Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman bond hearing Live (Update: Aff’t of Probable Cause)

Zimmerman bond hearing Live (Update: Aff’t of Probable Cause)

Hearing was extremely short.

Court noted that a two page affidavit of probable cause was filed.  Court finds probable cause exists at this stage.  Court notes that all further proceedings will be in Circuit Court.  Sets May 29th, 1:30, probable cause hearing in Circuit Court.

Judge says will make public probable cause affidavit.

Defense counsel (O’Mara) asks for remainder of record to be sealed because of concerns over witness identification, addresses, and personal information.  Prosecution agreed.

Does not appear that there was any request for release pending the next court hearing.

LIVE Feed terminated.  Images below, I’ll post video when available.

Update:  The Orlando Sentinel obtained the Affidavit of Probable Cause, but I’ve not been able to find a copy online. (Update – here’s the affidavit)  Here’s the Sentinel report:

Meanwhile, a probable cause affidavit filed in the second-degree murder case failed to disclose much new evidence.

The four-page affidavit did, however, does offer a few new pieces of information. It says, that “Zimmerman confronted Martin,” an apparent contradiction of Zimmerman’s version of the events.

It also says Trayvon’s mother identified the screams for help heard in a 911 call as those of her son. It also reveals that investigators interviewed a “friend” of Trayvon’s who talked to him on the phone in the leadup to the shooting.

Based on the description, it appears the friend was the girl described by Martin family attorneys as his girlfriend.

“During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening,” the affidavit said. “The witness advised that Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn’t know why.”

Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. “Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin.”

The affidavit goes on to say that “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher” who told him to stop, and “continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.”

Zimmerman, the affidavit says, “confronted Martin and a struggle ensued.”

According to the affidavit: “Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s. Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest.”

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Ah, so there will be a “probable cause hearing”. I assume this is a hearing on whether to commit him to trial. In other words, I was right to be shocked at the notion that prosecutors in Florida can commit people to trial on their own authority, and in fact they can’t. That’s a relief.

Hang on, where’s this white guy they’ve been yammering on about? I can’t see any white guy in those photos!

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Milhouse. | April 12, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    the judge even asked the lawyer where his client was, as I understood it … O’Mara gestured to him … the judge was like “oh, I didn’t recognize him there”

    I guess he was expecting a 250 pound, 6’5″ toughened white guy

    not a 5’8″ 160 pound mild Hispanic (figuring he lost ten pounds due the ordeal)

    Comrade Terry in reply to Milhouse. | April 12, 2012 at 4:03 pm

    The guy with the tie. He looks white (or pink).

Maybe I missed it professor but have you opined yet about whether going for 2nd degree murder is over-charging?

    William A. Jacobson in reply to Pasadena Phil. | April 12, 2012 at 2:16 pm

    I don’t see how we could know if it is over charging until we know what the evidence is. Key pieces, such as forensics, have not been released.

      If you had taken up journalism instead of law, you would already know the answer to Pasadena Phil’s question. Life is much simpler if you don’t get all bogged down with things like evidence and due process.

      It keeps getting reported that this occurred in a “gated community”. Did Martin live in this community? If not, was he not trespassing? It seems to me that this would matter.

      Neighborhood watches are organized for a good reason. Confronting a trespasser seems like a logical and reasonable step to take. Why is trespassing never mentioned?

      I have attended a couple of anti-terrorism briefings in my community volunteer career where we are advised to look for people who just don’t seem to belong for whatever reason. We are advised to approach those people non-threateningly and offer to help if they allow us to get near. The idea is that if they don’t want the attention and will often just run and we report the incident to the police right away. Isn’t what happened here consistent with that?

Does not appear that there was any request for release pending the next court hearing.

Confinement by the government may be Zimmerman’s safest option, if the authorities do their job correctly.

If.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to gs. | April 12, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    As a practical matter, you’re right. But that should not be. Zimmerman should be able to not have to live in fear. If law enforcement would do their jobs, he could.

    The same should be true for the witnesses. I’d like to know if any of them have received threats.

    9thDistrictNeighbor in reply to gs. | April 12, 2012 at 5:39 pm

    Like Leo Frank, the mob will know where to find him when the time for the lynching arrives….

Why ask for bond when you know the likely answer would be a ginormous figure that Zimmerman simply cannot afford?

I’m assuming Florida has guidelines, and given the circus no judge is going to grant anything other than the max.

Best to let that one go for now, saving the judge from going off autopilot so soon might even get you a brownie point.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to ThomasD. | April 12, 2012 at 4:44 pm

    I would ask for it if for no other reason than to force the prosecutor to state her reasons for asking for a ridiculously high bail. Make her show a couple cards.

    Corey has a reputation for demanding extremely high bail.

I just hate the fact we have to defend “the rights” of this Misidentified/Minority, Democrat-Voting, Activist-Liberal in the face of the people always screaming “Minorities are having their rights taken away by the Republicans because they are EVILLLL Racists…” while we simultaneously take the criticism for being “RACISTS!!!!” in our defending this Hispanic Democrat Activists rights

Guess its just another moment in the eternal contradiction that is the Left

    ThomasD in reply to Darkstar58. | April 12, 2012 at 3:13 pm

    Who is this ‘we’ you are addressing? I don’t know about you, or most anyone else here, but I’m a conservative leaning classical liberal.

    I reject identity politics in favor of equal protection under the law. No matter how distasteful I might find someones politics they are in no way deserving of mob,or racialistic ‘justice’ and if I would speak out in defense of anyone else over similar issues I would be a hypocrite not to extend the same concern to him.

    This is not about George Zimmerman the particular man. Anything else he may be should have essentially no bearing on how he is to be treated. This is about George Zimmerman as everyman and how his specific actions on the night of the shooting should be judged.

    That the left eat their own is of no surprise to me, perhaps Zimmerman is learning likewise. I sincerely hope he did not think his political identity would be of any benefit.

    Is there some potential irony here? Perhaps, but I would not let it dictate my emotions.

      Darkstar58 in reply to ThomasD. | April 12, 2012 at 3:34 pm

      You may have taken my comment as something it wasnt

      I am merely saying “we” (the people here, that are constantly labeled as Racists who want to take the rights away from minorities and democrats) are pretty much the only ones defending this minority, democrat activist’s rights

      However, we are now somehow being called Racist for protecting the rights of this activist, minority democrat

      Being stuck in the Liberal-Logic-Loop sucks, and that is what I was stating…

        ThomasD in reply to Darkstar58. | April 12, 2012 at 5:45 pm

        Yeah, I get that. But only to the extent that I ‘get’ that leftists really do think and operate on those terms. Terms on which I simply will not engage.

        I am not a reactionary, and will lend no credence to their ends or their means.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Darkstar58. | April 13, 2012 at 8:40 am

    The kingdom/religion of hate, lies, lust, death, injustice, vengeance eats its own – that is its nature.

WTF. It was a bond hearing? Did he get bond? If so, how much? And how long before the victim (Zimmerman) is out on bond?

oldyannkee46 | April 12, 2012 at 3:52 pm

The instructions to jury to convict of 2nd degree murder says that it is not necessary for the the state to prove intent of the defendent to cause murder. Professor, it looks like it would make it easier for the prosecution to convict, right or wrong ?

    ThomasD in reply to oldyannkee46. | April 12, 2012 at 4:20 pm

    IANAL, but intent could still be an element of a 2nd degree charge, if for example, the intent was to cause the death of one person, but the act resulted in the death of another (e.g. shooting into a crowd evincing a depraved indifference to the dead bystander…)

    In this case it does mean that the prosecution does not have to establish and intent to cause Martin’s death. More importantly (I suspect) it means the case does not require a true bill from a grand jury in order to proceed.

    Grand Juries proceedings are supposed to be secret. I think Corey knew that was never gonna happen. If she did take this to a GJ, and they came back with even a lesser charge there is too much likelihood that she would have lost control of so much evidence/information as to preclude the possibility of a fair trial.

    So, it was either go big (as big as she could without a GJ) or go home.

    She chose big.

    Darkstar58 in reply to oldyannkee46. | April 12, 2012 at 6:34 pm

    No, intent is needed – just not necessarily the intent to specifically kill. For a 2nd Degree conviction, one needs to prove Malice

    The instructions you mention include it here:
    “3. There was an unlawful killing of (victim) by an act immediately dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human life”

    Where the definition of Deprived mind is
    “inherent deficiency of moral sense and integrity. It consists of evil, corrupt and perverted intent which is devoid of regard for human dignity and which is indifferent to human life. It is a state of mind outrageously horrible or inhuman.”

    You can probably imagine where this is likely going to be difficult for the prosecution. They would have to prove that Zimmerman had the intent to do Martin disproportionate harm out of an evil or inhuman state of mind.

    Hi Oldyannkee46,

    This looks like a “Felony-Murder” charge. Intent is not necessary as such, merely the unlawful killing of another during the commission of a felony crime that is immediately dangerous to human life.

    Discharge of a firearm in public is sufficient to meet this purpose (Title XLVI, Chapter 790, Section 790.15). My guess is that is what the prosecutor is trying to hang her hat on.

    If the Castle Doctrine or Self Defense applies, then the Discharge of a firearm charge evaporates and the killing becomes lawful.

      Should read “imminently” not immediately.

      Can be substituted for inherently in other judicial districts.

      Darkstar58 in reply to Chuck Skinner. | April 12, 2012 at 7:34 pm

      what felony crime are you saying Zimmerman was committing when Martin attacked him?

        Felony discharge of a weapon in public (790.15)

          Darkstar58 in reply to Chuck Skinner. | April 12, 2012 at 9:00 pm

          So you’re saying the prosecution is going to claim Zimmerman wasn’t shooting at Martin, Martin just happened to end up getting shot and Zimmerman should have perceived that possibility while he was randomly discharging his weapon?

          That’s the only way Malicious Disregard fits here, and it just doesn’t fit anything anyone has ever even come close to claiming.

          And if you don’t have Malicious Disregard, then you must prove Malicious Intent to come up with 2nd Degree

          Hi again Darkstar,

          Yes. Effectively that is correct. This is kind of convoluted from a legal perspective, but bear with me:

          The prosecution can say that Zimmerman was discharging his weapon at Martin (but they don’t need to prove that as an element), but that he was UNLAWFULLY doing so (meaning that he didn’t have a reason at the time he fired the shot). All they need to prove is that Zimmerman discharged a round in the location he was in (which Zimmerman will admit to, if he hasn’t already).

          Basically what this boils down to is that they prosecution is going to say that Martin was not in sufficient danger to invoke either lethal force self-defense or the Castle Doctrine against Trayvon, because they will claim that Martin was in no danger of “Great Bodily Harm” or “Death” from Trayvon.

          Thus, the discharge itself becomes felonious (because it was in a public place (per 790.15), the bullet hitting martin becomes felony murder, because death occurred out of the felonious act.

          The legal definition of Malicious Disregard has been co-opted in firearms cases. The way it works is that there is a PRESUMPTION that IF you fire a round and you don’t have reason to, it is, per se, felonious. You only have reason to fire a round if you are in danger of Great Bodily Harm or Death. Thus the argument will be all about whether Zimmerman had the necessary level of force used against him in order to get to GBH or Death.

          Sorry! Paragraph should read:

          Basically what this boils down to is that they prosecution is going to say that ZIMMERMAN was not in sufficient danger to invoke either lethal force self-defense or the Castle Doctrine against Trayvon, because they will claim that ZIMMERMAN was in no danger of “Great Bodily Harm” or “Death” from Trayvon.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to oldyannkee46. | April 13, 2012 at 8:41 am

    to cause murder or cause death?

      Not sure I understand your question, but I’ll make an attempt at answering.

      Murder is just a specific form of unlawfully causing death that contains some sort of mental state requirement (either actual or implied) on the part of the person doing the killing.

      Manslaughter is basically any form of causing unlawful death, regardless of mental state of the person doing the killing.

      In either case, a Castle Doctrine defense would make the killing lawful IF Zimmerman can prove that he was in danger of death or Great Bodily Harm.

      Alternatively, a Self Defense defense would make the killing lawful if it was less than or equal to the amount of force that Trayvon was bringing to the conflict (which for the purposes of this case is again death or Great Bodily Harm).

      Does that answer your question?

Every time I see the Martin’s parents, I get this yucky feeling that they are not mourning. Just yesterday the mother said “All we wanted was an arrest, now we have it, thank you.”
That really rubs me the wrong way because “all she wanted was an arrest” meaning that’s all it takes to get a civil lawsuit going and she is thinking of payday is coming.
I have been in grief counseling sessions with people whose child was killed and the grief continued for a year with inappropriate public outbursts and even psychiatric hospitalization for the mother. Where are the tears and grief?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to beloved2. | April 12, 2012 at 4:36 pm

    These people are sickening. If someone wants an arrest under any circumstances, and getting that arrest enables a suit to go forward, then it’s blatantly obvious what the whole thing is really about.

    Isn’t it interesting what evil fools reveal about themselves when the media shows up?

      How do we know Trayvon Martin’s parents are “evil fools”? I haven’t seen any evil from Martin’s parents NOR Zimmerman’s family. The evil fools are the fools that have turned that turned this into bad Hollywood movie (i.e. New Black Panther Party, Spike Lee, etc.).

        Darkstar58 in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 6:46 pm

        While “Evil Fools” is definitely a questionable way of describing it, I imagine he is getting at things like attempting to trademark Martins name, hiring a well known wrongful death and civil rights attorney before facts are even known, and making so many appearances stating assumptions as some kind of fact.

          T-Steel in reply to Darkstar58. | April 12, 2012 at 7:16 pm

          Well I won’t begrudge them on trademarking their son’s name to make sure no one else capitalizes on it. To see some group using my son’s name to make money off of it would incense me. Now the rest of what you said, well, I can’t argue that and won’t. Which is why I’m more upset at the circus more than Martin’s parents. If there wasn’t a circus, no trademark would be necessary. Spike Lee’s dumb arse wouldn’t be tweeting wrong addresses. The NBPP would continue being a far fringe, two-bit club of pissed-off at the world nobodies instead of having a national stage. And Martin’s parents wouldn’t be talking much at all. But that’s over now.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Darkstar58. | April 12, 2012 at 7:46 pm

          Martin’s parents could shut down the circus anytime they want.

          They hired the ringleader.

        Milhouse in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 7:12 pm

        They consort with Al Sharpton. That’s enough to make them evil fools. No decent person could be in the same room as him without wanting to spit in his face.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 7:55 pm

        None of those things would have happened but for the parents hiring Crump and continuing with him after his methods became apparent, although Crump already had the reputation for these tactics and his connections to Al and Jesse from his boot camp case.

        The parents have sowed this and have also stated more than once that all they want is an arrest (which is needed in order for their civil suits to go forward).

        Their son would be alive if they’d stayed home to supervise him, keeping in mind that he’d just been suspended from school for the third time during the school year, this time for ten days which is a pretty hefty suspension. Stolen property, burglary tools, marijuana, vandalism, etc.. I think a little supervision was in order, rather than their night on the town.

        All the above is why I think they are evil.

    T-Steel in reply to beloved2. | April 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    I don’t take it like that at all. Many times, family members say, “All I want is an arrest” because they know there will be a trial (may not be but the arrest in a violent crime is the first step). But if that suspect is free, they see no trial in the future. That’s the way her response looked to me.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 8:04 pm

      No, what people say is they want the perpetrator caught and sent to prison. They don’t say, “All we want is an arrest.”

      Further, today the mother said, “All we wanted was an arrest, and now we have that.” In other words, she is now satisfied.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to beloved2. | April 13, 2012 at 8:48 am

    There is also a numb, denial stage that could be caused by distraction/distractors (Crump/Parks/Sharpton/et al) invading her grieving process and telling her what to feel/think/do.

    Her own internal factors could also prevent true and honest grief. If she (as are most AA women) has been victimized by sexual, physical, emotional abuse, an absent, addicted father, brothers, men, sin of her own (prostitution, abortion, etc) she may be unable to grieve…because her own heart/love, mothering instincts have been hardened, numbed, distorted, disoriented, diminished. This is real. Some mothers have lost ability to bond with and nurture their own children due to psychological factors, experiences/events/trauma in their pasts.

    I doubt her grieving (whatever her ability to grieve) has even been allowed to begin.

      “There is also a numb, denial stage that could be caused by distraction/distractors (Crump/Parks/Sharpton/et al) invading her grieving process and telling her what to feel/think/do.”

      This is worth taking into account.

      Of all the people I blame for the way this all has turned out so far, the dead child’s parents are about as close to the bottom of the list as I can see.

      Their hopes and expectations for their son – and their whole life as they knew it – has suddenly and violently had a hole blown in it. If they saw, at the time, what the Sharpton/Crump circus had to offer as the only life-raft on the horizon to cling to? Well I find it hard to judge them for that.

JackRussellTerrierist | April 12, 2012 at 4:32 pm

Does anyone know if the probable cause affidavit will state specifically what the evidence is, or will it just declare “Probable cause exists….” or something vague to that effect?

When will it be published? Anyone know?

    The affidavit of probable cause prepared by prosecutors shed some light on why they chose to charge Zimmerman. The Orlando Sentinel said it had obtained a copy before it was expected to be filed with the courthouse.

    The newspaper says that Martin’s mother identified screams heard in the background of a 911 call as her son’s. There had been some question as to whether Martin or Zimmerman was the one calling for help.

    Prosecutors also interviewed a friend of Martin’s who was talking to him just before the shooting. The affidavit says Martin told the witness he was being followed and was scared.

    Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman: “Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin.”

    The affidavit says that “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher” who told him to stop, and “continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.”

    http://www.news-journal.com/news/nation/zimmerman-makes-court-appearance-in-fla-shooting/article_a7b9ba8c-84d1-11e1-a34d-0019bb2963f4.html

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Baladas. | April 12, 2012 at 5:02 pm

      Thanks. I found the update outlining the affidavit a few minutes ago.

      This stinks to high heaven. The family and the girl friend have ol’ George all trussed up and stuffed.

      Sanddog in reply to Baladas. | April 12, 2012 at 7:48 pm

      As a juror, I’d have problems with the girlfriend’s credibility based on her failure to speak with police but her willingness to speak to the Martin’s lawyers. A month after the shooting when everyone is whipped into a frenzy she recounts how she heard Martin get pushed while on the phone to the media?

Per Update: The affidavit goes on to say that “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher” who told him to stop, and “continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.”

Granted the State’s Attorney has more knowledge of the evidence than do I but, to me, that’s almost outright speculation.

I went back and listened to that 9-1-1 tape again today and when the dispatcher warns Zimmerman off from following Trayvon to see where he [Trayvon] was headed by telling him “We don’t need you to do that,” Zimmerman indicates acquiescence to, and compliance with, that warning by simply saying “OK.”

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Samuel Keck. | April 12, 2012 at 5:06 pm

    Yeah. You have to believe the girl friend, who is 16, contradicting herself, and controlled by Crump who has a financial interest in the case, instead of the 911 tape wherein George is walking around trying to find an address to give the dispatcher AFTER saying “Okay” in response to the dispatcher telling him “We don’t need you to do that” in reference to following Martin in order to make that statement with a straight face.

    AmandaFitz in reply to Samuel Keck. | April 12, 2012 at 5:45 pm

    http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

    There were several conjectures in this affidavit and I find that extremely troublesome. The statement that Zimmerman was profiling Martin, just to name one. Secondly, the dispatcher’s statement to Zimmerman, “we don’t need for you to do that” about following Martin could easily have been because the dispatcher didn’t want ZIMMERMAN to put himself in danger, if the young man WAS a burglar or had a weapon.

    Of course, you couldn’t get the true intention from the dispatcher NOW- after Sharpton and Jackson have declared this a racially motivated murder.

    The Left is probably really MAD that a man named “George Zimmerman” is really a Latino, not a white guy- they thought they had this made!

      Samuel Keck in reply to AmandaFitz. | April 12, 2012 at 6:43 pm

      Yes, I also wondered about the affiants use of the word “profiling” and also about the remarks that Zimmerman “assumed that Martin was a criminal” and “Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community” but, after a little consideration, I think it possible that they might be sourced back to Zimmerman himself.

      Initially, Zimmerman did not act in his own best interests in his dealings with the police … which, at times, can be seen as the conduct of an innocent, albeit highly naive, innocent suspect.

      It’s my understanding that on the night in question Zimmerman was interviewed — without counsel — multiple times after he was taken in to the police station and then, the next day, he returned to the scene of the shooting and helped the Sanford detectives reconstruct the crime scene.

      Given that, it seems to me that if the police were able to identify any glaring inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s story over that initial period of time, they never would have let him out of custody.

    Baladas in reply to Samuel Keck. | April 12, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    The Sanford PD even went so far as to issue a statement to the effect that the 911 dispatcher is not L.E. and cannot issue a lawful order, which is why the dispatcher professionally phrased the statement to reflect its advisory nature.

    Everything in the affidavit is bunco, already amply debunked by amateurs and experts alike over the past weeks.

    If she’s got nothing else, this is more incredulous than I even imagined.

    There was never honest probable cause for a charge.

      Milhouse in reply to Baladas. | April 12, 2012 at 7:15 pm

      For that matter, since when can L.E. issue orders to people? If a policeman orders you not to follow someone, since when do you have to obey? It’s a free country, isn’t it?

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Milhouse. | April 12, 2012 at 8:19 pm

        I’m not familiar with a charge of “disobeying a police officer.” There is interfering with a police officer in his duties. That wouldn’t apply here. No cop at the scene. Obstruction of justice? Nope, not that one; same reason. Disorderly conduct? Misdemeanor – has to be committed in the presence of an officer. No cop on scene, so that doesn’t fly, either. Failure to identify himself? Nope, he ID’d himself.

        But all indications are that Zimmerman stopped following him after the dispatcher said they didn’t need him to do that. He then went wandering looking for addresses and landmarks to direct the officers en route. That is plainly heard on the tape. Therefore, this claim that he defied the dispatcher is a distortion of obvious facts.

JackRussellTerrierist | April 12, 2012 at 4:58 pm

So…..just as I’ve been saying…..the girl friend, completely controlled by Crump now and in recent weeks, is the source for the charges. That, and the mother claiming that was Trayvon’s voice even though the father said it was not. First the father says it’s not. Rather than make him out to be a liar, the mother steps in and claims it is his voice. Then we have the girl friend making certain claims now which contradict what she originally said, which was that Trayvon said he would not run away.

Weak, lame, contradictory and Johnny-come-lately.

The case is buttressed only by family/ friends of Trayvon’s with financial gain to be had if an arrest is made, and a mother admitting all they wanted was an arrest.

    “The case is buttressed only by family/friends of Trayvon’s with financial gain to be had if an arrest is made, and a mother admitting all they wanted was an arrest.”

    Wow. Way to now add Martin’s parents into a nefarious money grab. Look, the prosecution may not prove their case and Zimmerman is found not guilty. But it is crazy to take the statement “All I want is an arrest” and turn it into “Yeah I got an arrest so I can get PAID”. Heck my own mother said, “all I want is an arrest” when my aunt was beat by her boyfriend. Why did she say that? Because she there would be a trial most likely! Martin’s family wanted a trial. They got it. Now it will be in the jury’s hands.

      There’s a minor problem with your analysis T-Steel and it is this: we know that there is also a financial motive here (Ben Crump has a history of going after the deep pockets, not out of a thirst for justice, but to enrich himself). Crump has been VERY careful to sidestep every question of exactly how his CONSIDERABLE hourly fees are being compensated.

      I guarantee you that you’re going to see a civil suit here unless the Judge finds that no probable cause exists. Even if Zimmerman wins at a criminal trial, Crump will go after assets because it’s a lower standard of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt (85-90+%) versus preponderance of the evidence (50.1%). It would be likely that Crump already has a contingency fee agreement in place with the Martin family entitling him to 50% or more of whatever recovery he can get from Zimmerman.

      In order for that to occur, the prosecutor has to find that probable cause exists that a crime was committed, because otherwise the Castle Doctrine in Florida bars civil suit.

      Darkstar58 in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 6:53 pm

      Why is she trying to trademark his name and the “I Am Trayvon” phrase?

      I’m sorry, but that reeks of “I want mine” not “I am sad”

        T-Steel in reply to Darkstar58. | April 12, 2012 at 7:21 pm

        I can honestly say that I missed the “I Am Trayvon” trademark attempt. I read it was only his full name. Well that just sucks…

          Darkstar58 in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 7:39 pm

          Understood how a person could miss it – tons of info (some good, some nonsense) flying all over the place in this case.

          However, yeah, hard to argue that isn’t a “I want mine” kind of move, huh?

          And when its coupled with the hiring of Crump and all the appearances (especially those with the very people trying to stir and capitalize off the situation), well…

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 8:52 pm

          There’s also “Justice for Trayvon” that the family trademarked.

Can someone clarify about the girlfriend’s testimony – when she reports what Martin said to her – that’s admissable, right? But when she reports what Martin said that Zimmerman said – that’s hearsay, correct?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to votermom. | April 12, 2012 at 5:10 pm

    Sh can also claim she heard somebody (Zimmerman) say this or that – whatever enters her mind to say or whatever she’s been coached to say. Originally she said that Trayvon said he was being followed and she told him to run, but he said he would not run. Now she has a new story.

      The girlfriend is shaky at best. I wouldn’t rely on that young lady for any testimony whatsoever. It looks like you could cross-examine her with kid gloves and still poke big holes in here statement.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 8:25 pm

        Well, reading the affadavit, she’s the heart of the case against Zimmerman.

        Hmmmm….so where does that leave their case? And if it leaves it where it appears to leave it, what is Zimmerman doing in jail and why should he be put through this?

    Actually it kind of depends on whether or not the primary purpose of the information that the Girlfriend overheard and wants to talk about is “testimonial” in nature. See Crawford v. Washington (2004) and Michigan v. Bryant (2011).

    If it is testimonial, then it’s BARRED by the 6th amendment right to confront your accuser (Thanks to Justice Scalia).

    If it is not testimonial in nature (aka gathering information to deal with the nature of the emergency) then it will likely be allowed.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Chuck Skinner. | April 12, 2012 at 8:31 pm

      Thanks. Can you explain a bit more? How can it be anything but “testimonial” given the circumstances at hand?

        Hi Jack,

        The girlfriend will be able to testify about what Trayvon actually said TO HER during their phone conversation (assuming that the Prosecution puts the girlfriend on as a witness), but not about anything that she might have overheard Trayvon and Zimmerman say to each other. If the girlfriend isn’t a witness: too bad, all her statements go Poof!

        Here, during the time when Trayvon was on the phone with the girlfriend, she will be able to testify to anything that he said while they were on the phone together (and the Defense will be able to cross-examine and impeach girlfriends credibility with omissions or other public statements). Stuff like “I think I’m being followed” or “I went and bought a bag of Skittles and a drink” will likely come in. Things like “Why are you following me” said to Zimmerman or “back off or I’ll knock you down” or “stop or I’ll shoot” would not .

        The girlfriend will be barred from testifying about anything that she may have overheard Zimmerman or Trayvon say to each other because during the time when the girl was listening, there was no “emergency” (a situation where the girl was gathering information for the purposes of providing it to police, emt, fire, etc…). My Civil Procedure professor explained it to me like this once many years ago: What you’ve got is the ear-witness who wants to testify as to what she overheard; what we (aka the Court) wants is the two speakers who made the statements THEMSELVES.

        This is a somewhat unsettled area of law given the SCOTUS pronouncement differences between the Crawford and Bryant cases, and thus it’s really hard to explain without a 6 hour lecture on confrontation rights, but I hope that I helped clear it up a bit.

        I’m sure that most of what the girlfriend will want to say will be barred as testimonial.

DINORightMarie | April 12, 2012 at 5:21 pm

So is this affidavit written by the prosecuting attorney (i.e. Corey)? If so, it sounds like she is taking the Martin family’s lawyers’ statements as pure fact, since what the excerpt states is almost word for word the story the lawyers put out when this whole thing erupted.

I smell a rat. And, I believe Ms. Corey has given the defense some very big ropes which they will use to hang the prosecution – or at least create more than “reasonable” doubt.

BTW – here is the law from Florida’s statues; number (2) is the “murder in the second degree” outline. The listed “crimes” (a-q) don’t include some of the things I would consider relevant to this case: possession of a firearm without a permit, for example. I am not clear if the list is all-inclusive, but I’m not a lawyer. 😉

Questions for the Florida lawyers: Does the information in a probable cause affidavit equate to prima facie evidence? Is it possible for a judge to review the affidavit and decide that the State has not provided enough evidence to warrant a trial? Is it possible for any of the evidence in the affidavit to be kept from the public record, if only temporarily?

Is there any chance Corey does have something of significance and is attempting to keep it out of the public eye – at least until a jury is selected – in order to avoid further tainting the pool?

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to ThomasD. | April 12, 2012 at 5:32 pm

    If Corey cared about tainting the jury pool, would she be openly praising the family’s lawyers and announcing what a help they’ve been and telling about praying with the family?

      Maybe you need to watch some more ID on Discovery. That is not weird for a prosecuting attorney to say what Corey said. Prosecutors turn into advocates for the victim. That’s what they do everyday all day. Now how Trayvon became a victim is why we have this trial. By his own hand (via Zimmerman) or by Zimmerman’s hand alone.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 6:33 pm

        Advocates for the victim (certainly in this case a misnomer if there ever was one), yes. Advocates for their attorneys out to make a buck? Despicable.

          Well obviously you’ve made your mind up on Zimmerman’s being not guilty. And that’s fine. You can call “victim” a misnomer but that’s their job: take up the cause for the victim if a suspect is charged. I’m just stating that. Like I said previously “how Trayvon became a victim is why we have this trial. By his own hand (via Zimmerman) or by Zimmerman’s hand alone.” Notice I said “by his own hand (via Zimmerman)”. So I’m not convinced one way or the other. That’s why I VERY interested on what the trial will show.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | April 12, 2012 at 7:17 pm

          Do you REALLY think that’s why we’re going to have this trial?

      Well, as distasteful as it may seem, it can hardly be rated as high on the list of prejudicial behaviors as the one where she actually charged him with the crime.

      I mean, if I were Zimmerman, I might,/b> be ok with all the rest, so long as she never got around to the bit about actually charging me.

      Having done that though her own credibility pretty much being all in.

      Thankfully that’s why trials in this country usually revolve around evidence, and not emotional grandstanding.

        ThomasD in reply to ThomasD. | April 12, 2012 at 6:09 pm

        HTML fail, sorry

        ThomasD in reply to ThomasD. | April 12, 2012 at 6:17 pm

        Affidavit here

        http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

        Says Zimmerman ‘profiled’ Martin.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to ThomasD. | April 12, 2012 at 7:13 pm

          Lots of assuming going on there. How do they know Zimmerman was profiling Martin? How do they know Martin was not going to commit a crime? Because he talked to his GF for eight minutes? Because he allegedly had skittles and tea?

          Zimmerman says Martin was wearing his hoodie when he first spotted him. The GF said Martin told her he was putting his hood up in connection with being followed. Reportedly, it was raining that night, which supports the hood being up the whole time.

          Is the GF saying Martin said he was going to put his hood up because it would then suggest that Zimmerman would have more easily noticed that Martin was black with the hood first being down, and thus “profiled” him? Does this open the door for the feds to file a civil rights case against Zimmerman?

          Is this all going to turn on the word of a 16 yr. old girl with an evolving story who refused to give a statement until her boyfriend’s family attorney got her ready?

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to ThomasD. | April 12, 2012 at 6:55 pm

        Sure, of course the charging is the ultimate jeopardy. I was simply addressing your point about tainting the jury pool based on what’s happened thus far with this prosecutor.

        Corey seems to want to impart the message that the Martins and their lawyers are her new best friends, what with the Martins being so “sweet” and all that praying together. I think that goes well beyond avocating for the deceased, especially when it’s pointed out in a large feature of her press conference. It imparts an unseemly closeness that should not be a part of the process.

          Agreed, and I’m of the opinion that she’s conducting a parallel public relations campaign in the hopes that the Martin family can be -at least- quieted down if the media does not feel it wise to remain their perpetual megaphone.

          Beyond that, my point was that if Corey has some real bombshell – something along the lines of a forensic report indicating that Martin was shot from at least 15 feet away – she might not want that hitting the news just yet, lest it hopelessly tangle up jury selection.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | April 13, 2012 at 4:02 am

          Well, I can certainly see how this case could fizzle out the same way the Duke lacrosse case did, but I’m not sure I agree that Corey is trying to orchestrate that anymore than Mike Nifong did. I think you are certainly right to the extent that if it slowly comes out that Zimmerman could not possibly be guilty, the press will quit reporting on the case. If that were to happen, a door to dropping charges quietly – eventually – could happen. If Corey timed it right, she could save some face, I suppose, if she couched it as a brave act to do justice in the name of mom, the American way, and apple pie. Jesse and the NBPP sure backed off when it became obvious that Crystal Mangum was a horrific liar who manufactured the entire claim, that there was no crime, and that Nifong ran with it anyway to get elected. They completely disappeared and the press uttered only a buried whimper or two about the case once the jig was up.

DUKE LACROSSE REDUX!

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to AmandaFitz. | April 12, 2012 at 6:29 pm

    Yep, I’ve said it at least ten times.

    We even have the father out making ridiculous statements just like Crystal Mangum’s father did. Tracy Martin claims that Zimmerman “double-backed around”, whatever the hell that means. If you look at a map of the area and where Trayvon was staying, there is no route to double-back on if Trayvon was simply walking home.

      And this is PRECISELY why I absolutely HATE when groups/activists/wackaroons turn situations like this into bad Hollywood movies. Everyone feels the need to talk and truth just gets sliced and diced. Martin’s parents wanted the killer of their son arrested. That in itself is no crazy notion and happens everyday in America. But groups/activists/wackaroons just ran with that afterwards and it has transformed into a friggin’ national discussion on all things NOT RELATED TO THE TRIAL. Martin’s parents (in my opinion) aren’t money grabbers. They are being USED and ABUSED by fools. I don’t begrudge parents from wanting a trial. And if it’s proven that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, well, they got their trial and that’s that. But it won’t be over (no matter the verdict) since the groups/activists/wackaroons have taken control.

      Oh and hi everyone! Long time reader. First time commenter!

JackRussellTerrierist | April 12, 2012 at 6:26 pm

“Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. “Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin.””

But according to the girl, DeeDee, on March 20 she said that Trayvon said he would not run and said he said he thought he’d given him (Zimmerman) the slip. She also said she heard Zimmerman and Trayvon each speak, and then she heard shoving. She then somehow concluded that it was Trayvon being shoved because his earpiece fell. It seems to me that his earpiece could just as easily fall if he took a swing at Zimmerman’s nose and knocked it off as he swung. She then says the phone went off and she tried to call back but no answer. Yet she offered no explanation as to why she didn’t call the police.

Midwest Rhino | April 12, 2012 at 6:40 pm

“Martin tried to run home, the affidavit says, but was followed by Zimmerman. “Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin.”

The affidavit goes on to say that “Zimmerman disregarded the police dispatcher” who told him to stop, and “continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.”

This makes no sense to me. The girlfriend can say anything they concoct. At one point she’d (reportedly) stated Trayvon said he was not going to run.

GZ was on 911 about a minute, starting at his truck, and wasn’t running. If Martin has just run home, he would have been there in about 20 seconds, certainly before the 911 call was over.

So Martin was running “home” for a minute, while GZ was walking and talking, yet he still couldn’t get away? And it took a month for the girlfriend to get her story straight?

No way … Martin went around behind the houses, waited for GZ to walk around, then surprised, confronted and attacked him. Much more logical.

Would they take this to court to calm the masses, just based on concocted but nonsensical evidence? Even if GZ was lying, no way he catches 6′ 2″ fit as a fiddle football player Martin.

On this linked map, how does GZ go from point C to point E, and still run into Martin at point F, if Martin was just trying to run home at point D?

http://www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/map_1000.jpg

    Midwest Rhino in reply to Midwest Rhino. | April 12, 2012 at 10:27 pm

    actually put GZ at truck then walking … Martin “campaign” admits GZ was following (at some point at least) … there is no route where Martin runs toward home with GZ following, walking and talking to 911 for a minute … that Martin does not arrive “home” before end of 911 call.

    Judge should drop this case, that was wrongly brought for political reasons, and fear of Sharpton/Holder/Obama inspired racial tensions … as I see it. Jurisprudence is being sacrificed along with religion and second amendment rights. The “bitter clingers” that don’t want to submit to the Chicago Gangland better take a stand. The coup is on.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Midwest Rhino. | April 13, 2012 at 1:36 pm

      We’re supposed to believe that if Martin began running toward home, he wouldn’t have made it there before Zimmerman, who remember was talking on the phone with 911 at the time until 1 minute before the attack and shooting, could catch a 17 yr. old athlete about 6 inches taller than he?

I am sure it will all be totally legit, BTW is the Judge going to be AL Sharpton or will it be Jesse Jackson?

That affidavit seems rather disturbing. Is this all it takes for the state to get you locked up? As it stands right now Zimmerman’s acknowledging that he shot Martin is the only true fact in the thing.

My understanding of the immunity aspect of the Florida law was to encourage law abiding people to speak directly with law enforcement after a deadly force incident. If the state is going to start playing this game then everyone is going to clam up and demand their attorney right out of the gate.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to ThomasD. | April 13, 2012 at 1:52 pm

    I’d say that train has left the station.

    Because prosecutors are elected, and because the mayors who appoint chiefs of police are elected (and some chiefs are directly elected), politics and the media will always play a significant role in how certain kinds of cases are approached and handled. If for no other reason than that, even people who have done nothing wrong should be very wary of them. Clam up and demand a lawyer is exactly what they should do. Poor George had way too much faith in the system. But it’s been my experience in life that people like George who believe that the system is in place to ensure justice and have faith in the concept of truth and justice always prevailing, although naive, tend to be honest and straightforward, thus anticipating the same in others. It’s sad that it’s a crap shoot as to whether or not that faith is ill-placed in any given case.

So now it seems clear the prosecution is going to try and argue Martin was acting in self-defense when he attacked Zimmerman.

Problem is, if two people were simultaneously acting in self defense, there is no malice anywhere to be found and the 2nd Degree case completely falls apart.

So that leaves them needing to prove malice prior to the point where Martin supposedly acted in self-defense. That means they are going to try and show that the police tapes show Zimmerman, out of evil and inhuman intent, wanted to harm Martin and not just protect himself and those in his neighborhood.

That seems impossible to me based off the tapes we all have heard.

But clearly, the “we don’t need you to do that” becomes the single most important aspect of the case. If it is not deemed a command, the claim of malice is pretty much destroyed completely and the prosecutions case seemingly falls apart from there.

    Milhouse in reply to Darkstar58. | April 12, 2012 at 7:19 pm

    Even if it were a command, who the hell is the police dispatcher to be giving commands to people? Even actual policemen have no such power, do they?

      Zaggs in reply to Milhouse. | April 12, 2012 at 7:33 pm

      no kidding. If you call 911 and say “there is a man with a knife coming up my drive way, I’m going to go out and confront him” and they say they dont need you to do that, are you really supposed to wait?

      Darkstar58 in reply to Milhouse. | April 12, 2012 at 7:51 pm

      Oh, no doubt – its extremely shaky, to say the least.

      But that seems to be what she is hanging her hat on here if she is going to try and disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense (which the affidavit indicates, evening specifically mentioning said “disregard”)

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Darkstar58. | April 12, 2012 at 7:40 pm

    There’s another thing. The GF said that Martin told her on the phone he was putting his hood up in reponse to being followed (makes no sense, but she said it). Zimmerman described Martin as wearing a hoodie and seemed somewhat unsure of Martin’s race. Zimmerman would not have been able to see Martin very well in the dark with his hood up. It was raining, which supports the hood being up the whole time. But if they claim the hood was down, conveniently known via the girl’s conversation with Martin, then it’s more likely that Zimmerman knew Martin’s race and ….wait for it…. profiled him because he’s black! It seems to me that could fill the bill for the malice requirement. Perhaps that’s where they’re going rather than solely the disobedience of the dispatcher claim. Then what you have is their narrative that he disobeyed the dispatcher because he was set on killing Martin because Zimmerman perceived him as a black punk.

According to the affidavit: “Trayvon Martin’s mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin’s.

-crying for he’p !

So all those people who were going on about how professional this Corey is, what have you got to say now? If this is the probable cause, then there isn’t any.

    Zaggs in reply to Milhouse. | April 12, 2012 at 7:32 pm

    Don’t discount the possibility the Honorable Attorney General of the United States (total sarc) Eric Holder had called Corey and lets just say, made mention the possibility of a civil rights investigation of the Sanford police and Corey’s office if things turned bad. Course its also possible Corey wants higher office.

      Baladas in reply to Zaggs. | April 12, 2012 at 8:27 pm

      She already made moves toward the Governor’s office once. She is as thinly transparent as her flimsy probable cause.

Is Corey sandbagging herself in order to allow Zimmerman to establish his immunity in a court?

Gawd, its like the states attorney gave the Martin family some blank sheets and told them to start writing.

The Seminole County prosecutor had already enlisted and convened a grand jury, who was scheduled to rule on 4/10, after a thorough investigation by the Sanford PD which concluded on 3/15.

Only to be relieved of their jurisdiction by the whim of the Governor.

What probable cause of malfeasance did the Governor have to make such a move of no confidence?

Benjamin Crump is on record as being astonished that no charges were made against G.Z. just 2 days after the incident.

Yet how long did it take Corey? She was appointed the case on March 22. 4/11 is 3 weeks later!

Ben Crump was contacting media a week after the incident, while Sanford PD was still doing detective work, prohibited from charging George BY LAW, until they could meet the stringent criteria for probable cause according to the SYG statute, that would convince the D.A. to issue a warrant.

11 days after the incident Crump had the following to say to Huffington post on Thursday, 3/8

** Crump said the family is demanding that the Sanford Police arrest Zimmerman, and that the Seminole County State Attorney’s Office review the case and press charges.

“They say they are still investigating,” Crump said. “I’m not sure what there is to investigate. What’s suspicious about this kid? That’s what the family is crying out, that our kid is like any other kid.”

A call and an email to Chief Bill Lee of the Sanford Police Department were not immediately returned on Thursday. A phone number listed for Zimmerman has been disconnected, and his current whereabouts are not known.

Lynn Bumpus-Hooper, a spokeswoman for the Seminole County State Attorney’s Office, said that the office has not received the case from the police, and until an arrest is made, it will not be involved.

“We have not received a case [from the Sanford PD] yet, but we will give it our full consideration when we do,” Bumpus-Hooper said. She said it is not rare for several weeks to pass before the State Attorney’s Office receives a homicide or murder case from the police. ***

So, Crump made a call to Sanford PD demanding an arrest no later than 3/7 or 10 days after the incident.

Bumpus Hooper says sometimes several weeks may pass.

Why wasn’t Crump and Sharpton foaming at the mouth at Corey after 10 days had passed?

This whole thing reeks of hypocrisy and political posturing/pandering.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Baladas. | April 12, 2012 at 8:20 pm

    Crump is a big deal in FL victim advocacy law. He and his partner have a practice in the capital city, have won several celebrity victim rights cases and donated a million dollars to the legal defense fund.

    Ironically, George Zimmerman was also a champion of victims, an enemy of racism, a mentor for minority, disadvantaged kids, a believer in social justice, and defender of law and order, though on a much smaller scale.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 12, 2012 at 8:23 pm

      Despite his credentials and reputation in FL – Crump has violated ethics in the Trayvon Martin case – BIG TIME. He should be cited, formally reprimanded or indicted for his actions in this case.

        Baladas in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 12, 2012 at 8:25 pm

        Don’t hold your breath.

        The likely scenario is that he receives a presidential commendation and takes a prominent spot under Uncle Eric at the DOJ.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Baladas. | April 12, 2012 at 8:49 pm

          Crump and Parks were most likely never planning on a conviction in this case – just an arrest – so they can proceed with their plans to obtain big money wrongful death settlement from some deep pocket.

          They have to know they don’t have a criminal conviction in this case. That’s why Trayvon’s mother slipped and said she knew it was an accident.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Baladas. | April 13, 2012 at 1:59 pm

          When did Trayvon’s mom slip and say it was an accident? Just what did she say?

      Baladas in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 12, 2012 at 8:24 pm

      no good deed goes unpunished.

      Gotta be good anyway.

How does one go from “I think someone is following me and I’m afraid” to being on top of them yelling help help help?

Trayvon had no injuries, so how does he decide to get into a Roman-gecko wrestling match with someone with a gun instead of a conversation?

Suppose Zimmerman was a vigallante out to cap a kid with dark skin, how does the trigger not get fired before the kid is on top of him? I mean a murderer does not get into a roman gecko wrestling match and then shoot him, you’d just shoot him if that was your intent.

You have to stretch a rational person’s mind pretty far to get Trayvon on top of him in anything but an aggressor role.

Uncle Samuel | April 12, 2012 at 8:12 pm

Professor Alan Dershowitz weighs in on the arrest affadavit: “Irresponsible and unethical” http://www.mediaite.com/tv/harvard-prof-alan-dershowitz-zimmerman-arrest-affidavit-irresponsible-and-unethical/

    Baladas in reply to Uncle Samuel. | April 12, 2012 at 8:22 pm

    Dershowitz puts it plain and simple, but isn’t that what stating the obvious is?

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Baladas. | April 13, 2012 at 2:19 pm

      Dersh was doing fine until he started praising the parents. There his logic failed. The parents are the ones who hired Crump. Crump involved Sharpton and turned this into a circus, which he has done before. Crump is looking for a fat payday and growing his name. That entire circus is what has pushed this unethical prosecutor looking to get re-elected into over-charging – or charging at all – which is what generated the affidavit and the second-degree murder arrest that Dersh rightfully complains about at the outset. The parents could have shut this down at any time.

Uncle Samuel | April 12, 2012 at 8:33 pm

This explains it all:

Obama’s America – Why the Black Grievance Will Never End.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/obamas_america_why_black_grievance_will_never_end.html

Since I’m no legal eagle, could someone explain to me how this affidavit of probable cause stacks up with other highly publicized trials? Since Dershowitz has weighed that it is “irresponsible and unethical”, I’m interested in other cases where others have stated that similar. Duke Lacrosse? Casey Anthony? Etc… Just curious.

    Darkstar58 in reply to T-Steel. | April 12, 2012 at 9:31 pm

    I’m not sure about the Anthony one, but I know the Duke one included the emails talking about inviting strippers over and killing them in it

    This is the best copy of one of them I could find really quickly (its one of the search warrant ones):
    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/file/duke-rape-case-e-mail-shocker?page=4

    And if you compare that (in its whole) to this
    http://media.trb.com/media/acrobat/2012-04/69353440.pdf

    you can tell one seems like it is probably jumping to some fairly iffy conclusions and one seems to hold great detail and true probable cause

    Uncle Samuel in reply to T-Steel. | April 13, 2012 at 9:05 am

    ‘Irresponsible’ and ‘unethical’ certainly describes the actions of Crump and Parks in this, since they have attempted to try this case in the media and have altered testimony, evidence, and attempted to pervert/obscure/influence the course of justice.

another interesting tidbit regarding the Voice Stress Analysis test administered to George by Sanford PD, which he passed by the way.

http://bobmccarty.com/2012/04/12/race-not-the-only-wrongly-reported-aspect-of-trayvon-martin-shooting-death-coverage/

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Baladas. | April 13, 2012 at 2:43 pm

    A bit of an infomercial for the author’s book, but still very enlightening. Thanks. I think it’s important to note that a federal court addmitted it as evidence.

I’m interested in other cases where others have stated that similar … Casey Anthony?

Miami Herald Blog: Casey Anthony’s lawyer: George Zimmerman’s a victim of prosecutor’s ‘political prostitution’.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend