Image 01 Image 03

Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 6 — Zimmerman recounts fight for his life (recording)

Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 6 — Zimmerman recounts fight for his life (recording)

So far today the State has called two rather interesting witnesses.

Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone, FBI Expert, Speech Identification and Speaker Identification

The first you will recall from the pre-trial Frye hearings–Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone. You may refresh your recollection of the details of Dr. Nakasone’s world-class qualifications and Fry testimony here, Dr. Hirotaka Nakasone, FBI, and the low-quality 3-second audio file, but the bottom line is that he completely rejected the scientific methodology used by the State’s speech “experts” as “disturbing.” It was in part on Dr. Nakasone’s testimony that Judge Nelson decided that the State’s speech “experts” had used methodologies that were not generally accepted in the relevant scientific community,” the Frye standard, and therefore were inadmissible.

Hirotaka Nakasone, FBI Expert, Part 2

Hirotaka Nakasone, FBI Expert, Part 3

The bulk of Dr. Nakasone’s testimony today again focused on the technical limitations in applying modern scientific methods to determining the identity of a speaker. This time, however, the State wasn’t really interested in advancing those technologies–indeed, the State went in the other direction entirely. Turning away from technology, they turned to the basics–might a person familiar with the screamer’s voice be able to make an identification?

The State did manage to get Dr. Nakasone to agree that for a recording of this type–a person screaming in extremis–the use of a familiar listener was probably the best method of making identification–although “best” must be conditioned on the basis that it’s the best of a very bad lot, indeed.

Clearly where the State is heading is to get either Trayvons mother, Sabrina Fulton, or his father, Tracy Martin, to testify that the voice screaming for help is that of their son Trayvon Martin. The most likely prospect for this is Ms. Fulton mother, because Mr. Martin had stated that the scream was not the voice of his son when he first heard the recording, and changed his mind later.

On cross examination West drove home the issue of listener bias, in which people hear what they are led to expect to hear, if for example another person in the group has first made, questioned Dr. Nakasone on whether a setting in which the scream identification was made among a group of people might not results in a very high risk of such bias. He strongly agreed that it did.

By the end of Dr. Nakasone’s testimony it seemed as if the State had scored a “point” that would be perceived as such by the mainstream media, but not in any substantive sense. The same strategy that the defense will use to destroy the credibility of Rachel Jeantel’s testimony–that her statement was molded in the highly coercive environment of the Trayvon’s living room, surrounded by Trayvon’s family and lawyers–will be equally effective in driving home the point of listener bias.

Police Officer Doris Singeleton, Sanford Police Department

The next State witness was Doris Singleton, the Sanford Police Department who conducted the very first of interviews of George Zimmerman the night of the event.

Doris Singleton, Police Officer, Sanford Police Department, Part 2

Doris Singleton, Police Officer, Sanford Police Department, Part 3

Doris Singleton, Police Officer, Sanford Police Department, Part 4

Doris Singleton, Police Officer, Sanford Police Department, Part 5

Doris Singleton, Police Officer, Sanford Police Department, Part 6

Doris Singleton, Police Officer, Sanford Police Department, Part 7

Bernie de la Rionda led direct here, and essentially pursued two lines of discussion.

The first was his return to the theme that Zimmerman’s injuries were not all that serious. As previously discussed, this is an irrelevant argument in the context of self-defense, yet BDLR continues to pursue it.  We’ve debunked the worth of this theory of the case here:

Zimmerman Update — How Much Injury Is Required Before Self-Defense is Justified?

The second line of questioning pursued by BDLR involved having Singleton walk the Court, using a map of Twin Lakes, through the path that Zimmerman described Martin and himself taking through the complex that night, in parallel with such activities as his phone call to the police non-emergency line.

Nothing here seemed to contradict any substantive part of Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. Interestingly, however, at one point the questioning noted that Zimmerman had driven by the front of the club house. This probably explains why the State submitted into evidence the very poor clarity CCTV footage from the internal clubhouse cameras. In those videos it is just barely possible to show a light or shadow passing by an outside window. Because the CCTV recordings are time-stamped this evidence might be useful in discrediting Zimmerman’s claimed timeline.

It also explains why, when the CCTV evidence was introduced, Mark O’Mara spent such considerable time exploring the fact that the CCTV clock did not, in fact have the correct time, being 18 minutes off at the time the CCTV employee collected the recordings. On cross-examination O’Mara was able to reveal that it was also possible that the variation in the CCTV clock need not even have been constant over time–it might have been 18 minutes off at the time the recordings were collected from storage, but could have been 15 minutes behind or 20 minutes ahead at the time the recordings were actually made. This should be sufficient to great a reasonable doubt in any attempt of the State to use the timing of the CCTV recordings to prove guilt.

Next BDLR played the recorded interview that Singleton conducted with Zimmerman the very night of the attack. It can only be described as a chilling recounting of a man in the fight for his life. Truly terrifying. I simply can’t see how playing that recording could have advanced one iota the State’s theory of the case that Zimmerman committed second degree murder, or any other crime that would not be justified as lawful self-defense.

I had done a previous write-up of this chilling recounting:

ZIMMERMAN TRIAL: EVIDENTIARY FLASHBACK: Zimmerman Recalls Fatal Fight to Police

That brought us to lunch recess.

Investigator Chris Serino, Sanford Police Department

After lunch the big witness was Chris Serino, who had led the initial investigation into the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.  The explosive content of his testimony, however, really came in cross examination.  So important were his responses to Mr. O’Mara’s questioning that we devoted the entirety of our end-of-day analysis and write-up to it.

Zimmerman Trial Day 6 – Analysis & Video – State’s witness Chris Serino seriously undermines charge

The direct examination by Bernie de la Rionda was, frankly, less interesting, but in the interests of being complete I include the video of his Serino’s direct questioning here:

Investigator Chris Serino, Sanford Police Department, Part 2

Investigator Chris Serino, Sanford Police Department, Part 3

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.


memomachine | July 1, 2013 at 2:37 pm

This case just gets stranger and odder and crazier as time goes on. is reporting that CNN just aired on live national TV Zimmerman’s SSN and date of birth.

So in addition to the lawsuit Zimmerman has against NBC does he have another one against CNN?

Justice in America? Frankly I’m at the point where resurrecting Judge Bean isn’t that far fetched.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to memomachine. | July 1, 2013 at 3:13 pm

    The Zimmerman trial is starting to have some of the hallmarks of the trial of alleged Lindbergh baby kidnapper, Bruno Richard Hauptmann. In that trial too, the media was complicit in both the indictment and conviction. For a brief time, the American media gave old P.T. Barnum a run for his money.

    In the wake of Hauptmann, the American media supposedly had an epiphany. In journalism school we studied both Hauptmann and the later Sam Shepherd trials as textbook examples of media excess. Now, sadly, recent graduates of J-schools have never heard of either trial. And, it shows…

To me, it is chilling what can be gotten away with by those whose acts are aligned with the underlying beliefs of the press. This “fellow-travelers syndrome” convinces me that, if you’re not a member of a protected class, justice is not your friend.

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Immolate. | July 1, 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Right now, the majority of the press are presenting a fantasy trial, an entirely different trial than the one that is actually taking place.

      creeper in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 1, 2013 at 4:39 pm

      The slanted coverage won’t help the prosecution. Why are they doing this? Do they actually want to see riots?

      hesperus in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 1, 2013 at 10:02 pm

      I think the fantasy you describe is HERE. In this forum. It is decidedly pro zimmerman, with all sipping the same kool aid and patting yourselves on the back for how unbiased you make yourselves out to be. It’s laughable, if it wasn’t so delusional

        Sally MJ in reply to hesperus. | July 2, 2013 at 1:59 am

        Most honest people want to support the truth. We all know GZ has been vilified for defending his life. So we have reason to want him to succeed.

        So why are you arguing against the truth, and trying to frame a innocent man?

        The presumption of innocence means nothing when there are creepy-ass crackas to see off. Apparently.

        How this racist fool is any different from the early 20th century’s lynch mobs who weren’t game to give black folks a fair trial before they declared them guilty, I do not know.

The mother is going to testify that the voice on the 911 tape was her son’s voice? I wonder how many times she’d heard Trayvon Martin screaming for his life before? Also, isn’t this the same woman who hired an attorney to trademark her dead son’s name within days of his death? And didn’t Anderson Cooper show an interview a few days ago with a woman (another one of daddy Martin’s many girlfriends) who claims that she is the one who really raised Trayvon, not Sabrina Fulton? It would be interesting to know just how much time Ms. Fulton actually spent around Trayvon before his death.

I know the defense attorneys will have to tread lightly with the mother, but her bias (and her financial interest) seem pretty obvious.

    Ragspierre in reply to Observer. | July 1, 2013 at 2:58 pm

    Just FYI I’ve read several very good attorneys…including Hugh Hewitt, I think…all say that they would have advised a client to trademark the name of their dead kid.

    It is a defensive move to control the use of that name and image.

      Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 3:16 pm

      It’s also a way to make money on the use of the name.

        Ragspierre in reply to Observer. | July 1, 2013 at 3:20 pm

        So, what is your personal knowledge of what the motives were?

          Observer in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 3:34 pm

          I have no personal knowledge of Ms. Fulton’s motives, and never claimed to have any. I simply pointed out that she has a financial interest in seeing Zimmerman convicted. Of course, she could be a saintly woman, as pure as driven snow, but the fact that she hired an unethical, race-baiting crook like Crump suggests otherwise.

          What is your personal knowledge of her motives?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 3:45 pm

          You’ll note that I don’t pretend to any.

          Nor do I default to the worst possible motives.

          Call it a fault…

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 3:51 pm

          “I simply pointed out that she has a financial interest in seeing Zimmerman convicted.”

          Really…??? I would have thought that would HURT any crass commercialism around this case.

          Conviction = lower interest

          Acquittal = outrageous outrage

          healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm

          Agree with Rags that outrage on acquittal is better ammo for a civil suit.

          I don’t know that the “Martins” want or don’t want an acquittal.

          I do believe they will be filing a civil suit immediately after this farce of a trial concludes because I believe there will be an acquittal based on evidence thus far.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm

          I dunno who they’d sue. They already settled with the HOA for the development (for insurance policy limits or less, I would bet, but it is unlikely we’ll ever know).

          Zimmerman isn’t worth anything. Nobody involved has the kinds of pockets that give a plaintiff’s lawyer a stiffy.

          Of course, I could be missing a potential defendant.

          BubbaLeroy in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 4:54 pm

          The legal purpose of registering a trademark is to have the exclusive use of the mark in commerce. They registered the trademark for the category of “Clothing Products , Advertising, Business & Retail Services , Insurance & Financial Services,” specifically for “Hooded sweatshirts; Sweatshirts; T-shirts.”

          So according to the application that they filed with the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, their motive in registering the trademark was to sell hoodies.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 5:11 pm

          …OR block others from selling them.

          kentuckyliz in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 6:19 pm

          On another note, I wonder how Arizona Tea and Skittles feel about the association of their brands with this incident and all the Purple Drank talk since then.

          Uncle Samuel in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 6:46 pm

          Rags, FL law says, ‘no arrest, no civil suit.’

          No civil suit, no big $$$

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 7:32 pm

          They’re selling Trayvon and Justice For Trayvon T-shirts. What’s-his-face….black comedian was wearing one on BET a couple nights ago. I saw three black people in Memphis wearing them about three weeks ago.

          The T-shirts, the jumping-the gun civil suit and the pass-the-trashcan for $ tour makes it pretty obvious why the parents trademarked his name.

      Fabi in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 3:22 pm

      Agreed. Every parent I’ve known in the same situation has done the same, almost immediately. I think I still have a ‘Justice for Natalie’ t-shirt in my closet.

        Ragspierre in reply to Fabi. | July 1, 2013 at 3:25 pm

        Just curious…did you look any of that up before you posted?

        It might you’d learn something.

          Fabi in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm

          I don’t remember the Holloway family trademarking her name.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 4:14 pm

          They weren’t counseled by Neil Boortz…

          “Many people seem to be upset that Treyvon Martin’s mother has filed for trademark protection for her son’s name. I can’t help but think that if people knew the real story here, they wouldn’t be outraged at all.

          As soon as the Treyvon case gained national attention opportunists across the country started printing t-shirts, signs and other little goodies with Treyvon’s name on them. Some simply said “I am Treyvon.” Some t-shirts were vile – with pictures of Treyvon over printed racial insults. One “entrepreneur” announced plans for a collection of Treyvon hoodies.

          Now put yourself in the place of Treyvon’s mother. She sees people across the country using her dead child’s name to make money and deliver messages, some of which she may not necessarily agree with. What does she do? She says something about it to her lawyer. Her lawyer tells her that she can protect her son’s name by filing for trademark protection. So she does. How can a rational person have a problem with this? If I had been her lawyer I would have given her the same advice.

          Oh! You say that she also trademarked “I am Treyvon” and “Justice for Treyvon?” So? It was her son. Now she feels she has a cause. Perfectly understandable. Are you going to tell her that she cannot use her son’s name in promoting her cause?”


          Fabi in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 4:31 pm

          Never said I had a problem with it; just suggested it was an unfamiliar undertaking to me.

          Fabi in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 5:26 pm

          I’m sure the practice is more widespread than I know or care to know. The loss of a child, and any subsequent actions on my part, is something I choose not to ponder.

          JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 7:40 pm

          Fabi, the parents are selling Trayvon and Justice for Trayvon T-shirts. They trademarked both of those.

          I’ve seen the shirts. The parents have profited through a lawsuit, the shirts, and going across the country begging for money by passing a trash can at media events and other venues set up by their lawyers.

          It would be one thing to try to raise a little money for funeral, air fare and hotel expenses for the trial, that sort of thing. This is $$$$$$$$$$$ beyond that.

    moonstone716 in reply to Observer. | July 1, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    I heard that he lived with the stepmother from the ages of 3 through 15 — that’s pretty much “raising” him. Then at, what,
    17, his mom sends him off again to live with his dad and girlfriend?

    His mom is by far the worst person in this case; and that is saying a LOT.

    That would be Syllvia Martin, the woman who was the next wife after Sybrina.

    She claims that she raised Trayvon and then Tracy took him away from her…. and after that he went downhill.

    Sally MJ in reply to Observer. | July 1, 2013 at 10:49 pm

    …Wonder how many times TM’s mom heard him scream after someone beat the crap out of him, bloodied his head, smashed the back of his head into a sidewalk – and then TM screamed.

I look for Shapie Sharpton to soberly declare that the white prosecutor is throwing this case on purpose.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    He’s White Hispanic I believe…let’s make sure we apply the race card properly when throwing it out there.

GZ’s initial statement was made before he had any idea what the witnesses would say. He is consistent with the witness statements in an amazing number of details.

The really surprising thing that Singleton said was that GZ didn’t realize that TM was dead. But the last time he saw TM the cops were doing CPR and then he saw an ambulance arrive. Then he was taken to the police station.

All this testimony is moot. The State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman got out of his vehicle. Case closed. Murder 2.

    Ragspierre in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    You forgot a “sarc” tag, right…???

    Matt in FL in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 3:11 pm

    2/10. Feeble troll.

    Browndog in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 3:20 pm

    any reasonable person would understand that comment is sarcasm.

    Any regular reader at LI would understand that sarcasm doesn’t fly here.

      Immolate in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2013 at 3:56 pm

      That’s like saying bacon is against the rules. Without sarcasm, what is there?

      jayjerome66 in reply to Browndog. | July 1, 2013 at 10:20 pm

      Is that true? No sarcasm allowed without it being so marked? I’ve been reading Andrew’s threads for a week now, and it seems his tweets and comments are laced itch sarcasm. Why the double standard?

    Nevadasteve in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 3:33 pm

    Is that lab rat or LA brat? Not that it makes much difference.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Nevadasteve. | July 1, 2013 at 3:53 pm

      Yeah… that too. It’s really called typing with an attention-demanding cat waltzing across the keyboard. Well, after some of that good, gourmet, cat food my wife buys, he’s now sound asleep on the cool desktop. 😆

    healthguyfsu in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 3:35 pm

    Been fed one too many “treatments” in that lab?

    gregm in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Thanks for giving me the opportunity to cast my first down vote, sarcasm or not!

    Henry Hawkins in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    It doesn’t really matter if it’s sarcasm because it’s funny as hell either way, just for different reasons.

    kentuckyliz in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 6:29 pm

    labrat…in other words, “The [whiny little] bitch deserved it.” I’m being /sarc too.

    Milhouse in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 6:40 pm

    Indeed. They’ve also proved beyond all doubt that he killed a child. That makes him a cold-blooded murderer right there. (I actually had someone seriously make this case to me over the weekend. I could not get her to tell me at what point one stops being a child, whether she would allow herself to be raped by a 17-year-old “child”, or whether “children” are allowed to defend themselves from other “children”.)

      kentuckyliz in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2013 at 6:45 pm

      Isn’t referring to Trayvon as a child equal to calling him a boy–stripping away his manhood and his dignity? Calling AA men boys is raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist.

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2013 at 8:40 pm

      Well, at 17, you go to adult jail.

      He wanted to be a thug and follow the gangsta life like he was an OG or something. Well, he sowed the wind and reaped the whirlwind.

      Sally MJ in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2013 at 2:01 am

      Clearly you don’t read.

    MegK in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 6:53 pm

    They’ve also proven Zimmerman was not actually dead or even near death yet. Self-defense is off the table.


    Sally MJ in reply to labrat. | July 1, 2013 at 10:51 pm

    Not illegal to get out of your car.

    It is illegal to commit aggravated assault. Sometimes aggregated assault may lead to self defense homicide.

    But I know it is too confusing for you to look at the truth.

This will be what the libtards hang their hat on. Just like the SCOTUS desicion on Bush V Gore – despite all evidence to the contrary, they will stick their fingers in their ears and shout “a mother KNOWS the sound of her child screaming!!!!!”

They need cover to justify their ignorance and stupidity, and the State will provide them with it. Kinda fitting actually, once you remember that they prefer to be wards of the Nanny State.

I loved Serino’s interview of George!
Lasted what…. 45 seconds???
Man, he must have been in a hurry to get home!!! 🙂

Just an example to show how fallible and malleable memory can be…

In George’s first interview with the lady officer, he said TM said, “You got it” after he shot him. The officer misquoted George moments later and said, “So he said, “You got me.””

George then started using the phrase “You got me” when talking about the shooting.

The next day in the walkthru with Sorino, when he got to that point, he says TM said, “You got me….you got it…something like that” The memory of hearing “you got me” was actually planted there by the officer, but Zimmerman doesn’t even realize it.

Not important at all as to which one was said, but kind of interesting to see how our memory works.

    Fen in reply to fogflyer. | July 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    Excellent point. I always thought it odd that Martin would say “you got me” after being shot, like in some bad Western.

    Makes more sense for Martin to say “you got it” in resignation, as in “you got to the gun before me”

      Marshal in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 4:06 pm

      “You got me”

      I wonder if he didn’t say “You shot me”. Fights are confusing.

    The phrase “you got it” is very important.

    If that is what George said in that first interview, then that is what TM said. This is important because what does “it” mean?

    If I am reading that correctly the “it” is the gun. That would mean that TM was in fact attempting to reach the gun, but George managed to get the gun and use it first.

    I hope that the Defense will play this up for what it is worth because it is a very crucial statement to the whole of this case.

      fogflyer in reply to Aussie. | July 1, 2013 at 7:18 pm

      That is an interesting point that never occurred to me.
      We will have to see if the defense noticed it, and makes any use of it.

Well, finally some evidence that helps the prosecution.
During the videoed interview by Serino and the other female, Serino states that if George was following Trayvon, Trayvon might have been scared and had a right to defend himself.

O’Mara needs to somehow diffuse this and make sure the jury knows that this is just a form or interrogation and that the law most certainly does not state that.

    fogflyer in reply to fogflyer. | July 1, 2013 at 4:01 pm

    Good Lord!
    I can’t believe that George is not requesting a lawyer during this highly adversarial interview!

    I really feel this will be the most damning evidence of the case. The jury gets to hear these two grilling George on every aspect of his story in ways the lawyers would never be able to do in court.

    Ironically, I think it goes to show that George feels he is totally innocent and actually bolsters his case. Not so sure the jury is going to feel that way though.

      Sally MJ in reply to fogflyer. | July 2, 2013 at 2:03 am

      Correction: George KNOWS he’s totally innocent.
      And he’s naive about not having an attorney.

    Fen in reply to fogflyer. | July 1, 2013 at 4:04 pm

    Don’t see how it helps the prosecution. Its already been established that when Martin ran away, he ended up only yards from his house.

    Claiming that he was so scared he ran *back* to Z to attack him? Won’t fly.

      fogflyer in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 4:31 pm

      Were you listening???

      They now have had the jury hear police officers say the following:

      That TM had a right to defend himself if he thought he was being followed.

      That George should have identified himself as Neighborhood Watch

      That none of this would have happened if George had just stayed in the car.

      I am sure there were several other things, but basically it is just the fact that they got to watch two police officers aggressively question Zimmerman and I try to dispute everything he said. The whole line of questioning was trying to show guilt in Zimmerman’s actions.

      At this point, I think GZ might take the stand; I don’t see how it could be any worse than the video of this interview.

        Fen in reply to fogflyer. | July 1, 2013 at 4:49 pm

        You need meds. I certainly did NOT hear the officer claim that Martin had the right to use lethal force to defend himself from “being followed”

        “That none of this would have happened if George had just stayed in the car.”

        Thats a dumbass statement. You might as well say “none of this would have happened if you had just stayed in bed this morning”. Z did NOT follow Martin on foot, he left his car to find a street sign AS REQUESTED BY POLICE because he didn’t recall which street he was on.

        “I am sure there were several other things…”

        Sure, you just can’t remember them. We’ll wait while you get your next set of talking point bs.

        [jeapordy theme]

        Bottom line, once Martin ran away from Z’s truck he was disengaged. Martin chose to re-engage:
        1) Martin chose to not retreat those extra few steps into his house.
        2) Martin chose to double back to the scene of his death
        3) Martin chose to hide and lie in wait to ambush Z
        4) Martin chose to start an unprovoked fight that Z even attempted to defuse: “I don’t have a problem” VS “you do now:
        5) Martin chose to inflict grevious bodily harm on Z, warranting Z’s use of lethal force to stop it.

          Cecil Turner in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 5:16 pm

          I’ve seen this touted several times before, as if TM “defending himself” from a nonexistent threat somehow invalidates GZ’s right to defend himself from an actual aggravated assault. (Like a tag game, I guess: “self-defense!” . . . “I called it first!”) It doesn’t, of course.

          (There is a provision in the FL statute if one “provokes” the use of force, on which I’d like to see some knowledgeable discussion.)

          Goetz von Berlichingen in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 6:02 pm

          Cecil, sheck the archives from last week. Mr. Branca has done yeoman’s work in addressing that aspect multiple times. There is quite a bit of discussion on it too.

          fogflyer in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 6:06 pm

          Fen, you are totally misunderstanding my comment.

          The officers did indeed state all of those things in the interview… go back and listen to it… BUT, they were doing so just to try and get George flustered. Of course it is not true that TZ had a right to attack GZ, it is an interrogation technique. The cops were aggressively challenging all of Georges assertions to see if he would crack and change his story. Did you catch it when they told GZ that the whole thing might be on video? Another lie, to scare George into changing his story to see if he was lying.

          my worry is that the Jury got to here them say all this, and now O’Mara is going to have to make them understand that this is just a technique police use to try and get at the truth. That you can not take their statement as truth or law or even what the police themselves believe.

          Do you understand now?

          Matt in FL in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 6:10 pm

          fogflyer sez: “…and now O’Mara is going to have to make them understand that this is just a technique police use to try and get at the truth.”

          I am, of course, a biased observer, but I think MOM did a pretty good job of getting the jury to understand that. And everybody’s seen cop shows, and like I said elsewhere, Serino is a hardbitten TV detective, straight out of central casting. Everyone’s heard of good cop/bad cop, and now they’ve seen it in real life.

          fogflyer in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 6:19 pm

          Matt, I completely agree!
          In fact, I think by the time O’Mara is done, Serino , even with the “Challenge Interview” in evidence, might still turn out to be a better witness for the defense than the prosecution.

          Just when I was starting to think they finally might have had one too 😉

          PS. I am still bitter that Fen gave me two thumbs down just because she didnt bother to completly read or understand my post 🙁 I owe you Fen!!!!! 😉

          Matt in FL in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 6:23 pm

          One last note…

          @fogflyer sez: “Just when I was starting to think they finally might have had one too”

          Yeah, I have to admit that when I was listening to that, I thought, “Man, this sure doesn’t sound good for ol’ Georgy.” It was even more impactful because that was really the first time I’d thought that so far in the entire trial.

          kentuckyliz in reply to Fen. | July 1, 2013 at 6:48 pm

          CNN legal expert commentators are gushing how masterful MOM is, and this CX will be taught in law schools. They are seeing something different than you are.

          GZ passed the “there’s a video” fake with flying colors.

        gxm17 in reply to fogflyer. | July 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm

        The day ended with the jury hearing Serino (the lead detective) say that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth. Amazing cross. Absolutely brilliant.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to fogflyer. | July 1, 2013 at 7:54 pm

        Defend himself from WHAT? The sound of footfalls?

    Cracker-American in reply to fogflyer. | July 1, 2013 at 6:04 pm

    “Trayvon might have been scared and had a right to defend himself”

    Travon probably though GZ was gay & horny, creepy -Urban Dictionary = ”An overused slang term for sexually inappropriate or perverted” & also ‘older person hanging around college bars’

    Where’s the pink pistols when u need em

Carol Herman | July 1, 2013 at 3:33 pm

If Sabrina Fulton goes on the stand to identify her son’s screams. Can she be asked how Alicia Martin says she is Trayvon’s step mom. And, was the ONLY mom raising Trayvon, until her marriage to Tracy Martin went up in smoke.

Trayvon was a “shuttle kid.” He got “shuttled” to his Sabrina Martin’s house. Where she’s big on prayer. And, proved to be unable to encourage Trayvon’s behaviors away from gangs at school.

Did the school inform her that Trayvon was being suspended? And, the only reason Trayvon was not arrested for burglary, is that the school used to tactics to fudge statistics. So that jewelry and a screw driver found upon inspection of his backpack, were noted as “found items” not belonging to him. And, these items were placed on a shelf. But the police were never informed of this lost property.

Will Sabrina have any recollections other than Trayvon was a saint? What did she think of Alicia. (Since Alicia said to Anderson Cooper that she was bounced out of the front row seats at the wake. Treating her as if she didn’t exist.)

While, let’s say, Tracy’s father has to take the stand. Where he’s already said he didn’t think the screams were his son’s. Before flipping to the “narrative.” What about his own life’s involvement in gangs? And, IF his son were screaming, AND he had gone outside. Would he have shouted at Trayvon to stop beating up a middle aged man who lived at the condo complex?

Would the prosecutors have been able to degrade the tape while it was in their custody? Just by running it through the “play” mode over and over again?

There is a serious problem here that desperately needs to be dealt with, IMO. What is the media after??? We aren’t digging deep enough into their intent. I would bet my life’s savings that this would never have made the headlines if GZ was more ‘Hispanic’. If he was a few shades darker, and his name was Jaun Martinez, 99.9% of us wouldn’t have even known that this shooting occurred! So why is the media so hell-bent on interjecting this poisonous narrative??? Do they want riots? Do they want a race war? Do they want death and destruction? It appears that they do. IMHO – our media is PUBLIC ENEMY NUMBER ONE. They very seriously need to be dealt with accordingly. At the very least, they should be held (financially) accountable for any loss of life and/or damage to property upon GZ’s acquittal. Especially NBC Universal. They should be bankrupted and dismantled completely.

    wyntre in reply to mas337. | July 1, 2013 at 4:00 pm

    Point well-taken especially in light of the news CNN broadcast Zimmerman’s SS# and telephone number on TV.

    No way that was a mistake.

    LSM is determined to get GZ.

    Fen in reply to mas337. | July 1, 2013 at 4:06 pm

    Priceless, as CNN’s staff and followers routinely use the ethnic slur “redneck”. Ignorant bigots with a huge blind spot.

    kentuckyliz in reply to mas337. | July 1, 2013 at 6:41 pm

    I wonder if CNN is going to report the little factoid that one of Trayvon’s twitter handles was NO LIMIT N***A. I looked up the lyrics…is this what Trayvon aspired to be?

    Sundance Cracker at the CTH has covered this aspect of the story. It is all about the money, the big shakedown from the BGI

    Milhouse in reply to mas337. | July 1, 2013 at 7:00 pm

    It wouldn’t help if he were a few shades darker, because when this became a national story none of the people pushing it had any idea what he looked like. We were told that he was white. In fact I’m convinced that the only reason they took an interest in the case was that in their minds Zimmerman + Florida = Jooooooo. By the time they realised they’d made a mistake it was too late to back down.

Jeebus, when is the prosecution going to start making it’s case?

    Pablo in reply to gs425. | July 1, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    They’re going to feel so stupid when they realize they’ve been putting the wrong case on the whole time! O’Mara should seek sanctions for them bogarting his case.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to gs425. | July 1, 2013 at 3:57 pm

    At this point, one might be tempted to ask, “What case?”

    Face it, we’ve got a Soviet Style Show Trial. Even the State Media is in attendance. Hopefully, the jury will see through this BS and acquit.

      Ragspierre in reply to TrooperJohnSmith. | July 1, 2013 at 4:08 pm

      “Face it, we’ve got a Soviet Style Show Trial.”

      Puuuuuleeeeeze… That does SUCH violence to people who actually endured a Soviet…or Nazi…or Cuban…or you name it…show trial.

      What we have is due process happening. We have an American jury, hearing an American case under American law and procedure, in an American court.

      I have ALWAYS been optimistic about the outcome here. BECAUSE I do believe…fundamentally…in our system with ALLLLLLLLLLLllllllllllllllllllllllll its flaws.

      I know of none better.

        Harry9000 in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 5:00 pm

        Soviet style show trial is accurate. The intent is there. That the effort is failing is due to the system currently working properly…for now…But considering we’re having this trail at all for the sake of politics and the threat to the well-being to a person that in all most likely hood, did nothing criminal because of the political pressure That should scare anyone. Seriously think on it. Your life and liberty can be jeopardized by the state on the whims of the few, based on racial identity. If it wasnt right for black people to be lynched for being black, it shouldnt be right for anyone else. Especially not by the state.

          Ragspierre in reply to Harry9000. | July 1, 2013 at 5:08 pm

          As politely as I can…bullspit.

          I am astounded that people have so little sense of proportion.

          This trial = lynching…??? Appalling lack of moral clarity.

          Harry9000 in reply to Harry9000. | July 1, 2013 at 5:32 pm

          I’m not saying that it is the direct equivalence to a physical lynching, and I think you’re deliberately trying to avoid my meaning. If you’re in Zimmerman’s shoes, facing possible life in jail for merely being non-black might as well be as proportionate. It is still heinous miscarriage of the justice system. I think it is you that lacks moral clarity.

          Ragspierre in reply to Harry9000. | July 1, 2013 at 5:48 pm

          More false, stupid statements. Zimmerman is on trial for stuff he did. Not for failing to be black.

          Is this prosecution right as a proper exercise of proprietorial discretion? That is a fair question.

          Is it a “Soviet show trial” or a “lynching”?

          That is just an affront to morality.

          Ragspierre in reply to Harry9000. | July 1, 2013 at 5:49 pm

          “prosecutor”…damn-ed spell-check.

          Harry9000 in reply to Harry9000. | July 1, 2013 at 6:11 pm

          And just what was it Zimmerman did that needed the attention of the justice system? Certainly not any crime he may have committed, else-wise I have no doubts this trial would have happened much earlier and without the circus atmosphere.

          No, its not the exact equivalence to the Stalinist show-trials and actual lynchings, again, because yes, the system is working and proving the original decision of the legal system, sans political pressure that there was nothing to go after Zimmerman for in the 1st place. That is the ONLY thing so far that keeps this travesty from being the moral equivalence of a show-trial/lynching.

          Ragspierre in reply to Harry9000. | July 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm

          It is impossible for anyone to consider this dispassionately, but here is a true thing…

          you shoot and kill someone, you are GOING to get enmeshed in the criminal “justice” system. Maybe a little…maybe a lot.

          In a LOT of jurisdictions, Zimmerman would have been charged outright on these same facts. Period.

          In Florida, it WAS ALWAYS a close call. Wasn’t it? Truthfully, was it NOT ALWAYS a matter of discretion on someone’s part?

          In some places in Texas…Zimmerman walks that night. In some places in Texas, he is jailed that night. LOTS of places are less inclined to grant your right to self-defense without rigorous proof you were in the right.

          In Massive-Two-Spits, maybe Andrew can tell us what would have happened to a Zimmerman THAT NIGHT.

        Phillep Harding in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 6:38 pm

        Considering the evidence coming out, the prosecutor bumped her head before deciding to take it to court.

        kentuckyliz in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 6:50 pm

        A fair trial? Corey cancelled the grand jury 24 hours before it happened, where is where this ham sandwich should have gone. If I were a FL taxpayer, I would be OUTRAGED.

          Ragspierre in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 1, 2013 at 6:57 pm

          Which was her perogative…given her by the taxpayers of Florida…to do.

          What are you doing in Kentucky to rein in prosecutorial power?

          Which was her perogative [sic]…given her by the taxpayers of Florida…to do.

          Angela Corey is the State Attorney for the 4th District of Florida: Duval, Clay and Nassau counties only.

          Seminole County is in the 18th District. It should have been their State Attorney taking care of this.

          Most Florida taxpayers (the 18 or so million of us who aren’t in the 4th District) had no say in Corey’s election whatsoever. We’re just here to pick up the tab.

          Ragspierre in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 2, 2013 at 8:16 am

          Pettifoggery, Amy. Simple gnat-straining.

          Who elected her? The taxpayers of (a big part of) Florida.

          Who APPOINTED her? The governor’s ligate, using the power of the executive, chosen by the taxpayers (and others, too) of Florida.

          And I know you got the larger point…that she has the power to do what she did because the people vested it in her (or others just like her).

          The taxpayers of (a big part of) Florida.

          Nassau, Clay and Duval Counties do not constitute “a big part of Florida” in anyone’s books, either geographically or population wise.

          It’s okay that you’re not familiar with this stuff, I don’t know much about Texas either. But the know-it-all attitude is not a great look.

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | July 1, 2013 at 7:08 pm

        Rags, it’s definitely a show trial. It shouldn’t be happening at all. The local investigation concluded that he shouldn’t be charged. FL law explicitly says he should not be charged. The common law says that a person should not be subjected to the ordeal and expense of a trial without a prima facie case that he has committed a crime. The only reason he’s on trial is for show, just like the infamous Soviet trials.

        Where it differs from those trials is in the progress and (we hope) the outcome. In the USSR show trials stuck to the script, and always resulted in whatever the prosecutors wanted. This trial is failing for them, because it is after all America. Witnesses are telling the truth, the jury is listening, and even the biased judge is not following a script. None of that would have happened at a Soviet show trial.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2013 at 7:19 pm

          Milhouse, you are no attorney. Pontificating from a position of knowing WTF you are talking about is kinda silly.

          Plus, “it is just like a Soviet show trial, except for all the multitude of ways it is different” is not much of a supportive argument for those holding the “Soviet” position.

          Name a high-profile trial that was NOT a “show trial”? This is asinine.

          jayjerome66 in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2013 at 10:49 pm

          Rags says “Name a high-profile trial that was NOT a “show trial”? This is asinine.”

          Recently? Casey Anthony.Jodi Arias. High profile. No political show trial undertones.

          Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | July 1, 2013 at 11:05 pm

          You forgot the “sarc” tag, too.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | July 2, 2013 at 4:33 am

          Rags, it is exactly like the Soviet show trials in its nature; its purpose is not to determine the defendant’s guilt or innocence, or the truth of any proposition at all, but to demonstrate something to the world. The difference is not in the nature of the trial itself, but in its outcome. In the USSR the authorities controlled everything, so they could not only hold a show trial but determine its progress and outcome. In the USA the authorities can hold a trial, as they are doing here, but they can’t control how it goes or what the result will be.

This is for those who come here and are not familiar with the facts of the NEN call George made when he was talking to Sean:

Only a Trayvonite would say he “shudna got ouda da ca.” It’s It remains another media lie, still not correctly addressed in MSM. Only a fool could ignore what Sean asked George to do on the NEN call. Here is what Sean said to him BEFORE George got out of his car.

I still believe that George was intuitively/instinctively doing what he perceived Sean wanted him to do even though he may have never actually said that. Notice all 3 of Sean’s lines.


Zimmerman: Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.

Sean: Let me know if he does anything, OK?

Zimmerman: OK.

Sean: We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

George: He’s running.

Sean: He’s running? Which way is he running?


How could he have done that without getting out of his vehicle?

    I actually ran into a white guy who was spouting that line about getting out of the car. He had made up his mind a year ago and didn’t bother to learn the truth from the trial.


Is the prosecution trying to acquit Zimmerman? I actually don’t see a prosecution case, but plenty of defense case. Or as Anne Althouse have speculate, they put up a trial to avoid getting a race riot after various race hustler (our esteemed president included) demanded that a 1/4 black be charged with murder. There’s no case, so they put up no case.

    Fen in reply to BigFire. | July 1, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Ignore Althouse on any topic involving blacks and racism. She has a great mind and is a true liberal (in the good way), but blacks/racism is her achilles heel.

    txantimedia in reply to BigFire. | July 1, 2013 at 4:12 pm

    Except that it’s costing the state and Zimmerman millions of dollars to try this farce. Except for the fact that the facts don’t support any charges at all. Except for the fact that the judge has committed multiple reversible errors. Except for the fact that the prosecution has broken the law multiple times.

    Other than that, yeah, they’re trying to “help” Zimmerman.

      kentuckyliz in reply to txantimedia. | July 1, 2013 at 9:02 pm

      THE MOST HEINOUS THING I SAW TODAY: the jury tells the judge they can’t hear the audio/video being presented. The judge tells them they can listen to it during their deliberations. What?! How are they to understand follow up questions and arguments being presented if they can’t hear the audio until after the trial concludes?! This is so awful. If I were a defendant with that going on, I would not consider that I got a fair trial. If witnesses on the stand have to speak up to be heard by the jury, would the same not also be true of the AV evidence being presented?

Someone needs to point out that Mr. Martin was the custodian of Trayvon, with his estranged wife who appeared on CNN the other night, until about 2 years ago. Sybrina it would appear didn’t have much of a relationship with Trayvon prior to that. If Tracy Martin, when first presented with the audio, said it wasn’t his son and he’s the most constant of the parental units in this farce, then how can the state bother to put her on knowing that at some point the defense will be all over this and it will be discredited to a degree.

If Martin’s mother is brought to the stand to identify the screams, could not the defense call Zimmerman’s relatives to identify George’s voice?

Its ridiculous to assume the voice is Martin’s. That would mean Zimmerman allowed him to scream for over 40 seconds before maliciously shooting him. That wouldn’t make sense.

It seems naive to me, perhaps now stunningly naive, to ascribe an innocent motive to government actions.

Rachel’s attorney Vereen just said that he advised her to ‘watch as little tv as possible’. The Weather Channel, right?

marshahallet | July 1, 2013 at 4:22 pm

Today’s videos of the reenactment were excellent for the defense. George Zimmerman told his side of the story without interruption or cross examination by the prosecution. He was consistent. Contrast the video with the conflicting eye witness testimony and the defense has a good chance of prevailing.

    caambers in reply to marshahallet. | July 1, 2013 at 4:27 pm

    Greta had a piece on the walk-through video…said it would be damning to the persecution. Interesting….I hope so.

    kentuckyliz in reply to marshahallet. | July 1, 2013 at 7:05 pm

    Please note the distinction between the earwitnesses and eyewitness. There is only one eyewitness to the fight–witness Good, who opened the door and stepped (one foot) out onto the patio slab and saw the fight. Even Serino weighted Good’s testimony highly and it corroborated GZ’s version of events.

Carol Herman | July 1, 2013 at 4:27 pm

Sabrina Fulton is the birth mother. But you don’t see the step-mom who raised St. Skittles from the time he was 3. Then? The dad moves to the condo complex to live with his girl friend and her son, Chad. leaving Alicia Martin in the dust.

When I was young, mu mom used to say that the rich take out loads of insurance, because insurance companies are much more effective in solving crimes, than the police.

So IF there’s a civil suit, stepping up to the plate, won’t be the defense attorneys you see here … But the best of the best. In terms of gathering evidence. And, presenting cases. Unlike you and I, they do know what’s hidden behind the screen, backstage, so to speak.

I also don’t expect Blacks to riot. Because? Because separate from overhead helicopters, and riot police with dogs. And, guns. Anyone with a stake at stake … will have snipers on the roofs of their buildings.

That some buildings in the Black ghetto goes up in smoke? Sure the fire department doesn’t want to risk the lives of their fire fighters. But after the rioting settles down you’d learn there’s be nowhere to shop even for a jug of milk, for anything under five miles.

    Tracy Martin was not permanently living at the condo complex in Sandford.

    He was seeing Brandi Green and was coming there on occasion.

    He separated from Alicia Martin roughly 2 weeks prior to the incident, and he was living with another relative at the time.

    Also, Trayvon was living with Stephen Martin prior to this incident. He was not living with Sybrina.

So the prosecution calls Martin’s family, who testify that the voice screaming is Trayvon. Can’t the defense then call Zimmerman’s family to say it was George on the tape?

    James IIa in reply to creeper. | July 1, 2013 at 5:24 pm

    Additionally: is there anything to stop the defense from calling up Martin’s father, and asking why he changed his opinion on the identity of the screamer? Again, it seems that doubt is built into that identification.

    kentuckyliz in reply to creeper. | July 1, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    In the interrogation, Serino identifies the screaming as coming from GZ. Does he stand by that? Will that carry weight with the jury–he’s an experienced, hardboiled investigator?

Henry Hawkins | July 1, 2013 at 4:36 pm

I suspect an acquittal will bring riots, but nothing as bad as sports championship celebrations.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Henry Hawkins. | July 1, 2013 at 8:49 pm

    The level and severity of the riots will depend on three things: (1.) the availability of firearms to law-abiding citizens of the affected cities; (2.) the nearby presence of retail establishments selling consumer electronics, athletic shoes, high-end hair-care products, liquor stores and designer apparel; and (3.) the political party controlling the municipal government.

Carol Herman | July 1, 2013 at 4:47 pm

Someone should grab this title: THEY POISONED THE WELL

Just in case the jurors don’t acquit.

I also suspect if the jury brings back a verdict of guilt, as females go, Dee-dee will be considered the head of the class. And, that females in general, are stupid.

We’ve lost our front line of defense; that in America you could get ahead by how well you tugged on your bootstraps.

Of course, we do have the Internet, now! We’ve at least broken the filter the MSM was using to distort reality into a fun house full of mirrors.

I hope the “Knock-Knock” joke doesn’t hold true.

EEEEEEEEEEKKKKK it’s almost time for Branca’s wrap up…yipppeeeee!

txantimedia | July 1, 2013 at 5:14 pm

O’Mara: Officer Serino, please tell me the discrepancies in Zimmerman’s interview with Officer Singleton, his later interview with you and then the walkthrough the next day.

Serino: Um, I can’t think of any.


I don’t think the state has the slightest interest in proving murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt. I think they are simply providing a handful of “data points” that a frightened-to-death juror can use to justify a guilty verdict.

So the purpose of the FBI voice expert is simply to get him to say that somebody familiar with the voice has a better chance to recognize the voice screaming. Everything else, from their perspective, is irrelevant. The purpose of calling the white male eye witness was to get him to say that he couldn’t see the fists descending from the person on top. Everything else is irrelevant. The purpose for calling the (not) girlfriend was to get her to say that Zimmerman was following Trayvon, and the one or two other things that could be picked out of context to indicate that Z was the aggressor. The state expects the intimidated jurors to throw away everything that hurts the credibility of their “witnesses” or doesn’t fit the theory that the state and the msm is criminally advancing.

It has a very strong chance to work. It’s probably why they allowed an all-white jury to be selected. It’s all white, but also all female. A male might just be stubborn enough to ignore the obvious threats to his safety, and might provide cover for other jury members to follow him. The chance of that happening with all women is less. The uppermost thing in every juror’s mind right now is not the guilt or innocence of GZ. He is beyond doubt innocent. The uppermost thing is the juror’s personal safety, and the safety of her family and friends.

There was a bounty on GZ. Bet that every juror is aware of that. How large will the bounties be on a jury that votes for acquittal?

This trial isn’t about the law. It’s about whether the mob can intimidate the law out of existence. It wouldn’t surprise me if executive mobsters Obama and Holder don’t weigh in with another opinion soon. They will want to make sure, in their subtle ways, that the jury doesn’t get confused into thinking that justice should trump racial revenge.

    txantimedia in reply to donmc. | July 1, 2013 at 5:27 pm

    Oh ye of little faith in women….

    BubbaLeroy in reply to donmc. | July 1, 2013 at 6:34 pm

    “I don’t think the state has the slightest interest in proving murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt.”

    I think the state is very interested in proving murder 2. They simply have no evidence on which to do so.

    Fredro in reply to donmc. | July 1, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    Donmc, that post put a knot in my gut. I think you’re dead-on correct. Ugh.

    jayjerome66 in reply to donmc. | July 1, 2013 at 11:05 pm

    Andrew has the jury descriptions upstairs. Check them out. To me, with one exception, they seem ideal for the defense.

“…get either Trayvons mother, Sabrina Fulton, or his father, Tracy Martin, to testify…”

Are Martin’s parents on the prosecution’s witness list? Zimmerman’s parents were excluded at the request of the prosecution as they were on the witness list.

txantimedia | July 1, 2013 at 5:44 pm

Serino: In this particular case, he (Zimmerman) could have been considered a victim also.

Double bazinga!

This is NOT going well for the prosecution.

    Matt in FL in reply to txantimedia. | July 1, 2013 at 5:47 pm

    That and this quote: “There were external concerns about racial profiling and I needed to get that clarified.” are the big zingers from him today. Especially that second one. Translation: “I had no particular suspicion to ask that question, but I was getting pounded with it, so I had to clear it up.”

littleredhen | July 1, 2013 at 6:43 pm

I would like for an attorney that is reading this to please comment on the Daubert standard as opposed to the Frye standard. My understanding in a nutshell is that Frye is junk science and Daubert less junk and more science, and the Daubert standard is the current standard for evaluating scientific evidence in a trial.

Phillep Harding | July 1, 2013 at 6:43 pm

Clarification, please? TM’s parents in the courtroom, they will be called to testify even though they were in the courtroom?

    Matt in FL in reply to Phillep Harding. | July 1, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    TM’s parents can be called to testify, even though they were in the courtroom. Statutes allow (among other exceptions) the parents of a minor child or their representative to be in court, whether they’re on the list or not. The “or” part of that is why they’re in, but Benjamin Crump is not. If they elected to skip court and let Crump be there as their representative, he would be allowed in even though he’s also on a witness list.

    As to whether they will be called, that’s known only to the attorneys until it happens.

Can someone who knows more about firearms explain something to me. Geo Zimmerman is left handed, he wore his gun on his right hip. Now, Martin is thumping him and possibly going for Zimm’s gun, so Zimm reaches down with his right hand and gets the gun, shoots his attacker. I can see that even for a left handed guy, its not that difficult. But here’s the thing, wouldn’t the gun be back to front so that under normal circumstances he could reach for the gun with his left hand? If so could he twist his right hand and get the gun still? Appreciate any answers on this puzzle.

    txantimedia in reply to glenn1946. | July 1, 2013 at 7:10 pm

    He writes left handed but does everything else, including shoot, right handed.

    rokiloki in reply to glenn1946. | July 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    The holster was not back to front. Zimmerman shoots right handed, so he could draw it with his right hand.

      kentuckyliz in reply to rokiloki. | July 1, 2013 at 9:07 pm

      TM was right handed and would have to reach across GZ’s body for the gun. GZ wore it on his right hip (watch the walk through video) and could fend off TM with his left arm while reaching for his gun with his right hand. Might have made a split second difference enough to save his life.

        glenn1946 in reply to kentuckyliz. | July 1, 2013 at 11:29 pm

        Tnks to txantimedia, rokitoki, and kentuckyliz for the responses. I’m thinking that he must have used his right hand for shooting. I’m lefthanded for writing but try to do most other stuff righthanded so it makes sense. thanks again.

kentuckyliz | July 1, 2013 at 7:12 pm

I would just love if Traydaddy said something unplanned that opened the door to inquire about the gang tat on his neck…and what kinds of things are done for gang initiation.

Andrew – Why did the FBI summary show that Serrino said the event hadn’t happened if GZ had stayed in his truck? It has some other snarky statements about GZ. I don’t remember him saying that in his testimony. Did Serrino really make those statements? Or was it the FBI?

And why the hell was the FBI involved anyway. This was a local story, did not cross state lines.

[…] Zimmerman Update Exclusive — Mid-Day 6 — Zimmerman recounts fight for his life (recording) […]

[…] witnesses of July 1–and it was a consequential day of testimony–can be found in Andrew Branca’s article at Legal […]