Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Witnesses: Trayvon on ground when shot, Zimmerman on top in fight

Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Witnesses: Trayvon on ground when shot, Zimmerman on top in fight

The State has moved through one witness completely this morning, with a second now undergoing cross examination by O’Mara, when the Court recessed for lunch. We expect O’Mara will continue with this second witness after the lunch break.  Both of the witnesses, Jane Sudyka and Jeanee Manaloo, were residents of Twin Lakes at the time of the incident, and both resided in townhouses that overlooked the scene of the confrontation.

Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 10.56.10 AM

Although direct was straightforward with both witnesses, Sudyka’s credibility was effectively destroyed by West on cross, and Manaloo seems on the road to a similar fate at the hands of O’Mara. Indeed, Manaloo’s testimony may open the door to the admission of some photographic evidence favorable to the state that might not otherwise have been admissible (although at this point that’s speculation on my part).

Jane Sudyka

Sudyka lived in the row of townhouses at just above the upper part of the “T” formed by dog walk. Her testimony was largely centered on the 16 minute long 911 call she made that night, which can only be described is histrionic. Had I heard that 911 recording in a non-court context I would have assumed it to be part of a scene from a low-quality comedy movie in which the actress had been told to “overact ridiculously, the more exaggerated the better.”

Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 9.18.27 AM

More objectively, however, were observation testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case. On at least three separate occasions Sudyka referred to the “three shots” fired by Zimmerman–“pop, pop, pop”. No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.

She testified that it was while she as on the 911 call with police that the shot was fired, sticking to that assertion vigorously. In fact, the 911 recording was played in court–yes, every single 16 minutes of it–and no shot was audible.

She also described the relative positions of Zimmerman and Martin at the moment the shot was fired as being such that the bullet could only have struck Martin in the back (that is, she describes him as laying face down on the ground at that moment, with Zimmerman above him). We know, of course, that Martin was shot in the center chest area, right over the heart, and the bullet did not over-penetrate.

Interestingly, Sudyka also stated several times that the rainfall at the time was quite heavy–‘buckets of rain” was the phrase she used, so intense that she needed to close a window to prevent rain from entering her home. This observation favors the defense, which has suggested that the rain may have washed away the traces of blood that several witnesses have said was not evident at the scene. Indeed, so damaging were these statements to the State that Mr. de la Rionda rose on re-direct for the sole purpose of inducing Sudyka to make corrective statements downplaying the intensity of the rainfall.

Sudyka also was insistent that she had heard two voices, one a loud, aggressive, confrontational, dominating voice and the other a softer, meeker voice. She attributed the confrontational voice to Zimmerman and the meeker voice to the “boy,” Martin. It emerged on cross, however, that she had never previously heard either Zimmerman or Martin’s voice, and was making her assignment based on assumptions of how they might sound, not on personal knowledge.

Near the end of cross West asked he if she had appeared on national television to discuss the case, and Sudyka denied this. Really? he asked

Sudyka:  Well, just the one time on Anderson Cooper, but only on condition that I not be named or identified.

West:  Weren’t you also on television another time?

Sudyka:  Well, yes, I was videotaped by another journalist.

West:  And that was played on TV several times.

Sudyka:  I only saw it once.

West:  So you were taped, and you saw yourself on TV, that second time?

Sudyka:  Yes.

And that was all for Sudyka (except for BDLR’s brief re-direct on the rain issue.)

Jeannee Manaloo

Manaloo’s key testimony on direct was her identification of Zimmerman as the man who was on top during the struggle on the ground, contrary to all other evidence discussed so far in this case. She based this perception on the differing size of the two people, saying that it was the larger person who was on top. Obviously, if correct, this testimony is profoundly inconsistent with the defense’s theory of the case.

Screen Shot 2013-06-26 at 10.58.55 AM

O’Mara is handling the cross of Manaloo, and has hit on three key points of attack so far. First was how dark the scene was that night, and how difficult it was for Nanaloo to make out what was happening. He successfully managed her to agree that all she was really able to see at the time was shadows, and even those only from inside her townhome, as she had never stepped outside.

The second line of attack is that her sudden ability to differentiate between the two people has emerged only today in court. In none of her prior statements, including one the evening of the attack, a later statement to investigators, and depositions to both the State and the defense, had she ever mentioned this ability to determine that it was Zimmerman who was on top. Her reason for not mentioning it previously? Nobody had ever asked her.

The third line of attack, and the one currently on pause for lunch, is to better understand the basis on which she judged Martin’s size. She did not know Martin prior to the shooting, and obviously could not have seen him afterwards except in photos. We all know, of course, that many of the photos distributed after the event show Martin as a much younger person than the 17-year-old, 6-foot-plus young man he was at the time of his death. O’Mara is midway through the process of pinning down which pictures she may have used for her assessment. Obviously pictures that showed only a portion of Martin’s body, such as just his face, and/or that showed him when much younger would result in a misleading perception on Manaloo’s part, effectively destroying the credibility of her testimony.

That’s it for the mid-day wrap-up, join us back live again immediately as the Court goes back into session.

Zimmerman Trial LIVE VIDEO – Day 3 – State’s Witnesses


Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. UPDATE: July 5, 2013 is the LAST DAY to take advantage of the 30% pre-order discount, only $35, plus free shipping. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog.

BREAKING: “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is now also being carried by, at list price but with a commitment for 2-day delivery.  A Kindle version to come within a week or so (I hope).

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!)on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Sudyka thought it strange that someone would be outside in the rain. I guess that makes her a racial profiler.

One key fact skipped in the excellent summary is that one witness stated the man in the darker clothes was on top. That would have been Martin, though she identified the person as Zimmerman.

The media did a very good job of poisoning the well here. Every assumption made by these witnesses is against Zimmerman even when there is no basis for such a conclusion. These assumptions include ones about size, who had the deeper voice etc… and are all admittedly based on misleading information garnered from the press.

Reasonable doubt all over this.

Hope the ladies are listening hard.

    If I were O’Mara, I would have stood up and said the following:

    “Ms. Nanaloo, how tall is Mr. Zimmerman? Did you know that he is 68 inches tall”?” How tall do you think that Trayvon Martin was? Would it surprise you to know that he was (at least) 71 inches tall? Thus, by your own testimony, it must have been Trayvon Martin who was on top, if the “larger” man was on top, correct?”

    Credibility instantly destroyed when she attempts to back-peddle. Move on.

      Ragspierre in reply to Chuck Skinner. | June 26, 2013 at 6:48 pm

      On redirect…

      Ms. Nanaloo, you testified clearly that the larger man was on top. Is that correct?”

      Your Honor, could the Court have Mr. Zimmerman stand, please.

      “Ms. Nanaloo, how would you describe Mr. Zimmerman?” How fair would it be to say he was a ‘larger man'”?

      No further question of this witness, Your Honor.

        caambers in reply to Ragspierre. | June 26, 2013 at 6:58 pm

        It would be better to have two individuals of the same height and weight of Martin and Zimmerman on that night stand next to each other and then ask her which one is the larger person. Zimmerman has gained a ton of weight since this began. He doesn’t look anything like he did back in February 2012.

        That’s one of the problems with having to go a year between an incident and a trial. Zimmerman’s gained something like 100 lbs since his arrest. He looks quite a bit different than he did at the time of the shooting. Describing him as a “larger” man now makes sense. At the time, it didn’t.

        I haven’t been watching, so maybe he did this, but did O’Mara pin down exactly what Ms. Nanaloo was describing as “larger” (height, weight, proportion)? That would somewhat be a predicate to her description, especially because the weight difference wasn’t that big at the time (150 something for Martin vs 180 something for Zimmerman).

Excellent work Andrew. Thank you so much. 2 quick things…I thinjk the 3rd eyewitness’ name is Manalo and Mr. O’Mara was very perceptive in showing her a 4 year old picture of TM in a football uniform which I believe she said she used as basis for a size comparison.

At this point, the state is putting a very poor prosecution as defense seems to be neutralizing their witnesses at every turn. At the very least, defense has managed to extract from all of them threads that fit the GZ account.

What a filthy liar.

wonder who fired the other 2 shots that zimmerman didn’t fire.
any grassy knolls around?

TM wasn’t “6-feet-plus.” The autopsy report states that he was 5′ 11″.

    andybinga in reply to Conrad. | June 26, 2013 at 1:36 pm

    The measurements on the crime scene had Trayvon at 6’3. During autopsy rigors mortis was profound and the body was not in straight alignment.

      Conrad in reply to andybinga. | June 26, 2013 at 1:56 pm

      What is your source for the 6′ 3″? I would think that the medical examiners would be trusted to get that information correct.

      As for the body not being in straight alignment at the time of the autopsy, why wasn’t it? Didn’t they take him by stretcher to the morgue? Are you saying the EMTs put him in a fetal position first and the medical examiners simply failed to note this?

      Rational in reply to andybinga. | June 26, 2013 at 10:32 pm

      Rigor mortis only last for about 18 hours. Was the autopsy done that quickly. Doesn’t the Medical Examiner know how to take an accurate measurement?

Insufficiently Sensitive | June 26, 2013 at 1:28 pm

Her reason for not mentioning it previously? Nobody had ever asked her.

Hey, didn’t an earlier witness introduce some brand-new testimony under the same ‘nobody ever asked me’ cover?

If so, it looks like the prosecution has been coaching the witnesses in hopes of scoring more points.

    Yes. (I think it’s a bs response – no one ever prattles on in these interviews?) MOM’s little helpers should be reading prior statements to find if these witnesses only directly answered questions or freely offered additional information.

    This is the second witness who said “nobody asked me”. Someone got at these witnesses and told them what they were to say. It is now very obvious.

It’s remarkable how even the witnesses’ memories of the event have been tainted by the biased and dishonest media coverage of the shooting.

I can’t help but wonder if these witnesses’ testimony would be much different today if, in the months following the shooting, the media had showed photos of Trayvon Martin as a six-foot tall, 17 year old football player (and gangsta’ wannabe), rather than as a baby-faced 12 year old kid.

I hope you write a bit tonight about the judge’s ruling today regarding the previous calls to police. Its seems unfair to the defendant.


    caambers in reply to DennisD. | June 26, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    You’re damn right it’s unfair….that stupid cow should say all recordings should be heard and not let the persecution cherry-pick which ones they want. I’m sure MOM and West can blow that little stunt out of the water with the simple facts of the number of calls Zimmerman made (there were quite a few) and how many of the ones not included by the persecution mentioned other races or descriptions. When we get to the point in our society where we can’t adequately describe a suspicious person for fear of being called a racist then it’s just going to be damn the torpedoes full steam ahead for thugs everywhere.

      Rational in reply to caambers. | June 26, 2013 at 10:29 pm

      What exactly made Martin a suspicious person? He was carrying a bag of food, talking on the phone and walking. Was he loitering or looking in windows. What exactly made him suspicious other than he was black? That has never been explained. But you people don’t want the description to include the race. So why was he suspicious?

        Matt in FL in reply to Rational. | June 26, 2013 at 10:43 pm

        What made him a suspicious person, to GZ? Primarily the fact that (according to GZ’s statements) he was wandering about, sorta aimlessly, and it was raining. Most people, when forced to be out walking in a rainstorm, even with a hoodie to keep the rain off them, tend to walk directly from point A to point B. They don’t wander around slowly, to get more wet. That’s probably what twigged GZ at first. He didn’t even know for sure TM was black until he walked directly towards him, after he was already on the phone with NEN.

          Rational in reply to Matt in FL. | June 27, 2013 at 9:06 am

          So he was following him around enough to determine he was walking aimlessly? He was following Martin long enough to scare Martin. He didn’t give Martin any reason to feel threatened?

          I love how the people on this site refuse to see things from Martin’s point of view. He is on the phone and says he is concerned. He doesn’t know who the person is or what his purpose is. He loses the person and the friend counsels him to move on. But he doubles back and attacks.

          Can’t wait until Zimmerman testifies. He has made multiple statements, too. He will be cross-examined, too.

        But you people

        I’m pretty sure that’s racist. The “you people” part.

        I learned that from the liberal media. 😉

          Rational in reply to AmyFL. | June 27, 2013 at 2:28 pm

          You didn’t learn that. You just augmented the chip on your shoulder. That is willful ignorance and purposeful misunderstanding. Probably some self-pity thrown in.

There must be some sort of memory suppressant in the water at Retreat at Twin Lakes, because everyone who has since moved away from there remembers far more now than when they lived there. The only explanation I can come up with is that they were drugged against their will and without their knowledge, and the drugs have since worn off.

George Z, one hell of a dude. Shot Barry’s son in the chest and managed to pull the cartridge OUT and make it seem as though Barry’s son, was shot in the back.

Damn side better man then Gosnell, Z-Man..

Mark Buehner | June 26, 2013 at 2:59 pm

I’m surprised the defense hasn’t made an issue of the height differential.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if they got around to it eventually. The broad issue of Trayvon’s height got touched on when the defense was questioning the 7-11 clerk, and they wouldn’t have done that for nothing.

    fogflyer in reply to Mark Buehner. | June 26, 2013 at 3:10 pm

    Oh, they will.
    It will be brought up during the defense’s case.
    You have to remember that this is the state’s case. I realize it doesn’t seem that way from the evidence presented, but it is actually the state’s.

Wow, I realize they needed DeeDee as she is the ONLY evidence they have to show Zimmerman started the confrontation, but Holy Cow! She is certainly doing an excellent job of destroying Trayvon’s character! Yeah, those white women on the jury might have a little different view of Trayvon Martin after hearing that testimony!

Can’t wait for the cross!

    wyntre in reply to fogflyer. | June 26, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    I could not understand more than half of what she muttered. What a nasty piece of work.

    And she’ admitted to lying twice, so far, about her age and about why she didn’t go to the funeral.

    The female on the stand as DeeDee is lying her head off.

    She was not on the phone during the confrontation.

How are the media, who were swooning with outrage over Zimmerman referring to Trayvon as an “f-ing punk”, going to deal with the revelation that Trayvon referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracka” and a “n*gga”?

    Matt in FL in reply to AmyFL. | June 26, 2013 at 3:25 pm

    It’s not going to be a topic of discussion, because it’s just “the way he talked” and therefore is unremarkable and is not indicative of anything whatsoever.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to AmyFL. | June 26, 2013 at 4:25 pm

    Pffft, didn’t you know? Eric “My people” Holder has laid down the law (well, HIS own, personal law) to America about this. Whites cannot be victims of hate crimes nor hate speech.

    So Trademark is golden. Nigga? Cracka? *YAWN*

Wow! DeeDee – the gift that keeps on giving!

Never watches TV but saw it on TV! Consented, but then didn’t consent!

I’ll hold my tongue, but it’s VERY difficult. VERY!

Hundreds of texts! Someone else used her phone to text!

I wonder if Andrew will comment on the evidence skirmishes that went the State’s way. Such as allowing 911 calls with Zimmerman referring to suspicious black youths, and allowing Jane Sudyka to offer an opinion on who was calling for help. While through Andrew’s view, the case is not going well for the State, I wonder if we are out of touch with the new cultural adjustments for presumption of innocence and the living constitution. How many jurors are going to be pre-disposed (as the lady witnesses are) to believe Trayvon is entitled to a presumption of innocence (and not George)?

    fogflyer in reply to Mark30339. | June 26, 2013 at 4:50 pm

    When “Crazy Jane” was testifiying, I was thinking the same thing.
    Why are they allowing this person to make a guess as to who was calling for help?
    Are you saying that the defense objected to this (filed a motion, whatever), but the judge allowed it in???

      great unknown in reply to fogflyer. | June 26, 2013 at 5:25 pm

      Because, by testifying that the larger man was on top, the calls for help were by the person with the weaker voice, and that the man on top had the darker clothes, she wss actually testifying that TM was on top and Z was calling for help.

      And the defense is going to point that out. Strip her false assumptions – which the defense was careful to elicit – and she was actually a powerful eyewitness for the defense.

      Conjecture: the defense wants the jury to think this through themselves, so that when those facts are underlines, they will feel like partners in, rather than mere observers of, the destruction and reversal of this testimony. It’s extremely useful for the jury to have a Perry Mason moment on their own – when it’s for your side.

      And if they don’t get it on their own, well, that’s what the presentation of the defense case is for.

        That is a very astute observation, gu. Almost all of the breathless MSM commentary seems to be missing it.

        fogflyer in reply to great unknown. | June 26, 2013 at 5:55 pm

        “Conjecture: the defense wants the jury to think this through themselves, so that when those facts are underlines, they will feel like partners in, rather than mere observers of, the destruction and reversal of this testimony. It’s extremely useful for the jury to have a Perry Mason moment on their own – when it’s for your side.”

        Very ineresting point that I never considered.
        That could very well be true. Makes sense.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to great unknown. | June 26, 2013 at 7:56 pm

        Well, if this jury “thinks it through” like another well known recent Florida jury (Casey Anthony), GZ is in deep sewage.

        I no longer presume jurors have two firing brain cells to rub together. The leftist efforts at dumbing-down Americans have succeeded masterfully.

      Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | June 26, 2013 at 6:58 pm

      Foggy…this is the great value AND great danger of “eyewitness testimony”.

      They DO get to tell the jury what they think they perceived.

      What you do is show they were fallible in those perceptions, which it sounds like the defense guys have been doing.

        myiq2xu in reply to Ragspierre. | June 26, 2013 at 7:10 pm

        DNA and the Innocence Project have proven repeatedly that eyewitness testimony is often less than worthless.

        There is an old police academy trick where during a lecture someone suddenly walks in the classroom and yells something before firing blanks at the instructor. The person then leaves.

        After the person is gone the instructor asks everyone in the room to take out a sheet of paper and describe the guy and what he said.

        Typically everyone disagrees with each other and everyone is wrong. They can’t even agree on the subject’s race.

          Jim in reply to myiq2xu. | June 26, 2013 at 8:18 pm

          That stunt was pulled on me and my classmates in 1964 in my course on evidence in law school . I never forgot it.

    wyntre in reply to Mark30339. | June 26, 2013 at 6:35 pm

    And make excuses for Rachel’s limited grasp of the English Language.

    He11, even the court reporter can’t transcribe whatever it is she’s mumbling.

West said ‘proper impeachment’.

Insurance fraud. Witness tampering. It’s all over. This will be very ugly, very quickly.

“Sudyka:  Well, just the one time on Anderson Cooper, but only on condition that I not be named or identified.”

Haha oh well I guess it doesnt count then…

Hours of calls and hundreds of texts, but DeeDee never tried TM the following day? Or the day after? Or the day after that? Just quit communicating?

Makes sense to me. (Sarcasm alert)

And the bad news is, when this goes against the narrative, the MSM will pretend it never happened.

    caambers in reply to Fabi. | June 26, 2013 at 7:16 pm

    I had a good time watching Rene Stutzman (of Orlando Slantinel fame) doing a wicked tapdance trying to make yesterday’s testimony somehow favorable for the state. You do get the impression that they are watching a different trial. She and her buddy Jeff Weiner were front and center leading the hang ’em high charge last year in our local media. Can’t wait to see how she bloviates about Mizz Jentell tomorrow. Pass the popcorn!

To you attorneys,
Have you ever seen a witness as disrespectful as this one?
( I am referring to Ms. Jenteel of course)

    Jim in reply to fogflyer. | June 26, 2013 at 5:28 pm

    Not in 45 years of trying cases, ff. West has been lighting a fuse under this witness so she might implode tomorrow. His plodding, meticulous, style coupled with his calm, unflappable demeanor is the perfect skill set for dealing with a witness like this. I will be very surprised if West is through by the lunch break tomorrow. ISTM he is just getting started. BDLR is clearly doing a slow burn.

      fogflyer in reply to Jim. | June 26, 2013 at 5:33 pm

      Yes, I think he will drag this out as long as possible. I certainly would.
      I also think he has handled her beautifully.

      Is it wrong that I enjoyed watching this so much? 🙂

      wyntre in reply to Jim. | June 26, 2013 at 6:38 pm

      I have been enjoying West’s cross. In fact I was glued to the tube for two hours. Guess I’ll have to rearrange my schedule tomorrow morning to catch the fireworks. Should be good.

      Love that Rachel’s lawyer’s name is Mr. Crump. hehehe

    Uncle Samuel in reply to fogflyer. | June 26, 2013 at 5:34 pm

    This witness reveals all on the internet – that she has difficulty staying sober and every other detail about her life:

      wyntre in reply to Uncle Samuel. | June 26, 2013 at 6:44 pm

      That is SOME site! Seems she drinks a lot, does drugs, drives while under the influence and doesn’t work coz she has her daddy and mommy to support her.

      Oh, and she got “court nails,” bright orange. And she has decided not to study to be a homicide detective.

      And she didn’t mean what she said during her phone interview with “Crump,” the one broadcast on ABC, and she was just “rushing?” and besides she was in a closet during the interview and who could blame her for not paying attention and not wanting to stay in a closet?

      That is one crazy bytch.

      I never caught that ABC interview but it is shameless the way the LSM taints public opinion.

      She’s about as believable as ______________.

        randian in reply to wyntre. | June 26, 2013 at 6:58 pm

        she has decided not to study to be a homicide detective

        She does seem to lack the talent for it.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to wyntre. | June 26, 2013 at 8:04 pm

        Most likely Trademark is rolling over in his grave over the knowledge that all his cool MMA homies have now SEEN this stupid, ugly, fat blob with silver horseshoes in her earlobes as his girlfriend or friend-girl that he spent hours talking and texting with.

    wyntre in reply to fogflyer. | June 26, 2013 at 6:36 pm

    I’m no attorney but this moron turns me the heck off. Nasty manipulative piece of work.

    Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | June 26, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    Oh, main…I had to go be a lawyer, and I missed it…

    It sounds pretty brutal…

      fogflyer in reply to Ragspierre. | June 26, 2013 at 7:33 pm

      Rags, I found a YouTube site that has the whole days stream broken up that you can watch. The user is “thecount” or if you search zimmerman trial it will come up. You HAVE to check out her testimony. Most entertaining TV I have seen in a long time. I just wish a guys life wasn’t on the line over this nonsense.

Well that Dee Dee is just a peach, isn’t she. If Obama had another daughter…

Dee Dee was insolent and rude and totally inappropriate. At first I wondered why West wasn’t more aggressive with her. But I think his calm, polite manner works perfectly against her rude and ill-mannered behavior.

    Ragspierre in reply to Mercyneal. | June 26, 2013 at 7:04 pm

    You pretty much never go wrong by keeping it low and slow in your interrogation.

    That said, I DID once have a witness (another lawyer, actually) come at me off the witness stand once.

    It was great…!!!

Honestly, this trial should be taking place on Bizaro World – you know, that backwards world that is the origin of Bizaro Superman. This case is like Opposite Day on the many kids shows that my son watches – where there is one day that everything is the opposite of what it should be.

First, we have a prosecution that drastically overcharges, simply in an effort to encourage the other side to take a plea.

Then we have the slow-rolling of discovery by the prosecution, trying to hide evidence until the last minute so that the defense cannot prepare for it at all.

Then we have the overly emotional, yet fact devoid opening statement from the prosecution. Followed immediately by a fact packed, yet emotionally void opening by the defense.

Then we get to actual trial, where each and every witness offered by the prosecution gives testimony that supports more and more of the defense’s theory of the case.

And finally, we find out that the allegedly racist defendant (who was never once heard to utter a racial slur) was himself profiled and had racial slurs directed at him by the “victim”.

This may not be the trial of the century, but it is certainly the STRANGEST trial I have ever seen.

Trayvon’s character can not be brought up by the defense, at least not yet, but I don’t think it will escape the jury that someone who spends hours and hours on the phone with an angry, insolent, bitch like Dee Dee, just might be the type of young man that would jump and beat the shit out of a guy for following him.

Heck, I even forgot that in this Bizaro trial, we have seen the FBI testify … for the DEFENSE. And we have seen the prosecution have to go out and “expert shop” to find experts that say what the prosecution wants them to say.

And of course we have witnesses whose memories appear to get BETTER with the passage of time.

I love this blog and always enjoy the quality of thoughtfulness of the comments. I was hoping my first post would be an amazing salient point. Unfortunately, however, all I can think of is the old adage “That which is seen cannot be unseen”. After watching today my mind is stuck on whether I can use a funnel to pour bleach through my ears or just cut the cord to the lamp and zap my frontal lobe.

Per Fox:

The star prosecution witness in the murder trial of George Zimmerman took the stand to recount her cell phone conversation with Trayvon Martin in the moments before he was shot to death, saying the Florida teen said he was being followed by “a creepy-ass cracker” just before the fatal confrontation.

I couldnt watch live, but now I listening to the videos – West just got something significant out of Sudyka’s testimony. (apologies if this was mentioned by others already) i think it will be important later.

He pinned her down about the aggressive, strong voice initiating the confrontation and the weaker, meek voice responding. We know from other state witnesses that Trayvon spoke first asking why Zimmerman was following him. Zimmerman responds by asking what he (Trayvon) was doing there.

Sudyka confirmed it was Trayvon who initiated the direct contact, not Zimmerman, and he did so in a vy aggressive manner.

    Rational in reply to rokiloki. | June 26, 2013 at 10:45 pm

    So Zimmerman WAS following. Zimmerman answered in a ‘meek’ voice? But he asked a hostile question? So what precipitated the ‘unprovoked’ attack by Martin on Zimmerman. According to everyone here, Zimmerman was meek and retreating to his car despite being pissed that the suspects on other occasions had gotten away. Zimmerman wasn’t determined to make sure this one didn’t get away? Oh, that’s right. He was meek, respectful and retreating, despite having a gun in his pocket. Uh, huh!

    Don’t get so cocky. This is a claim of self-defense with a gun against an unarmed man. Zimmerman will have to testify. Are you so sure he will stand up to a cross-examination any better the the people you are all ridiculing?

      He was meek, respectful and retreating, despite having a gun in his pocket. Uh, huh!


      You don’t carry, do you — nor know anyone who does.

      Something like one in 17 of us here in Florida have CCW permits. Anyone from that guy ahead of you in line at the hardware store, to the real estate agent who shows you that nice house, to the home hospice nurse who’s caring for your Mom, might at any time be lawfully armed down here.

      Having a gun in your pocket doesn’t suddenly turn you in to some other kind of person than you normally are. It doesn’t turn people into instant Rambos, you know. You’re imbuing an inert hunk of metal with magical properties it just doesn’t have.

      You should change your moniker to Irrational.

        Rational in reply to AmyFL. | June 27, 2013 at 8:56 am

        So you are on ‘neighborhood watch’. You are following someone who you deem to be suspicious and might be dangerous. You are ‘meek’ but you are angry because you think you are justified. You don’t want him to get away. You a uncertain, when or whether the police will show. They haven’t been responsive in the past. You have a gun in your pocket. But it is not influencing your decision making or giving you any extra bravado. Your adrenaline is flowing. Maybe the suspicious person has a gun, but you are not thinking of using yours.

        It is irrational to think that the gun in your pocket might influence your judgement. Yeah, that gun doesn’t carry any magical power for you. You carry it to balance your weight. You don’t announce you have a gun and the suspicious person should back off or is under citizens arrest. Yet minutes later, you have shot and killed unarmed person while you claim your head was being bashed against the ground. You didn’t use your hands to protect and cushion your head. You reacted against instinct, and used your hand to get your gun while your head was being bashed on concrete. You hit center mass and kill with one shot. Your gun had no particular significance and never effected your judgement. Sure.

        Matt in FL in reply to AmyFL. | June 27, 2013 at 10:05 am

        “He was meek, respectful and retreating, despite having a gun in his pocket. Uh, huh!”

        Yes, because the people I know became less combative once they started carrying, not more. You have to be less combative, because any altercation you might get in instantly becomes a firearm-involved altercation, simply by your presence in it. You need to box your ego up and put it on a shelf. If you are incapable of doing that, you need to not be carrying.

          Rational in reply to Matt in FL. | June 27, 2013 at 11:56 am

          Well, obviously that is not what happened. On this site, everyone is absolutely certain that Zimmerman was in the right and behaved as someone carrying a gun should. The claim is that ‘anyone’ carrying a gun will change his behavior for the better because of the gun.

          The results belie that. An innocent person is dead. Yes, Martin was innocent at the time and place he was shot, despite his past history. The shooter was motivated to catch a wrong doer. Yes, he was frustrated that others got away. Zimmerman had training on what he was and was not supposed to do when on watch. Apparently he violated that training and pursued; at least initially. This is not murder. But is negligent or involuntary homicide outside the realm of possibility? He broke rules and instructions and provoked someone. That someone is dead. Are there no consequences? Does it just break down to white/black; carry a gun/doesn’t carry a gun?

          Matt in FL in reply to Matt in FL. | June 27, 2013 at 12:15 pm

          Rational sez: “Martin was innocent at the time and place he was shot”

          I suppose that depends on whether you believe he was beating up GZ when he was shot, doesn’t it?

          Rational sez: “Apparently he violated that training and pursued”

          There’s a distinction between pursued and “kept in sight.” The first implies a desire to catch, the second does not. This point really comes down to what you believe GZ was doing. You clearly believe it’s the former. His testimony is to the latter.

          Rational sez: “He broke rules and instructions”

          Which rules and instructions did he break? Are you referring to the neighborhood watch general rules to not pursue people? If you are, then it’s interpretation, as I stated above. With regard to instructions, I’m assuming you’re not only propagating the lie that the NEN operator gave him instructions that he was obligated to follow, as opposed to the advisory “We don’t need you to do that,” but that you’re also assuming GZ disregarded that direction, however you define it, which runs contrary to GZ’s testimony.

          Rational sez: “and provoked someone.”

          And you know that how? I mean, unless you define following someone in an effort to keep them in sight as provocative.

          Rational sez: “Are there no consequences?”

          Sure there are consequences. If you attack someone, you might get shot. Those were the consequences for TM. And you might get charged with second degree murder in a politically and racially fueled witch hunt after previously being cleared via investigation. Those are the consequences for GZ. There may be more. Watch this space.

          Rational in reply to Matt in FL. | June 27, 2013 at 12:51 pm

          Yes, Martin was innocent at the time. He was not in the process of committing a crime. He was not looking for a fight or to commit mayhem. There is simply no evidence that he was interested in doing anything wrong. He was walking and talking on the phone while returning from a convenience store. He had a legal right to be were he was. Maybe he was looking around as he walked. So what? It has not been alleged that he left the shared space of the development and stepped onto individual property. That is all un-contradicted. That is innocence.

          I look around as I walk. Sometimes I stop if I find something interesting. I don’t wear a hoodie, but I do wear a large hat that protects me from the elements. So the rain wouldn’t bother me. I don’t expect to be followed or hassled. We have a neighborhood watch. It could obscure a good view of me. I have a right to do that. I even have the right to look at a house from the sidewalk or the street.

          If you won’t accept that Martin was innocent at the beginning of this incident, there is really nothing to discuss. It started when Zimmerman decided that Martin was suspicious and followed him.

          I am comfortable leaving the rest of your rationalizations/explanations to the jury. I am sure that case will be made by the defense. Zimmerman is using an affirmative defense, so I believe Zimmerman will need to testify. He can expect a rigorous cross, too.

While watching the lit’l darlin’, Rachel, I became a proponent of drug testing of witnesses prior to their testimony. Thought she was gonna fade out on us there for awhile. Who’s paying for her room and room service tonight? I’m guessing she’s gonna be a bit cranky in the morning. Wonder when was the last time she got up before noon.
A homicide detective…..I don’t think so

I think you’re missing something about Martin’s “ass cracker” remark…

Check this modern slang reference:…=ass%20cracker

It would imply that Martin thought he was being stalked by someone that wanted to sexually attack him… That is probably why Martin over reacted when approached.

Unfortunately for him, Martin brought fists to a gun fight that he started.

Zimmerman very correctly was in fear for his life. He had every right to defend himself from an immediate lethal threat.


    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to mrerick. | June 26, 2013 at 8:22 pm

    What makes you think GZ approached Trademark?

    Jim in reply to mrerick. | June 26, 2013 at 8:30 pm

    Very interesting, mr, especially when Ms. DeeDee’s response was something like “don’t let him rape you”.

    mrerick in reply to mrerick. | June 26, 2013 at 9:00 pm

    First, I don’t think that GZ approached Martin.

    This defense lawyer is brilliant. He’s using the prosecution’s own witnesses to establish and drive home the defense.

    He just established extreme prejudice (against gay men, something not uncommon in the black community) as the motive for Martin to be approaching and attacking GZ.

    Over the phone, Martin had just expressed his prejudice multiple times verbally. Ms. DeeDee got that message.

    Instead of just walking home, Martin acted upon his prejudice to attack GZ for being gay and following him.

Oh, well, then…

Shep Smith is VERY critical of the defense attorneys.

So…there you go…

Just listening to Dick DeGuerin on the radiator…

He likes the judge, and he likes Zimmerman’s chances.

gadsden_treads | June 26, 2013 at 8:11 pm

Now Miss DeeDee, you said in testimony yesterday that you thought it was just a fight. You didn’t seem very concerned about Trayvon’s welfare.

Did Trayvon get into fights often?

And he could take care of himself pretty well then?

[…] of George Zimmerman punching him at the time of the shot.  At best for the prosecution, there is somewhat conflicting eyewitness testimony on this point, which itself raises reasonable […]