses so far

68 Responses to “Zimmerman Faces Anonymous Witness”

  1. browngreengold says:


    What do you need a link to specifically?

    Have you listened to the call with the dispatcher?

    Have you listened to the interviews conducted with Officer Singleton and Investigator Serino?

    If the answer is “yes” to both of those things then you’ve already heard the tapes which detail the areas where the tales conflict.

    All of the audio interviews from the night of 2/26 and the subsequent interviews (beginning on 2/27) are on the gzlegalcase.com website for your easy reference.

    (The audio files on that site do not have minute/second markers which show when the file is played.)

    The phone call with the dispatcher is easily obtainable on YouTube.

  2. browngreengold says:

    momdear is still stuck on the 6’3″ meme that was proven false weeks ago.

    One can only hope that she is kept a long distance from any jury pool due to the kind of attitude she has expressed on this site.

  3. AJStrata says:


    As a famous general once said to a reporter, going through life stuck stupid is a bad idea (paraphrasing here).

  4. Redteam says:

    Mata: “Ms. Merritt seems to have a bias problem, and has from the start.”

    well, thank goodness no one else around here has a bias.

  5. Redteam says:


    I’d say you have the facts of the case down very accurately. I too believe if someone is bashing your head onto a concrete sidewalk with intent to render you unconscious or worse, that you have the right to prevent it, up to and including depriving that person of a further existence. I’d say other readers would share that point of view.

  6. Redteam says:

    mata: “mata, I said A, you said it’s not A, it’s really A. Again. redux?

    You shouldn’t agree with statements that you say you don’t agree with. If you learned that in preschool, you wasted your time. and you definitely need to repeat legal 101, if you’ve already taken it.

    your turn

  7. Mata says:

    gcotharn: A.J.

    Are you and Mata asserting that GZ concocted a fiction … in advance of the physical confrontation? i.e. in anticipation of a potential physical confrontation which had yet to occur?

    Actually, gcotharn, it is GZ himself who is “concocting” the fiction of Martin, circling his SUV while parked on Twin Trees, prior to him exiting the car to pursue him.

    Now even GZ says that TM circled his vehicle, nor passed him by before he called the dispatcher line. Trying to think of a few extra lies to help out ol’ George?

    His story is quite simple.. if not factually impossible in some places:

    1: He eyed, and passed TM by at the NW corner of the complex, where he could cut in between the homes as the row homes switched from running north-south to east-west.

    2: He continued on to the clubhouse where he pulled over to call the dispatcher line. He was there, describing TM catching up to him until at least 1’25”. He was even asked if TM was catching up to where he was, and he confirmed.

    3: TM passed, and went down Twin Trees Lane. GZ followed (and he confirmed “followed”, and not in front of TM) to his final parking spot.

    4: Here’s where GZ inserts his lie of “circling”. He says he watched Martin run down, cut right, come back out, and circle his SUV.

    What’s the problem with that? 43 seconds earlier, GZ was parked at the clubhouse. 43 seconds later, at his Twin Trees location after following TM, it’s 2’08” into the dispatcher call, he jumps out of his car six seconds later and the “don’t need you to do that” call speaks for itself.

    During that 43 seconds of following TM, GZ did not say that TM left his sight, that he was running flat out, nor was charging him full speed and circling.

    So why do you think that GZ inserted this threatening behavior into a time frame where it couldnt’ possibly have happened?

    And we’re saying he is a liar because he pointed out exactly when it was supposed to have happened, and his dispatcher call proves that it was impossible.

    gcotharn: Mata,

    You were in the Jeralyn Merritt comment section! You are famous.

    And here is a reply to you:

    Hardly famous since Ms. Merritt decided to delete the majority of my comments, including the comment that led to the idiot reply of cboldt you excepted (that was not from Ms. Merritt). What led up to that was my first comment… pointing out what the State was going to have to prove with the murder two charges, and what was the defense going to do to address what doesn’t look like an easy task to surmount. Jeralyn decided that my comment was a “moral judgement” ??? and said that the thread was about TZ’s “self-defense”.

    I take it that she, along with her devotees, do not wish to address O’Mara’s task of instilling reasonable doubt to the murder two elements, and just stick to the head banging. She may have that luxury as a pundit. Unfortunately, O’Mara can’t.

    That said, cboldt – a commenter with more than his fair share of “troll” hits and has been limited in other threads to only four comments by Ms. Merritt – attempted to answer the question saying that his tailing and pursing Martin relentlessly did not prove “ill will” or that he set out to shoot TM.

    I had a follow up comment, which again Ms. Merritt deleted, that stated if the State thought he set out to shoot TM, they would have charged him with murder one, not murder two. Why that short return comment was deleted… who the heck knows.

    As AJ pointed out to you, they do not need to prove premeditated intent to kill for murder two. Nor does anyone think that GZ set out to kill Martin. It was demonstrative of a “depraved mind” and utter disregard to human life to hunt down what was an individual, not doing anything wrong nor threatening to GZ, obviously aware of his pursuit, and not expect that he may meet up with that individual.. and the potential that it could escalate.

    Ms. Merritt also deleted my comments about the “circling” and it’s impossibility when comparing the three statements of GZ… the dispatcher call, the reenactment, and his clarification with the Serino interview which compared his call to his story. She said it was stated as a “fact” when it was still disputable.

    ??? Well, considering that GZ, himself, inserted exactly when that circling was supposed to happen, and that it is a physical impossibility with the dispatcher call timeline.. which even Serino pointed out. So I’d say the only ones that “dispute” it are those that fail to see any “variations” in the GZ statements. I guess that means that he’s sticking to his lies and remaining consistent in his story, as opposed to his story compared to the actual time line of that night, as documented by his own call to the dispatcher. Disputable, my butt… not in the world of physics, if we believe GZ’s story in it’s entirety.

    I spent less than 6 hours total time span there. While I watched Ms. Merritt complain my statement of circling as impossible was not factual and delete me, she has let that same observation stand by others. Additionally, she has let non factual statements of TM definitively attacking GZ first stand without deleting. It seems I got under her skin, pushing for the murder two elements instead of the head banging. And I assure you… I was quite polite.

    I figure she’s got her own agenda, and it most certainly doesn’t including talking about the elements of murder two and GZ’s falsehoods prior to the fight… other than to say she sees “nothing that amounts to a contradiction or a difference.”

    Dang.. can’t help that the large glaring hold of circling seems to escape her attention…

    My last comment to her, when she said she’d be deleting yet another comment unless I changed it, was “please feel free to delete, and I’ll be on my merry way.” She’s deleted all those comments as well.

    Hey… it’s her blog. No problem with that. If she wants an echo chamber with only slight dissension (i.e. the “he may be lying, but it’s still self defense” types), she’s free to have it. I don’t have much patience with forums like that. But don’t hold this place up to me as some open and fair debate forum, but I’ve proven it’s anything but in just six hours. It’s just one more censored forum that focuses on dodging the charges the State is bringing against Zimmerman.

    And as you can see, even AJ doesn’t not practice selected censorship.

    Apparently, I’m not the only one she’s been deleting, since she’s devoted an entire post to her posting rules and who she will choose to delete. I wasn’t around long enough for her to gnash her teeth about me, personally, and pen a post devoted to my comments alone. Problem is that since the GZ statements have been released, the former “rah rah” section over there has had some hot air released out of the balloon…

    BBG, I’ve already attempted to correct mommiedearest before on his larger than life Martin portrayal. Like a few others here, she’s a slow learner.

    Speaking of slow learners…. we’ll make this easy. RedTeam, refer to my first paragraph of this comment and make sure you go out and buy yourself a hefty stash of staples.

  8. gcotharn says:

    Did GZ mention circling in the interview with the female detective? or in the interview with both the female detective and Serino? Or, if somewhere else, do you have a link? Thanks for your consideration.

  9. Mata says:

    gcotharn, GZ does the same rehearsed story, including the circling, with ever vague locations and timelines, in at least three of his statements. The CVSA interview, the reenactment, and the interview with Singleton (Part Two, 2-27-12). All are done within 24 hours of the shooting, and all are available at the site I’ve linked here quite often… O’Mara’s GZ Legal Case website. Please do bookmark it.

    Haven’t gotten to Singleton’s later Feb interviews yet… been busy. Both Serino and Singleton nail him on the dispatcher vs his story in their tag team interview on Feb 27th. George doesn’t do so good when his story goes up against the dispatcher call… as he very well knows.

    He never says he was circled at the clubhouse. In fact, he’s so danged screwed up with his constant lies that he can’t keep straight exactly when he was following Martin in his car, but he was always behind him.

    He tells the CVSA that Martin circled him when he had his hand in his waistband. Well that’s interesting, because from 46″ to 1’06”, he says that Martin is at the clubhouse and coming towards him. The circling while the hand is in the waistband is six seconds later.

    So shall we assume that Martin, on foot, and ol’ George in his idling SUV, managed t get from where he was parked in front of the clubhouse all the way to the Twin Trees spot by the dog walk in six seconds?

    “willing suspension of disbelief:

    He also tells the CVSA tester that he watched Martin walk around the corner and out of sight, then got out of his car to get an address. Actually says this a few times… to Singleton as well, claiming the dispatcher told him to. What’s the problem?

    He never tells the CVSA once that Martin was “running”. In fact, he can’t describe that “run” to Serino. What comes to mind is Dee saying TM said he wouldn’t run, but walk fast… and with that GZ is out of the car like a jack rabbit and on his tail.

    Three times in a single interview with Singleton-Serino, he tells them he’s that he’s at RVC when he finishes his dispatcher call. He tells the CVSA guy that he stopped at the tee/site of death, just as he does on his reenactment. Oh what a difference a few days make…

    Dispatcher approx highlights for you to ponder… suggest you print it off or save it in a Word file, and refer to it when you’re listening to these Aesop’s fables he’s spinning. THe man must have a Star Trek transporter to pull this crap off…

    :26 – drugs or something, just walking, looking about
    :35 – description of clothes
    :44 – just staring at houses, now just staring at me
    :54: he’s at the clubhouse, now he’s coming towards me
    1:02 got his hand in his waistband
    1:18 – something’s wrong with him
    1:24 – checking me out, don’t know what his deal is (dispatcher says “let us know if he does anything else”
    1:35 – these assholes
    1:49 – tries to give directions, stumbling about
    2:08 – shit he’s running
    2:13-14 – exits car
    2:24 – 2:42 – cloth movement walking (stops at tee, but tells cops he was at RVC)

    BTW, that CVSA interview has other some surprising things in it. He’s had a regular psychologist (who gave him a really hard time after the shooting… something about authoritative behavior is mumbled after a pregnant pause…)

    He admits to his three meds and being ADHD.

    But what was most surprising is he has penchant for an instinctive body movement he does when he talks about “reaching for his phone”. I was surprised the first time I saw it, and had to replay it a couple of times… why? Because it’s an unconscious dramatization of what someone would do when they were speaking of reaching for their gun and right where it just happened to be holstered. He does this unconscious and dramatic interpretation of “reaching” for his phone/gun two out of the three times he discusses it. (video times 30’41” and 38’40”)

    I’m beginning to seriously ponder the possibility that what GZ is hiding is that, when the talking started, he reached for his gun.

    So it doesn’t help whe he keeps repeating in these accounts that he was decked, and on his back right at the tee… not anywhere near where the fight and death happened.

  10. Mata says:

    Sorry, typo on the date. The Singleton Pt II audio is 2-26. You’ll see it on the GZ statements list without a problem.

  11. AJStrata says:


    RE your treatment at Merritt’s blog:

    I have to say I cannot stand those who censor debate on blogs. Even when I toss someone out of here, I don’t delete their comments. I also don’t regularly edit comments (unless it is way over the line, and if I do I make note of why.

    I just cannot understand why anyone would do that? In my opinion, if I am going to be tough on the readers here, they deserve free and open access to get their views out. Then everyone can decide for themselves.

    I don’t agree with them, but I just could never censor them.

    I guess I take the Constitution thingy too seriously…

  12. DJStrata says:

    Just to put my 2 cents in to the hilarious commentary here.

    1. As of right now we have no idea what evidence will be admitted into the case. The motions that both parties are currently going through now are to suppress evidence. Just because the judge decides to not suppress the evidence does not mean that it will actually be allowed to be admitted during the case. Both parties will go into the actual trial with as much evidence as possible. They won’t use all of it and all of it will not be allowed. In some cases redacted versions made be allowed, but then those aren’t always added because it changes the original intent behind using said evidence.

    2. Mata and Redteam: regarding the Big Mac you are on the same page. Mata I know that that doesn’t seem plausible but I would recommend dropping it. You are starting to lose credibility by arguing the exact same thing that Redteam has already said and agreed to.

    3. My legal credentials: certified paralegal with extensive litigation in both state and federal courts (among a lot of other legal areas not pertinent to this case)

  13. DJStrata says:

    Oh! and the state has the burden of proof. They must prove murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense does not have to put up a case at all (really stupid in my opinion but the defense’s right by law). If the defense puts on their case they only have to create reasonable doubt, they do not have to prove reasonable doubt. The reasonable doubt just needs to be strong enough to cause the jury to question. If the jury questions the states case at all, then they must acquit.

  14. Mata says:

    AJ, I don’t take it personally. Like I said, I wasn’t there long enough to generate a full post/lecture about her posting regulations and censorship guidelines. I haven’t been the only one. In fact, I notice that along with taking my parent comment down, which also mentioned the uphill battle of the “reasonable and perfect” defense, another of her regular commenter noted that armed vs unarmed is generally a difficult defense. That comment when down the cyber trash bin too… which I found curious.

    Ms. Merritt did a single post pondering whether the State could prove the ill-will “depraved mind” back on Apr 15, prior to the May 15th doc dump and the recent release of GZ’s statements. It was her contention then, and remains, they can’t. That seems a rather self-serving write off of evidence that, up to that point, she had never seen. With the release of more evidence, most especially GZ’s sketchy statements about the event, I find it odd that it’s not a topic of discussion. Even now she discounts the eventual reality that is up to a jury to decide if the GZ choices that evening demonstrated sufficient ill will for meeting what they decide is a “depraved mind”.

    DJStrata.. relative perhaps? LOL The conversation, repeated that is at issue for the reckless behavior of eating a Big Mac that results in a vehicular manslaughter charge by the State is condensed to two comments:

    Mata: “However if you get into a vehicle accident, and there is a resulting death, the fact that you were legally eating a Big Mac, which contributed to the death, will not get you off.”

    RedTeam: Leaving a bit off here, eh? Nor will it get you convicted.

    I suspect the charge would be more like negilent driving or reckless driving, etc. I’m relatively sure the charge would not be ‘legally eating a Big Mac’.

    First, I didn’t say that anyone would be charged with “legally eating a Big Mac”. Without that being codified on the books as a crime or misdemeanor, that would be an impossibility.

    What I said was despite the fact there are no torts about eating while driving (yet), that fact that it wasn’t illegal wasn’t going to absolve someone from a manslaughter charge. If it’s dangerous or reckless conduct that demonstrates an utter disregard for human life or part of a series of criminal acts, it is relevant and most certainly would be instrumental to any ensuing conviction.

    This relates because Redteam has been one that has noted that GZ’s persistent intent to follow/pursue Martin made his actions irrelevant to the murder two charge because they aren’t illegal…. when, in fact, his decisions and choices – which the State obviously considers is tantamount to “criminal acts” and a demonstration of a “depraved mind” – form the cornerstone of their murder two charge. The two are inseparable. Whether they can successfully argue that to a jury will remain to be seen.

    Nor would the charge necessarily be either “negligent driving” or “reckless driving”, unless the State specifically added those as multiple charges along with the vehicular manslaughter. You know very well that the State can pile on sundry charges, and defendants can be found guilty on some, and not on others. So that’s a rather off topic and extraneously naive remark. It was designed as a foolish and petty mischaracterization – to insinuate I said someone would be charged with “legally eating a Big Mac” when I did not say that’s what would occur.

    RT seems to be confusing reckless, albeit legal, behavior is the same thing as the criminal charge.

    Lastly, where Redteam went very wrong was that he said the very legal, albeit reckless or irresponsible conduct, cannot get one convicted. Sorry. Happens every day all around the nation.

    So I fail to see where we are “saying the same thing”. And I had already dropped it, and am only returning to it once more because you brought it back up.

  15. Redteam says:

    mata: Gee, sorry to hear that Merritt either didn’t recognize or desire your legal expertise on her blog. I’ve never been to her blog, so don’t know what her standards are.

    DJ: Thanks for your comments, agree completely

  16. Redteam says:

    mata: this is getting humorous, you are going in circles: “What I said was despite the fact there are no torts about eating while driving (yet), that fact that it wasn’t illegal wasn’t going to absolve someone from a manslaughter charge.” You didn’t say that at all.
    you like to ask for links, so link to where you think you said that.

    on second thought, never mind. I agree with DJS that “You are starting to lose credibility” The problem is, you missed the off ramp when you entered the traffic circle. Maybe it’s because you were legally eating a Big Mac.

    AJ, thanks for your comments about letting people make uncensored comments. While I certainly don’t agree with your viewpoint on the TM/GZ case, i do agree with you on about 99% of the other topics you write on, especially political and global warming points of view.

  17. Redteam says:

    mata: “This relates because Redteam has been one that has noted that GZ’s persistent intent to follow/pursue Martin made his actions irrelevant to the murder two charge because they aren’t illegal”

    psychic now? you know his ‘intent’ how? no, wait….’persistent intent’ tell us how you know his ‘persistent intent’, I’m gonna guess it’s your Legal 101 course, or… perhaps…Osmosis.

    Actually you claim that I (Redteam) noted GZ’s persistent intent “Redteam has been one that has noted that GZ’s persistent intent ” so actually you are claiming that I am the one that noted GZ’s persistent intent. I have never made a statement that indicates that I have any knowledge of GZ’s intent. Maybe you’d better stick with legally eating a Big Mac.

  18. browngreengold says:

    Hey RT….

    How is the search for the Dershowitz quote regarding the Zimmerman bond hearing going?

    Oh… no luck huh?

    How about the search for the judge’s statement that Zimmerman is “guilty”?

    Oh… no luck on that one either, eh?

    How about the link to the transcript of Zimmerman’s re-enactment that you claim to have known about “weeks ago” even though it was only released to the public last week.

    Ooof… Nothing there either?

    Hmmm…seems like you have a demonstrably bad habit of talking out of your azz.

    Thus the reason that no one with half the brains of a Big Mac takes you seriously on this site.

  19. Mata says:

    Mercy, RT… if you don’t want to have your head chopped off, don’t willingly lay it on the guillotine, fer heavens sake.

    My first comment about this was to AJ about how everyone wants to only focus on the head banging self defense, and not the charges leveled by the Stat… and where I said:

    I doubt that either you, me, or BGG would disagree with his observations on Zim’s irresponsible actions. But again we run back full circle to a couple of misconceptions:l

    1: That the O’Mara/GZ defense can totally ignore the three elements of murder two, and rely only on self-defense as a strategy, and

    2: That Zim’s choices that even may not be illegal, but that does not absolve him or the responsibility of those choices.

    To #1, been there done that, too many times to count.

    To #2, as I’ve said before, it’s not illegal to eat a Big Mac while driving. However if you get into a vehicle accident, and there is a resulting death, the fact that you were legally eating a Big Mac, which contributed to the death, will not get you off.

    Irresponsibility, just because it is no legal tort prohibiting it, is not a viable defense in the real world.

    You decided to wander into that conversation and muddy all cogency when you decided to cherry pick that sole paragraph, and offer up your mistranslation.

    I immediately came back with the follow up comment:

    Yes, Redteam… if you are charged with vehicular manslaughter, also called vehicular homicide, you most certainly can be convicted if found guilty of negligence or irresponsible behavior that results in death…. which includes inattentive driving because you were focusing on your Big Mac.

    In many states, ordinary negligence, or carelessness, on the part of the driver will support a vehicular manslaughter charge. Ordinary negligence is inattention, or driving that lacks the care and prudence that an ordinarily careful person would exercise under the circumstances. For example, a driver who only briefly takes his eyes off of the road while reaching into his car’s console can still be charged with vehicular manslaughter if his inattention results in a fatal accident.

    All but three states have these statutes. Penalties vary state to state, of course and there is no lack of those who have been charged and are paying the penalty for for brief moments of irresponsibility.

    Thus my first statement about the Big Mac and irresponsibility was specifically related to death via vehicular homicides or vehicular manslaughter (that’s what car accident involving a death means…), and it was further clarified… along with a link which you apparently ignored… that even a 6th grader could have comprehended.

    Got a good supply of staples? You obviously need them.

    No one needs to be a psychic to see GZ’s intent. He profiled Martin when he passed him by, followed him in his car down the road, and took off pursing him… via his own words. He further went searching for him for two more minutes after hanging up with the dispatcher.

    Now if you want to believe that GZ had demonstrated no intent involving Martin …

    1: with the four minutes spent profiling, following and chasing him and

    2: another two minutes, supposedly searching for an address where his car was parked on a road where his car *wasn’t* parked, and in a neighborhood with three street names which he patrols regularly

    …. then I can only pronounce you a gullible fool who willfully ignores the obvious.

  20. Redteam says:

    mata: “No one needs to be a psychic to see GZ’s intent.”
    so, you’ve gone from ‘knowing’ his intent to ‘seeing’ his intent. Congratulate your eye doctor for me.

    I find it interesting that you ‘set out’ to prove to me where you actually said what you ‘claimed’ you said, talked in circles for awhile, said nothing of substance, gave up, then claimed to have shown me where you had said something that you never said. You sure get confused, don’t you?

    no wonder Merritt deleted your comments. I can see why. I’m gonna guess you’re still legally chewing on that Big Mac while peddling around the traffic circle.

    your turn.