Jul 16 2012
How Will Witness 9 (GZ’s Molested Cousin) Effect TM Charges?
Well, a bombshell dropped in the George Zimmerman trial for Murder 2 for the killing of young Trayvon Martin:
A relative of George Zimmerman claims she was molested by him when they were both children, the latest allegation in the case against the former neighborhood watch volunteer charged in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
The interview with police, done nearly a month after the February shooting, was made public Monday after local media fought to have it released, over objections from prosecutors and the defense.
You can get all the evidence regarding Witness 9 here. Witness 9 was the anonymous caller who told police there was a sinister, hidden side to the soft-spoken, policeman-wannabe George Zimmerman. I actually don’t see much impact on the trial except to once more destroy GZ’s credibility (which is already shot to pieces). Even her claims of racism are not against GZ, but against his estranged mother. Clearly this woman has some legitimate beef with GZ, but very little is applicable to the TM case. The only connection that might be made is how well GZ can hide brutal behavior, and how little he cares about his victims (his apology to Witness 9 and her parents was a sad joke).
To be honest, not much more is needed in the case against GZ. As you sift through the evidence, more and more problems become clear. One thing I was thinking of doing was listing how GZ’s story changes over time to deal with serious flaws in his original telling. Something like this [click to enlarge]:
The data comes from this impressive analysis (not all of which I agree with BTW). I still may do one because a few key items are missing from this table – specifically the CVSA interview which has some real damning statements from GZ. For example, at around the 28 minute mark in the interview, GZ drops this whopper on why he got out of the car (may not be 100% accurate transcription):
GZ: All the houses I was next to were the back of the houses, they are town houses so I did not know the address. They [dispatch] said we need to know what street you’re on, what address. …[GZ babbles about giving his street address]… and I got out of my car to look for a street sign so I could tell what street I was on, and … there was no street sign, and I couldn’t make out the house in front of me because there was a big pick up truck there…
This is of course a lie – he saw TM run and he jumped out of his car to follow, without any prompting from the dispatcher. All the mythical interchanges with dispatch on addresses and such never happened. But the dumb part was the reason for not using an address right in front of him. It seems this ginormous pick up truck was blocking the address number of the first house (now known to be the house of Witnesses 11 and 20) at the end of the building TM ran behind. This is why GZ has to run across the top of the T to the other side of the next building over to find any house numbers.
…. yeah, right. Check out where the house numbers are:
I mean – really? A truck totally blocked this from any view? GZ had to walk over 200 feet away, crossing two sets of buildings instead, just to find a house number (instead of maybe looking at the next house to the right)? Prosecutors are going to have a field day with this BS. BTW, recall we have two witnesses who testified GZ told them he got out of the car to find TM. And GZ admitted he was chasing TM to the police dispatcher.
Of course, the fact TM ran from GZ, who then follows TM when he runs away, is proof enough this was not a self defense or stand your ground case for GZ. When one party tries to avoid the conflict (like running away) then the person who continues the confrontation is the criminal, and the other is the victim.
In this case a dead victim.
So I don’t see how Witness 9 does anything for or against GZ. His troubles are monumental already. His story is impossible on numerous levels, with witnesses and evidence poking holes into his claims. They will not need to use witness 9 in court.
But I bet some of those standing by Zimmerman now (like is Air Marshall buddy) will be rethinking which side they want to be on….
Mata,
“Speaking of reading comments before “jumping down the throats of people”, DJStrata,”
My post regarding the rules of evidence in FL courts was not directed at any one. It was just a set of facts to throw into the debate. You really need to take a deep breath and count to 10 before you answer comments. Not to mention you seem to HAVE to answer every comment that is posted. You are the one who causes yourself to repeat the same comments over and over. There are times I can’t tell who’s blog I’m reading any more.
AJStrata says:
July 18, 2012 at 9:30 am
Mata,
Sadly for the Zmmerman Groupies, you hit the nail on the head:
“I’m guessing that if you had a stranger in your neighborhood, letting you pass by without saying a word then following you in a car, then on foot, continued hunting for you – all over a span of five minutes or so – then dramatically reached for – ??? a gun? the moment you said something to him, you wouldn’t be waiting around to see what he proverbially pulled out of a hat.”
Take the first part of this statement: “I’m guessing that if you had a stranger in your neighborhood, letting you pass by without saying a word then following you in a car, then on foot, continued hunting for you – all over a span of five minutes or so…”
One of the things that has always bothered me and many others is exactly this. If I was in the situation (as described above by Mata) and only 30 seconds from home I’d be rushing to get home and to safety ASAP. It would not be going on for over 5 minutes. To many of us something doesn’t add up. It makes us wonder if TM decided to prove his manhood by confronting GZ and decking him. IF that happened it does not relieve GZ of his responsibility for events that took place but it does change the assumptions about what happened and it does put into question the Murder 2 charge.
I hapen to think this is a legitimate question to ask and the answer(s) may have an impact on the verdict. Asking the question does not make me a “Zimmerman Groupie”.
Layman,
Law abiding citizens are not required to run home to safety. They are provided the right to public areas in safety.
Is that now your vision of America? Run when some lunatic plays cop?
I guess if you believe in vigilante justice that would be the scenario you prefer.
Thank goodness that is now allowed, legal or desired by the rest of us.
You do confirm Mata’s claim TM was in danger, was retreating, and was covered under Stand Your Ground. Your only quibble is he felt safe enough to come back out and cross St George.
Nice to see you come around finally.
DJ Strata,
You appear to be attempting to discourage free and open debate as well as interactive commentary.
Please tell me if my interpretation of your statement as quoted above is incorrect.
DJStrata,
Suggest we let the debate proceed. This a very charged debate (which you and I don’t see eye-to-eye on) and I think you and Mata have important views to share.
I would like everyone to remember, there are real victims here. And real victims deserve respect. Character assassination is the path of lesser minds….
To all others, let’s not worry about who should or should not comment. Even heated comments of the moment are worthy comments.
For all readers of this blog,
I was in no way trying to halt or limit people rights to debate, especially on a public blog. Those comments were directed at Mata since the tone of her comments are harsh and she has complained she has to repeat herself all the time.
Since I’m really tired of people twisting other’s people words you all won’t be hearing from on this topic any more. I will allow the judicial process to work and wait and see what evidence is actually allowed to be a part of the case before I make my decision.
AJ:
“Law abiding citizens are not required to run home to safety. They are provided the right to public areas in safety.
Is that now your vision of America? Run when some lunatic plays cop? I guess if you believe in vigilante justice that would be the scenario you prefer.”
——————————————————————————–
Glad to see you trying to twist words, take comments out of context, and play your clever little game.
Go back to DeeDee’s statement. She could tell he was real scared because he was running and out of breath. I ask the logical question: If he was scared why did he return to confront GZ? I never said he was required to retreat. Never said he wasn’t entitled to Public Safety. But sometimes things aren’t so nice and civilized.
Let me ask a hypothetical of myself (since if I say a generic “you” then Mata will change the premise and answer a question I didn’t ask). Suppose I am on the south side of Chicago, or in Compton CA, or in the burbs of Newark or Philadelphia or D.C. – you know, places known to have high crime rates. If I am walking along and I see someone who for whatever reason scares me do I: a) try to get the hell out of Dodge, or b) confront that person. I don’t know about you AJ or Mata, but if its me I choose (a). I may have the right to continue expect public safety but if I am fearful then my common sense tells me those rights can wait.
So that’s where I am coming from when I ask a basic simple question. It doesn’t mean that I “believe in vigilante justice” and prefer or desire guys running around with guns playing cop.
I have come to expect a high level of discussion and commentary on this site – but when it comes to this subject it seems even you are incapable of stepping back and answering a simple question/comment with logic.
The tone of *my* comments are harsh? No judgement call on others who go after AJ, BBG and myself? No comments on RT’s endless comments here? After all, this discussion has been primarily between RT, Layman, gcotharn, AJ and myself, with BBG and you on occasion. I didn’t realize that RT had unlimited chits, and I didn’t.
I really need to invest in some of these one way mirrors many seem to possess….
I’d like to remind you that it was you who drew first blood in a personal comment to me. So it seems this “harsh” tone, that you see magically absent in everyone else, isn’t confined to me at all, DJ.
As to the offering up of the facts on admissible evidence, that subject was brought up by RT, who insists Witness 9’s statements or testimony will never see the light of day because it’s inadmissible. That assumed that the State was planning to use it for their prosecution and, as they plainly stated to the Court, it may become relevant and admissible only in rebuttal or cross examination.
Your supplement of the facts, which would support RT’s erroneous and incomplete conclusion, were decidedly absent the State’s dual reasons for providing this discovery. First, the defense rightfully deserved to have it. And second, that there wasn’t an intent to use this as a direct in their prosecution, but that didn’t mean it would not be able to be used as cross/rebuttal. That needed to be added.
I would apologize for adding that “jumping down throats” comment to that subject comment, but since you feel quite comfortable first jumping down mine, unsolicited (I’ve only been polite to you), in the comment just before, and continue to defend that attitude towards me, I see little reason for doing so.
I will be consistent in my behavior, which is to generally match the tone that is used on me. Thus RT deserves no civility. I actually am civil with Layman, and have been with you as well. gcotharn? After his remarks about a little girl, bearing some responsibility for her molestation, I’ve got no use for that one at all.
Am I allowed to say something since I laid out the scenario, or am I out of chits? LOL
Why, Layman, do you assume he “returned” to confront GZ, Layman? Aren’t you filling in the blanks here?
Again, per GZ’s account, Martin started running when Zimmerman was already parked at Twin Trees by the intersection. Also per his account, Martin started running when he came to that intersection and the path. Lastly, GZ could not describe the “running” when probed on that specifically… and actually refused to nail it down to a full run, fast walk, etc. This actually jives with the Dee comment that Martin said he wasn’t going to run, but to walk fast.
That’s called “retreat”.
Via the dispatcher call, Zimmerman was exiting his car to pursue Martin six seconds after Martin took off at some unknown speed of “run”. The car was not parked far from where Martin started running.
So how far ahead of Zimmerman do you think Martin was? Even Serino, in one of his interviews with GZ, told GZ that Martin could not have physically returned home with the timing and distance via the stories.
Lastly, how many times is a threatened person required to retreat in your mind?
Redteam, not only was Romney’s speech pretty darn good, he even won over one of his harshest conservative critics:
Mark Levin: Romney’s speech today was superb
http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-romneys-speech-today-was-superb/
And, the election debate seems to be set between the two visions (now that Obama went off his teleprompter training wheels to expose his true vision of big government/socialism). Megyn Kelly (FoxNews) just did a segment on other top Dems who have said the same thing. She played a clip of Elizabeth Warren saying almost the exact same thing Obama did (prior to Obama) expanding on those words a bit with real contempt for small businesses and arrogance in her expression.
This has ended up being a real turning point in the general election race.
Hi Mata:
No need for chits! You asked a simple question and I’m happy to answer.
Why do I assume TM returned to confront GZ. 1) Look at the map. 2) Per DeeDee he was “close to his house”. 3) Make an estimate of how much territory TM could cover as he walked fast.
Now take the situation as you so eloquently summarized it in your post July 17, 2012 at 11:28 pm, and add in that per DeeDee he was scared.
As I stated in my post earlier today – in a similar situation I’d probably be scared too and I’d get home ASAP. TM did not go home, ergo he did something else. If he truly was “right by” his house then he returned to confront GZ, check out GZ, or do something with GZ. I don’t know, but based on the evidence/facts as I laid out above, it seems like a logical assumption that TM “returned” and confronted GZ.
Maybe you have an alternative hypothesis. Great! I think mine fits the “facts”. Does that mean I am right? We may never know, or at least won’t until the trial.
Goody Mata: You asked me another question that I am happy to answer. “Lastly, how many times is a threatened person required to retreat in your mind?”
A threatened person is not required to retreat at. I’ve never said they were. I have said that if a person was scared and close to home the logical thing to do would be to go home. If they do not go home then I ask, “Why not?” Either the assumptions are incorrect (possible), they behaved illogically (possible), or they had something else on there mind (possible, and where I have chosen to focus since GZ’s defense will need to go down this path).
Okay, it’s 471′ approx (Google Earth path measure) from the intersection of Twin Trees and the E-W path to Greenes’ house.
Zimmerman couldn’t, or wouldn’t, describe the “run” in the interview with Serino. Dee, who’s testimony can really only be limited to whether he was aware of Zimmerman, and his state of mind, had said he told her he wasn’t going to run. (she sure can’t say where he was exactly in the neighborhood, and we also don’t know what Martin’s words were to her).
So let’s compromise and say he had a fast power walker pace of say 12 feet per second. That’s about 39 seconds to cover that distance to Greene’s house.
Zimmerman was exiting the car to pursue him six seconds after he took off, and them moving at what sounds like a fast walk (via years of cutting foley cloth movement for films/TV) another four seconds after that.
Assuming they were moving at similar fast walk speeds, that puts Zimmerman about 110′ behind Martin… less than a quarter of the full distance to Greene’s house.
I’ve mentioned this before, and we don’t know Martin’s path after that moment. But you mentioned that you’d retreat under those circumstances. So would I. And so did Martin.
But I’ll also add that I’m not going to lead someone chasing me to my home, either. Most especially if there are no adults there, and only another younger child. So my personal inclination would be to get out of sight, get into the shadows and see if this person continued to follow me.
GZ says Martin jumped out of the bushes to assault him. If one is inclined to believe any of GZ’s story, why not that part? Martin would have rounded the corner to get out of GZ’s line of vision, perhaps spotted him on the move after him, and decided to take cover behind the bushes he supposedly jumped out of.
If he’s there, hiding, he may or may not see GZ stop at the tee and take another two minutes to finish his dispatcher call. Then GZ walks east another 100′ to the east leg of RVC.
Is it not then possible that Martin, hiding in the bushes and waiting (probably for what seem an eternity but was at least 2 minutes), thought the coast was clear only to find out that GZ had turned around and now they were in sight of each other? This would lead to the initial words being exchanged? Martin didn’t have to “return” from anywhere because he was staying in the shadows of the bushes, as GZ said he did.
That’s why I say, why does anyone believe that Martin “returned” from anywhere? The distance between the two wasn’t so great that Martin could have gotten home without GZ seeing where he went while pursing him. And this is what Serino pointed out to GZ in one of his interviews… I believe, if memory serves correct, it’s the one where he is comparing the dispatcher call to his story.
Mata: I’ll answer you another of your questions. 🙂
July 17, 2012 at 11:28 pm
Good grief. Pray tell, how *I* can “mischaracterize” your experiment when I copy/pasted your own words on how that experiment went, Layman?
What were the offending remarks that I thought you mischaracterized? Let me quote you: “So what Layman was trying to prove was that it wasn’t easy to knock someone off balance from a 4 pt stance. Problem is, he had two of his limbs restrained that GZ did not. Nor was Martin in that position over Zimmerman, per his own description. So that’s not even close in comparison.”
And yet you quoted me in my own words from my original post:
“Our struggle lasted only a couple minutes and his position varied from a mount, to a one knee up/one knee on the ground, and posted (semi-standing) position. I tried hard and I could create some space between us but I could not get away.”
So if you read my comment (that you quote) I clearly state that the position varied as we struggled. The postions included a mount, one knee on the ground/one knee up (near my chest, this is where you need to visualize a bit), and both knees up. I clearly stated that the best I could do was create a little space between us (3-4 inches). So clearly the entire struggle had nothing to do with a four point stance. That was simply the starting position. That you chose to boil it down to that is what I interpret as a deliberate misstatement or mischaracterization.
Perhaps I could have included more details and decriptions. This is why I keep saying to close your eyes and use a little visualization to fill in the blanks. For a minute or two we both were shifting and bucking and he was leaning on me chest-to-chest, holding onto one hand for a while while he pressed a forearm against the side of my face to keep me down. As I have said many time and you seem to ignore, I was not trying to recreate the TH/GZ fight in every detail. I was just trying to see if it was possible that their body positions changed during the struggle to the extent that the gun shot angle (reality) could have occured during the struggle or if it was impossible as AJ said. My conclusion: In the realm of possibility.
Zimmerman interview on Hannity tonight.
For the record, I protest the media’s handling of this case. It has been “Duke Lacrosse” from the get-go, imho.
And in this country you are innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW.
Mata says:
July 18, 2012 at 3:56 pm
Good answer! Logical and well thought out. I think we have both put forward reasonable hypotheses. Now as more evidence come out we can test them and see how they hold up.
Boy! That last was pretty geeky, wasn’t it?
Hey ivehadit: Thanks for the head up and I agree with the Duke Lacross analogy from how the media and professional race baiters have handled it.
Can we go back to this thing from the beginning for a second?
There’s a camp that thinks TM was a thug and got what he deserved. There’s another that thinks GZ was justified. There’s another that thinks GZ was out of control and took an innocent life without justification, and there’s the final group who go around saying stupid things like: “Trayvon was killed for WIAGCWB – walking in a gated community while black”.
Then there are quite a few of us who are somewhere directly in the middle. We believe GZ is responsible for taking a life but think the Murder 2 charge is over the top. I ask that some of you, when responding to my comments and those of others who are in my camp, please remember that.
I’m getting a little tired of being asked to explain why I believe in a 1984ish society (with a little Nazi Germany thrown in for good measure as well) with armed guards everywhere asking for papers and shooting civilians on sight.
Layman, the key flaw of your experiment to me was that you had your son restrain your wrists, which only left you your legs.
The secondary flaw was that the experiment first started out with you noticing that GZ didn’t demonstrate a “mount” in the reenactment, and you assumed that he wasn’t mounted. Actually, it’s more likely that GZ just didn’t sink to the ground that day, because in all of his other stories, he says that he was mounted and occasionally says Martin’s full weight was on him.
That was when most of us pointed out that he was “mounted”, and if he wasn’t, it would be even easier to throw him off balance when you had all four limbs.
Seems what we have is a morphing conversation/debate that turned into a failure to communicate, since the original point of the experiment totally got lost in translation.
What would be interesting is for you and your son to attempt to recreate the draw of the gun, as detailed by GZ in the CVSA video. As I suggested to AJ, you should download the video first to make it easier. (it’s at the GZ Legal site, the sixth link down. Right click and select the save function… then wait, depending upon your connection’s speed.
You’ll find the officer questioning him over and over about the moments pulling the gun, starting from 41’30”. But actually, starting approx 26 minutes in, GZ gives a very lengthy (and occasionally quite familiar) version of his story that lasts about 10 minutes. That’s followed by a Q&A session that lasts almost to the one hour mark. All this is before the voice stress analysis test is administered. It’s more fascinating than the test.
mata: you are so far out of touch with reality. Layman has explained his experiment fully, in much detail, why he did what he did and you still don’t have a clue. No clue at all. There were no deficiencies in his total experiment. could he have done things differently? certainly. Did his experiment prove anything ? certainly. But from your description of what you think he did, it indicates you are in a different world.
for GZ to say that TM had his hands over his mouth, probably doesn’t mean that he had exactly both hands 100% of the time over his mouth and even if he did, it doesn’t mean that GZ couldn’t have been screaming for help. But I’m sure you think it would mean exactly that and nothing else. You must not have ever been in a physical confrontation where adrenalin entered the picture. At that point, I don’t believe anyone can describe events 100% accurately and time loses all meaning. I know I’m wasting my time explaining it because you have not established that you are a critical thinker as I am (and as AJ is also but with only 75% of the experience at it that I do) and there fore attempting to explain something to you is akin to talking to a stone wall. I’m trying to be nice, but it’s not easy.
mata:
“you should download the video first to make it easier. (it’s at the GZ Legal site, the sixth link down. Right click and select the save function… then wait, depending upon your connection’s speed.”
what? no troubleshooting instructions in case this doesn’t work? maybe your connection speed is fast enough you won’t have to wait.
have you personally run through your directions to ensure that it works?
Layman, it seems as if you may have to shoot your son to sufficiently re-enact the confrontation enough to satisfy mata’s criteria. You know I’m kidding but this thing is getting ridiculous. As you well know, my entire argument from day one is that there does not appear to be enough evidence to convict GZ of any crime but that we will not know until all the evidence is presented in the trial and the jury renders a verdict. In my opinion, GZ was defending himself from sure death and is innocent, but I’m not on the jury and I don’t get a vote. I am not in a GZ groupie category but I do not feel as if he will be convicted of anything. In fact, I think if justice were blind, there would not be a trial, but there is just to much publicity to not let it play out. I do believe that the judge will be disqualified for prejudice, but we’ll see. (please bear in mind that I am well qualified as a ‘critical thinker’.)