George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Case -- General Discussion #8

art tart wrote:

DebFrmHell wrote:Well, Good Morning to all... 8-)

How do you account for all of the inconsistancies that have been issued about known evidence in this case? Most of which I believe have come from Natalie Jackson and Ben Crump?

DebFrmHell - LOL = as you can read, those that have convicted GZ support the lies put forth by the Crump Team, imo.

Kimmy is dragging opinions of unknown blogger's to this site, wtf? Are they attorney's or site owner's that have known credibility or just an anonymous blogger that post an opinion that supports her own opinion.

Several of us have mentioned Jeralyn, a site owner and a CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, in other words, just the facts. She is great as well as other attorney's on her site as to interpreting the law for blogger's. She doesn't allow anything to be stated that is not a known fact, you can't be more fair than that imo but those that have already convicted GZ would have nothing to comment there.

IIRC, we were discussing 'inconsistencies'

I stated, check it out on youtube: Zimmerman 'ABSOLUTELY BROKE' says O'Mara!
Anyone have an 'extra' MILLION so George can have the 'perfect' defense?
MOM's just sayin...
But wait... Last I heard, I thought the $$ was for his living expenses??? *INCONSISTENT*

Then I posted a COMMENT I read on MOM AT youtube...
"Why does GZ need any money at all for a good defense?"
"If his case is airtight like his defenders claim then a public defender should be able to handle it."
by maqsad1 1 day ago Sorry, I should have added quotes... to eliminate confusion

I wasn't upset, I thought it was rather A GOOD POINT, actually

Sounds as if someone is upset when they point fingers regarding inconsistencies...
The finger can be pointed right back...Just sayin

Kimmy, your comment was an opinion.

I stand by my comment.

art tart wrote:

DebFrmHell wrote:Well, Good Morning to all... 8-)

How do you account for all of the inconsistancies that have been issued about known evidence in this case? Most of which I believe have come from Natalie Jackson and Ben Crump?

DebFrmHell - LOL = as you can read, those that have convicted GZ support the lies put forth by the Crump Team, imo.

Kimmy is dragging opinions of unknown blogger's to this site, wtf? Are they attorney's or site owner's that have known credibility or just an anonymous blogger that post an opinion that supports her own opinion?

Several of us have mentioned Jeralyn, a site owner and a CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, in other words, just the facts. She is great as well as other attorney's on her site as to interpreting the law for blogger's. She doesn't allow anything to be stated that is not a known fact, you can't be more fair than that imo but those that have already convicted GZ would have nothing to comment there.

IMO, if you read over at TL, it shows very much how the investigation was INADEQUATE, IMO
Trayvon's clothes were still damp a month later, i.e., probably stored wet!
Which then compromised any trace DNA in the case!
Let alone how they handled the/any trace evidence as well.

KimmyK wrote:

art tart wrote:

DebFrmHell - LOL = as you can read, those that have convicted GZ support the lies put forth by the Crump Team, imo.

Kimmy is dragging opinions of unknown blogger's to this site, wtf? Are they attorney's or site owner's that have known credibility or just an anonymous blogger that post an opinion that supports her own opinion?

Several of us have mentioned Jeralyn, a site owner and a CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, in other words, just the facts. She is great as well as other attorney's on her site as to interpreting the law for blogger's. She doesn't allow anything to be stated that is not a known fact, you can't be more fair than that imo but those that have already convicted GZ would have nothing to comment there.

IMO, if you read over at TL, it shows very much how the investigation was INADEQUATE, IMO
Trayvon's clothes were still damp a month later, i.e., probably stored wet!
Which then compromised any trace DNA in the case!
Let alone how they handled the/any trace evidence as well.

Kimmy - I can't make sense out of your comment, what are you responding too or talking about? Have you now jumped to "inadequate investigation?" Are you changing the subject?

Is your comment actually a comment to stand on it's own and not at all related to Art Tart or DebFrmHell but related to TL? Are you stating another opinion about trace evidence, without STATING "imo?"

art tart wrote:

KimmyK wrote:Zimmerman 'ABSOLUTELY BROKE' says O'Mara!

Anyone have an 'extra' MILLION so George can have the 'perfect' defense?
MOM's just sayin...
But wait... Last I heard, I thought the $$ was for his living expenses???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJj6bzLZjcE&feature=youtu.be

Here's a pretty good comment, IMO
Why does GZ need any money at all for a good defense?
If his case is airtight like his defenders claim then a public defender should be able to handle it.
by maqsad1 1 day ago

Kimmy - it's a good thing we live in America and someone ACCUSED of a crime can CHOOSE their attorney, do you live out of this country also as this is a right of every singe person in America, American's know this. It's really none of your business who GZ chose to represent him, but it seems to anger you that he has a top notch team defending his rights in a Court that he is supposed to be presumed "not guilty" until tried. Quoting other blogger's that support your opinion are ridiculous, especially since you and your blogger have convicted GZ.

MOM's has not said this case is airtight, that is ONLY your opinion but again not stated as such, MOM is confident in his defense of GZ and the weak evidence, imo, brought forth by the State, there is a big difference.

The part that gets me is...
IMO, Now those accused of crimes (guilty or innocent), can now PANHANDLE on the internet!
Only in America!!!

KimmyK wrote:

art tart wrote:

Kimmy - it's a good thing we live in America and someone ACCUSED of a crime can CHOOSE their attorney, do you live out of this country also as this is a right of every singe person in America, American's know this. It's really none of your business who GZ chose to represent him, but it seems to anger you that he has a top notch team defending his rights in a Court that he is supposed to be presumed "not guilty" until tried. Quoting other blogger's that support your opinion are ridiculous, especially since you and your blogger have convicted GZ.

MOM's has not said this case is airtight, that is ONLY your opinion but again not stated as such, MOM is confident in his defense of GZ and the weak evidence, imo, brought forth by the State, there is a big difference.

The part that gets me is...
IMO, Now those accused of crimes (guilty or innocent), can now PANHANDLE on the internet!
Only in America!!!

Kimmy - why would that bother you? If you don't like it, suck it up, it's legal, and don't donate.

[quote="art tart"]

KimmyK wrote:
IMO, if you read over at TL, it shows very much how the investigation was INADEQUATE, IMO
Trayvon's clothes were still damp a month later, i.e., probably stored wet!
Which then compromised any trace DNA in the case!
Let alone how they handled the/any trace evidence as well.

Kimmy - I can't make sense out of your comment, what are you responding too or talking about? Have you now jumped to "inadequate investigation?" Are you changing the subject?

Is your comment actually a comment to stand on it's own and not at all related to Art Tart or DebFrmHell but related to TL? Are you stating another opinion about trace evidence, without STATING "imo?"

Weren't you stating its 'justs the FACTS' at TL??? I was just stating what was said over there.
Sorry, must have been an opinion, regarding the WET clothes and DNA...

art tart wrote:

KimmyK wrote:
The part that gets me is...
IMO, Now those accused of crimes (guilty or innocent), can now PANHANDLE on the internet!
Only in America!!!

Kimmy - why would that bother you? If you don't like it, suck it up, it's legal, and don't donate.

I was just stating my opinion....

I have to get ready for work. I will wade into this later but my quick think:

How Crump came about with the "Affidavit" from W8 is questionable and that is the part of the case that needs to be discussed. He injected himself into the case by doing what he did.

If this case falls apart, it is because of his direct actions with a "STAR" witness.

Not the SPD.
Not the FDLE.
Not the FBI.

DebFrmHell wrote:I have to get ready for work. I will wade into this later but my quick think:

How Crump came about with the "Affidavit" from W8 is questionable and that is the part of the case that needs to be discussed. He injected himself into the case by doing what he did.

If this case falls apart, it is because of his direct actions with a "STAR" witness.

Not the SPD.
Not the FDLE.
Not the FBI.

DebFrmHell = I can't imagine WHY the Jackson/Crump Handler's CHOSE TO LIE in telling the public DeeDee was the tender age of 16. WHY? Did they think that would illicit sympathy? Did they think it would be more difficult for the Defense to make arrangements to get information for a deposition, claiming DeeDee was a minor when in fact she wasn't. WHY LIE when the truth was going to come out just as it did.

I too question if Trayvon said "he was scared" as after reading Trayvon's tweets, he didn't seem afraid of anything, he wasn't afraid of authority, hence several suspensions from school. The suspensions weren't a deterrent for Trayvon's behavior, nor did he feel fear of being suspended. all imo. I have a distrust of DeeDee, for all the apparent reasons, and of course the ABC exclusive and the Gutman factor, it stinks, its sleazy, imo.

imo, it's hard to believe Trayvon told DeeDee he was scared, after reading his tweet's, I don't think he was scared on anything, especially some chubby guy he said was following him.

BOTH sides have been and are pushing the envelope.
The judge needs to put a stop to this farce!

As much as I did NOT like "the race card" being played with the Martin family reaching out to the harsher elements of society, I UNDERSTOOD why they did that.
They were pushing for an investigation and it did not look like it was forth coming. I was disgusted with the president speaking on on the case! He only added more fuel to an inciteful situation.

IMO, this case is NOT about race. It is about the death of a person GZ admitted to killing. I wish all parties would keep that in mind and stay on track.

IMO IMO IMO IMO

Removed by poster.

Removed by poster.

DebFrmHell wrote:I have to get ready for work. I will wade into this later but my quick think:

How Crump came about with the "Affidavit" from W8 is questionable and that is the part of the case that needs to be discussed. He injected himself into the case by doing what he did.

If this case falls apart, it is because of his direct actions with a "STAR" witness.

Not the SPD.
Not the FDLE.
Not the FBI.

This is a very reasonable assessment and I completely agree.

Alessandra_Deux wrote:

Tamta wrote:

You have a really hard time allowing critical opinions of Crump and the Martin family conduct stand.

Not at all. I beg to differ because debates are not always a matter of who is right or who is wrong, there are usually two or more sides in a discussion, every side has their own opinions, and opinions are normally subjective.

A subjective opinion, is an opinion based on emotion not fact.
Not everyone constructs their opinions on emotion.

Which is kind of what I was hinting at when I made my comment.

KimmyK wrote:Zimmerman 'ABSOLUTELY BROKE' says O'Mara!

Anyone have an 'extra' MILLION so George can have the 'perfect' defense?
MOM's just sayin...
But wait... Last I heard, I thought the $$ was for his living expenses???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJj6bzLZjcE&feature=youtu.be

Here's a pretty good comment, IMO
Why does GZ need any money at all for a good defense?
If his case is airtight like his defenders claim then a public defender should be able to handle it.
by maqsad1 1 day ago

Random Blogger
If his case is airtight like his defenders claim then a public defender should be able to handle it.
by maqsad1 1 day ago

How about leaving pointless and uninformative blog posts like this on the blog it came from?

Fine if you want to post a similar opinion, although I can not see what the point is that you would be arguing, because one, he has his lawyer already and his lawyer appears to making efforts at not asking the State of FL to pay for his defense expenses, and two a public defender would be paid by the state.

Freckles wrote:art tart said
" Kimmy - why would that bother you? If you don't like it, suck it up, it's legal, and don't donate. "

I don't like it either! It has all the appearances of making a profit from a death he caused.

Wasn't there criticism against the Ants when they made TV appearances, set up a non-profit, etc, when the parents PROFESSED to believe in the innocence of their daughter?

Why endorse one but censor the other?

Freckles - The Anthony's received criticism because NO ONE in Caylee's family, demanded Justice for Caylee. Both Cindy and George quit their jobs, promoted their agenda that KC was innocent, and did non stop Media Blitz for profit, they too had Handler's just like Crump. The Handler's set up the Network interviews for $$$$$$. Caylee didn't receive Justice, the Nation demanded it but her family didn't. The Anthony's made a buck at every opportunity off the murder of Caylee from the MEDIA that was more than happy to pay. Freckles, when a parents sets up a non profit for a child, they can draw up to $ 40,000.00 salaries each from the non profit per year. The Anthony's set up a non profit before their Dr. Phil appearance in which it is rumored they were paid, $ 600,000.00. One year later, the non profit was defunct and ALL the monies were removed by the Anthony's. Many non profits are just a front for Dr. Phil to say he donated to a non profit for Caylee because the Networks CAN'T ADMIT they pay for interviews, the Anthony's are a good example.

Freckles - Do you think Crump is free? LOL, Crump is hoping to get 30-40% of any Civil Suit or monies Tracy or Sabrina get PLUS he will bill them for his cost, that's what Civil Attorney's do, Sabrina has filed a couple of filings already. Crump is going to make the most money OFF Trayvon,more than any other Handler and more than Trayvon's parents. He is in no way PRO BONO, you haven't heard him say that have you? And imo, you won't because he is not free! At the end of the day, the Handler's will make the bulk of monies in this case, not Trayvon's parent's. imo, Crump isn't stupid, hopefully it will be disclosed how much they have been paid by ABC, but of course Crump could have worked a deal with Gutman to report Crump's agenda. It's corrupt, dishonest and it goes on all day long.

imo, those that have convicted GZ shouldn't worry about how he pays for his defense and who donates, it is his legal right, like it or not. MOM isn't going to get rich defending GZ, he will be lucky to have some of his cost paid.

Honestly, I see a habit on this thread by State theory supporters to derail certain directions of conversation by pulling this back to Zimmermans fundraising.

It comes up about once a week or so.

It is ridiculous and pointless and really belongs in bloggochippershreader land.

Get over it.

Are you going to start a thread here after ZImmerman is acquitted and continue for a year or three to keep talking about how he paid for his investigation and gps monitoring with donations?

Lester in his findings concluded it was it legal and his bond order is expensive for Zimmerman to pay for, and Zimmerman has the right to bond.

Discuss the facts of the case.

Go to the Zimmerman defense fund thread at RC and post there.

Freckles wrote:art tart---
Please. Tell me what TM's school record has to do with his death at the hands of GZ? GZ did not know TM; GZ did not know TM's school record. In fact, the two crossed paths for less than 15 minutes!

I am not accepting of TM being at fault for his own death.
Unless, it must have been because TM was in the WRONG place and pulled the trigger on the unknown gun himself.

It just does not work.

Freckles - imo, it's going to show that Trayvon was not afraid or feared for his life, he wasn't afraid of much it appears. It is going to probably show, we don't know yet because Tracy won't release the pin to the phone, that Trayvon may have participated in other fighting. Those are aspects of who Trayvon was. DebFrmHell has discussed this aspect of the case since the beginning, the image the handler's presented to the public of Trayvon and who Trayvon was are not the same person, they did Trayvon a tremendous disservice to portray an image he couldn't live up to. Trayvon was an average kid that had been in trouble in school and suspended several times, that we know.

ABSOLUTELY NO ONE SAID TRAYVON WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH! No one! imo, Trayvon never anticipated GZ had a gun, he had no fear, when imo, he beat the chit out of GZ.

Removed by poster.

Freckles: The point was: DeeDee said Trayvon was "scared." imo, the behavior Trayvon exhibited in his personal life may well have had something to do with his behavior the night he died, from what I have read, he didn't seem to have much fear of authority, parent's, school officials, and imo, he probably wasn't scared of GZ. No doubt he might have been irritated/annoyed/pi$$ed, but that is not fear. NO ONE can know how he felt. That is exactly what MOM is going to investigate. I don't trust DeeDee's accounting. imo, she should have been interviewed by LE immediately, BEFORE Crump and ABC, she visited Sabrina at her home, BDLR went to Sabrina's home for a deposition I think. ALL of that stinks, imo, there is too much time for prepping of the witness, if the family handler's blatantly LIED to the National MEDIA about DeeDee's age, they may well prep her for depositions. I don't trust the family Handler's, they have an agenda, and that is not, imo, a search for the truth. S T I N K S imo.

I agree, there is no doubt Trayvon felt fear when he saw the gun.

art tart wrote: I don't trust DeeDee's accounting. imo, she should have been interviewed by LE immediately, BEFORE Crump and ABC, she visited Sabrina at her home, BDLR went to Sabrina's home for a deposition I think. ALL of that stinks, imo, there is too much time for prepping of the witness, if the family handler's blatantly LIED to the National MEDIA about DeeDee's age, they may well prep her for depositions. I don't trust the family Handler's, they have an agenda, and that is not, imo, a search for the truth. S T I N K S imo.

BBM. I could not agree more strongly. The handlers are not "representing" the family, they have been exploiting them for their own agenda, from the first moment of their involvement. Crump, Jackson, and Parks, and the rest of their "team" (including Al Sharpton) are handlers in the fullest sense, IMO, for Sybrina and Tracy-- not protecting their interests, but carrying out another exploitative agenda using them for their own purposes. However, I also think Tracy and Sybrina are fully aware that they are being exploited for another purpose, and are agreeable to the arrangement. It is mutually beneficial. IMO.

I also think the girlfriend has been deceitful, exploited, and highly manipulated for another "purpose"-- and I also think she is fully aware of this, and agreeable to the arrangement. I have a hard time believing anything that comes out of her mouth, when she has lied about (or allowed others to lie for her) something as basic and factual as her real age. She and many others allowed them to present her as a minor, when she is not and was not at the time. I have a real problem with that. Same as the "Hollister" pic of TM as a 12 or 13 year old. It's intentionally deceitful and misleading, when there was no need to do so. IMO.

I am stunned that no one ever asked for her identification before her deposition. It should have been done in a more appropriate setting other than Sybrina's apartment.

Pure sloppiness on behalf of the SAO. They took Crump for his word.

DebFrmHell wrote:I am stunned that no one ever asked for her identification before her deposition. It should have been done in a more appropriate setting other than Sybrina's apartment.

Pure sloppiness on behalf of the SAO. They took Crump for his word.

Was it sloppy or accident on purpose?

On Dec 3, I posted the comment appearing at the bottom of this post.

IIRC, no one commented upon my posting and I felt the issue re fear was valid. I am bringing it back up since the conversation periodically goes right back to that question:
WHO was afraid; WHEN were they afraid?

I will maintain FEAR is response is a highly personal and subjective emotion based upon a number of conditions of which the immediacy of a situation, its proximity, prior experiences, etc., all may logically or illogically compose the outcome of our reaction or response.

--What are the measurements for determining fear?

--What are the levels for fear and its response when we each internalize and respond most individually, how can we attempt a measure to determine what IS appropriate or ISN'T appropriate at any given level?

We can not discuss this in a logical fashion until we understand the parameters of the term FEAR and the implications of the actions of one who is FEARFUL.

Earlier I posted:


See, here's the thing:

Either GZ did think TM was dangerous in his behavior OR GZ did NOT think TM was dangerous in his behavior. Can't have it both ways.

IF GZ believed TM was NOT dangerous:
It would be understandable for GZ to leave his vehicle, to actually confront TM to question TM (even if by doing so it was ot his place to question anyone walking through the neighbor);

IF GZ believed TM WAS dangerous:
It would be questionable as to why GZ left his vehicle to confront TM.

Did GZ believe TM was dangerous?
Well, according to GZ:
TM was acting "suspicious";
TM appeared to be on drugs or something.

But, this is what gets me:
IF GZ did NOT believe TM was dangerous to person or property, would GZ have called the PD to report this behavior?

You don't call for help unless you believe a dangerous situation is about to occur or is happening.

So which is it?
Did GZ believe TM was a danger or not?
IMO, GZ got out of his vehicle under a pretense of locating some address on a different street. GZ confronted TM when he believed TM was under an influence ... is hogwash!

Freckles wrote:On Dec 3, I posted the comment appearing at the bottom of this post.

IIRC, no one commented upon my posting and I felt the issue re fear was valid. I am bringing it back up since the conversation periodically goes right back to that question:
WHO was afraid; WHEN were they afraid?

I will maintain FEAR is response is a highly personal and subjective emotion based upon a number of conditions of which the immediacy of a situation, its proximity, prior experiences, etc., all may logically or illogically compose the outcome of our reaction or response.

--What are the measurements for determining fear?

--What are the levels for fear and its response when we each internalize and respond most individually, how can we attempt a measure to determine what IS appropriate or ISN'T appropriate at any given level?

We can not discuss this in a logical fashion until we understand the parameters of the term FEAR and the implications of the actions of one who is FEARFUL.

Earlier I posted:


See, here's the thing:

Either GZ did think TM was dangerous in his behavior OR GZ did NOT think TM was dangerous in his behavior. Can't have it both ways.

IF GZ believed TM was NOT dangerous:
It would be understandable for GZ to leave his vehicle, to actually confront TM to question TM (even if by doing so it was ot his place to question anyone walking through the neighbor);

IF GZ believed TM WAS dangerous:
It would be questionable as to why GZ left his vehicle to confront TM.

Did GZ believe TM was dangerous?
Well, according to GZ:
TM was acting "suspicious";
TM appeared to be on drugs or something.

But, this is what gets me:
IF GZ did NOT believe TM was dangerous to person or property, would GZ have called the PD to report this behavior?

You don't call for help unless you believe a dangerous situation is about to occur or is happening.

So which is it?
Did GZ believe TM was a danger or not?
IMO, GZ got out of his vehicle under a pretense of locating some address on a different street. GZ confronted TM when he believed TM was under an influence ... is hogwash!

MOO I agree Freckles! Fear is a subjective emotion. Tied to that is the timing and environment. The potential for a fear response is also changed when the environment goes from a roadway (maybe street lights) to an alley way (darkened area).

2nd topic... DeeDee's statement that TM was afraid may also be her interpretation of something he said. Or a fabrication/mis-recollection based on wanting to protect TM once she knew the outcome. There is no way to determine what DeeDee actually heard. IMO IMO

Freckles wrote:On Dec 3, I posted the comment appearing at the bottom of this post.

IIRC, no one commented upon my posting and I felt the issue re fear was valid. I am bringing it back up since the conversation periodically goes right back to that question:
WHO was afraid; WHEN were they afraid?

I will maintain FEAR is response is a highly personal and subjective emotion based upon a number of conditions of which the immediacy of a situation, its proximity, prior experiences, etc., all may logically or illogically compose the outcome of our reaction or response.

--What are the measurements for determining fear?

--What are the levels for fear and its response when we each internalize and respond most individually, how can we attempt a measure to determine what IS appropriate or ISN'T appropriate at any given level?

We can not discuss this in a logical fashion until we understand the parameters of the term FEAR and the implications of the actions of one who is FEARFUL.

Earlier I posted:


See, here's the thing:

Either GZ did think TM was dangerous in his behavior OR GZ did NOT think TM was dangerous in his behavior. Can't have it both ways.

IF GZ believed TM was NOT dangerous:
It would be understandable for GZ to leave his vehicle, to actually confront TM to question TM (even if by doing so it was ot his place to question anyone walking through the neighbor);

IF GZ believed TM WAS dangerous:
It would be questionable as to why GZ left his vehicle to confront TM.

Did GZ believe TM was dangerous?
Well, according to GZ:
TM was acting "suspicious";
TM appeared to be on drugs or something.

But, this is what gets me:
IF GZ did NOT believe TM was dangerous to person or property, would GZ have called the PD to report this behavior?

You don't call for help unless you believe a dangerous situation is about to occur or is happening.

So which is it?
Did GZ believe TM was a danger or not?
IMO, GZ got out of his vehicle under a pretense of locating some address on a different street. GZ confronted TM when he believed TM was under an influence ... is hogwash!

I fully agree...There is no way someone who was in FEAR would have left his vehicle to follow someone whom he considered to be dangerous. And NO Zimmerman cannot have it both ways in my opinion.

IF GZ was afraid, I could accept him placing a call to dispatch.

IF GZ believed TM was acting strangely, possibly on drugs, I can not accept him getting out of the car for a possible confrontation, ie, "He's getting away!"

IF GZ believed TM had a weapon or "something in his waistband" I do not see GZ getting out of the vehicle.

And, IF GZ did all this with the concerns he expressed above, surely a dispatcher telling him to NOT follow TM (even if it was not unlawful to do it) I would believe GZ would have returned to his car.

So. Was GZ "afraid" of TM?
Not hardly. GZ may have stated those "beliefs" but his actions appear to conflict his words. GZ DID get out of his vehicle; GZ WAS concerned TM might "get away"; GZ did confront TM--- a person he had wrongly stated he was afraid of.

Look at all the wrong statements GZ made:
TM appeared "suspicious";
TM appeared to be on drugs or something;
TM appeared to have some sort of weapon at the waistband;
TM was "getting away" like "they" always do;

GZ did not know an address for where TM might be located so GZ went to ONE street over to find some address over there? WHY? Did he find the address over here? Did he give an address to dispatch? No. There is NO report of GZ attempting to give an address to dispatch. And when dispatch tells him they do not need him out of the car following TM, GZ disconnects. Why? Is it because he does NOT want authority to change his mind, his plans?


That is similar to the reports of TM asking, "Why are you following me?" And TM intentionally did NOT lead GZ back to the unit where a 14 yo boy resided. Keep it in the open. IMO, TM was concerned and did NOT want a 14 yo or himself trapped inside a building, he did not want GZ to know where he was going. And in that respect, TM was fully within his rights.

Removed by poster.

IDK. He called NEN because of suspicious behavior of looking at houses. At that stage, there was no fear.

When TM approached the car, I think there was some fear as you can hear the window go up and the door lock.**

As far as subjective hearing goes towards the end of the NEN, I didn't think that he sounded particularly fearful. He didn't want to give out his address because he didn't know where TM was but that could just be erring on the side of caution.

I think he showed fear by reaching for his cell phone after TM questioned him as to why he was following him.

Like I said, it is subjective on my behalf.

**This is a link to an transcript that was done by an audio person that Jeralyn knows. She is a defense attorney so it is one of her contacts. Lee has no dog in this hunt. The transcript was published with permission by Talk Left.

LINK

If nothing else it gives you some of the crosstalk that he was able to pick up.

Can someone explain to me the issue with the PIN for TM's cellie?

I am confused! If I was unavailable to give a PIN for my cell and LE wanted access to that cell phone.. do they not have the capability to access it with out a PIN. After all it is evidence in a murder??

How is it that they require the assistance of the family with the PIN? What if the family did not know the PIN???

Help!!!

justanopinion wrote:Can someone explain to me the issue with the PIN for TM's cellie?

I am confused! If I was unavailable to give a PIN for my cell and LE wanted access to that cell phone.. do they not have the capability to access it with out a PIN. After all it is evidence in a murder??

How is it that they require the assistance of the family with the PIN? What if the family did not know the PIN???

Help!!!

I will try. I think that the code the SPD was asking for is not the PIN for the phone but for access to his account so that they could look at the records. They were able to pull the sim card which has some that information. Access to the account would give them more and better information.

He said he would not help. In his defense, there are four phones on his plan. One for him, one for Trayvon, and I assume one for the wife and someone else. Maybe Brandy but I doubt it. Maybe Sybrina but she made around 69k p/year so it isn't like she couldn't afford a phone in her own name.

I can only assume he didn't want them to access to his personal information and that is why he refused to help them.

I can understand that.

On the other hand, if he had given the information they would have found W8 within a couple of days past the 3/5/12 request. They could have interviewed her then and, if her answers were still the same as with BDLR, they would have had their APC and a sooner arrest of George Zimmerman.

I don't understand this, however.

When my cousin was murdered, his parents told them to turn over every stone. That case threatened to go cold within a month even with their help. If it weren't for a tip to Crime Stoppers, that murderer would still be free.

Removed by me.

justanopinion wrote:Can someone explain to me the issue with the PIN for TM's cellie?

I am confused! If I was unavailable to give a PIN for my cell and LE wanted access to that cell phone.. do they not have the capability to access it with out a PIN. After all it is evidence in a murder??

How is it that they require the assistance of the family with the PIN? What if the family did not know the PIN???

Help!!!

PIN Codes

A PIN code (Personal Identification Number) is a 4 to 8 digit code allowing the user to activate a lock feature, thus preventing unauthorised access and use of their SIM card. Although it is possible to enter another SIM card into the handset to view the user data stored, the call logs are linked to the SIM card that was present when the calls were made or received, therefore without this specific SIM card it is not possible to view the call logs.


Without the PIN code it is necessary to apply for the PUK code (Personal Unlock Key) from the service provider. An 8 digit master code that each network provider retains for security reasons. It will over-ride a PIN locked SIM Card allowing full memory access. We are able to partially clone a PIN code protected SIM Card to gain access to all the user data stored on the Mobile Phone including the call logs. It is still necessary to obtain the PIN/PUK code to access the data stored on the SIM Card and to verify the downloaded data for a complete forensic investigation.

http://www.md5.uk.com/services/mobile-phone-forensics

--------
Besides the general data extracted by similar products, Oxygen Forensic Suite can extract a lot of unique information:

http://www.oxygen-forensic.com/en/features/

Freckles wrote:Could the 4th number on the plan be either for another "spare" phone or perhaps the older son? I figgered the resistance from sharing the info was due to privacy and privacy laws. Dunno.

Well Tracy explicitly said publicly to the press he would not help SPD investigators while being asked about the phone.

I would think personal privacy concerns would go out the window in a death investigation of your child.

If there was another minor with a phone on that plan the details of that activity would have been sealed.

Tamta wrote:

Freckles wrote:Could the 4th number on the plan be either for another "spare" phone or perhaps the older son? I figgered the resistance from sharing the info was due to privacy and privacy laws. Dunno.

Well Tracy explicitly said publicly to the press he would not help SPD investigators while being asked about the phone.

I would think personal privacy concerns would go out the window in a death investigation of your child.

If there was another minor with a phone on that plan the details of that activity would have been sealed.

Just like Trayvon's school suspensions records were sealed. Right?

Alessandra_Deux wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Well Tracy explicitly said publicly to the press he would not help SPD investigators while being asked about the phone.

I would think personal privacy concerns would go out the window in a death investigation of your child.

If there was another minor with a phone on that plan the details of that activity would have been sealed.

Just like Trayvon's school suspensions records were sealed. Right?

Well through Benjamin Crump, Trayvons parents brought this into everyones living room and into an adverserial criminal justice system.

Compromised Privacy and controlling the flow if information seems par for the course in a high profile media campaign.

The main point was that a few days after Trayvon died his father said he would not help investigators.

DebFrmHell wrote:

justanopinion wrote:Can someone explain to me the issue with the PIN for TM's cellie?

I am confused! If I was unavailable to give a PIN for my cell and LE wanted access to that cell phone.. do they not have the capability to access it with out a PIN. After all it is evidence in a murder??

How is it that they require the assistance of the family with the PIN? What if the family did not know the PIN???

Help!!!

I will try. I think that the code the SPD was asking for is not the PIN for the phone but for access to his account so that they could look at the records. They were able to pull the sim card which has some that information. Access to the account would give them more and better information.

He said he would not help. In his defense, there are four phones on his plan. One for him, one for Trayvon, and I assume one for the wife and someone else. Maybe Brandy but I doubt it. Maybe Sybrina but she made around 69k p/year so it isn't like she couldn't afford a phone in her own name.

I can only assume he didn't want them to access to his personal information and that is why he refused to help them.

I can understand that.

On the other hand, if he had given the information they would have found W8 within a couple of days past the 3/5/12 request. They could have interviewed her then and, if her answers were still the same as with BDLR, they would have had their APC and a sooner arrest of George Zimmerman.

I don't understand this, however.

When my cousin was murdered, his parents told them to turn over every stone. That case threatened to go cold within a month even with their help. If it weren't for a tip to Crime Stoppers, that murderer would still be free.

What O'Mara said was that the Sanford police needed the PIN to access Trayvon's phone internal memory.

@ Alessandra thank you the links provided were very helpful.

I do not understand why anyone would hinder the investigation of the death of their child. There were things I wish others had not seen when my child died... but I did nothing to cover those things up.. in fact I made a point of bringing those things to the attention of the LE involved so that things could be resolved in a timely manner. JMO JMO

Freckles wrote:IF GZ was afraid, I could accept him placing a call to dispatch.

IF GZ believed TM was acting strangely, possibly on drugs, I can not accept him getting out of the car for a possible confrontation, ie, "He's getting away!"

IF GZ believed TM had a weapon or "something in his waistband" I do not see GZ getting out of the vehicle.

And, IF GZ did all this with the concerns he expressed above, surely a dispatcher telling him to NOT follow TM (even if it was not unlawful to do it) I would believe GZ would have returned to his car.

So. Was GZ "afraid" of TM?
Not hardly. GZ may have stated those "beliefs" but his actions appear to conflict his words. GZ DID get out of his vehicle; GZ WAS concerned TM might "get away"; GZ did confront TM--- a person he had wrongly stated he was afraid of.

Look at all the wrong statements GZ made:
TM appeared "suspicious";
TM appeared to be on drugs or something;
TM appeared to have some sort of weapon at the waistband;
TM was "getting away" like "they" always do;

GZ did not know an address for where TM might be located so GZ went to ONE street over to find some address over there? WHY? Did he find the address over here? Did he give an address to dispatch? No. There is NO report of GZ attempting to give an address to dispatch. And when dispatch tells him they do not need him out of the car following TM, GZ disconnects. Why? Is it because he does NOT want authority to change his mind, his plans?

Like many, I have been followed as TM was followed.
I was a teen. I lived close to where I was being followed and I was afraid/concerned the stalker might find my home and I could be compromised in my home. I went to a well lit street and SAT DOWN on a sweeping outdoor staircase. The stalker came and sat on the opposite side of the stairwell, up one step. I turned and said, "WHAT DO YOU WANT?"

That is similar to the reports of TM asking, "Why are you following me?" And TM intentionally did NOT lead GZ back to the unit where a 14 yo boy resided. Keep it in the open. IMO, TM was concerned and did NOT want a 14 yo or himself trapped inside a building, he did not want GZ to know where he was going. And in that respect, TM was fully within his rights.

BBM-
IMO GZ's plans were to go and find TM.
GZ disconnects AFTER telling dispatch to have LE call HIM, since he KNEW he would not be near his vehicle AND which shows GZ had plans (or intends to) of going out looking for TM.IMO

justanopinion wrote:@ Alessandra thank you the links provided were very helpful.

I do not understand why anyone would hinder the investigation of the death of their child. There were things I wish others had not seen when my child died... but I did nothing to cover those things up.. in fact I made a point of bringing those things to the attention of the LE involved so that things could be resolved in a timely manner. JMO JMO

justanopinion - I know it must have been difficult for you, but you wanted the truth in the investigation of losing your child, an unimaginable loss for us that have not had children die.

The thing about Tracy refusing to share the pin number that grates on my nerves are the ridiculous Media Blitz appearances that the Handler's claim "they are cooperating fully with LE as well as Tracy and Sabrina." ANOTHER, blatant, handler lie to the public. Cooperating would be providing the pin number. Then, Tracy has said "he is not cooperating."

imo, there is information that Tracy nor Sabrina want released on that phone that is going to put Trayvon in possibly a negative light, not the image that they have put forth in the MEDIA. Does that make Trayvon guilty of anything? Absolutely not. Does it portray who Trayvon was? imo, yes. Just like the tweets give insight into Trayvon's personality.

Tamta wrote:

Freckles wrote:Could the 4th number on the plan be either for another "spare" phone or perhaps the older son? I figgered the resistance from sharing the info was due to privacy and privacy laws. Dunno.

Well Tracy explicitly said publicly to the press he would not help SPD investigators while being asked about the phone.

I would think personal privacy concerns would go out the window in a death investigation of your child.

If there was another minor with a phone on that plan the details of that activity would have been sealed.

BBM-Do you have a link for that? IIRC, Tracy said he needed to speak to his lawyer first.
I think it was never provided AFTER he began to doubt the integrity of the investigation. IMO IMO
I don't recall Tracy stating publicly to the press that he would not provide the pin, I may have missed it tho.

KimmyK wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Well Tracy explicitly said publicly to the press he would not help SPD investigators while being asked about the phone.

I would think personal privacy concerns would go out the window in a death investigation of your child.

If there was another minor with a phone on that plan the details of that activity would have been sealed.

BBM-Do you have a link for that? IIRC, Tracy said he needed to speak to his lawyer first.
I think it was never provided AFTER he began to doubt the integrity of the investigation. IMO IMO
I don't recall Tracy stating publicly to the press that he would not provide the pin, I may have missed it tho.

Not only did Tracy he would have to ask his attorney, he later said "he would not help LE," and Natalie Jackson too said it in a Media Blitz. Of course The Handler's/Crump claim they are "all cooperating," which is not true.

KimmyK wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Well Tracy explicitly said publicly to the press he would not help SPD investigators while being asked about the phone.

I would think personal privacy concerns would go out the window in a death investigation of your child.

If there was another minor with a phone on that plan the details of that activity would have been sealed.

BBM-Do you have a link for that? IIRC, Tracy said he needed to speak to his lawyer first.
I think it was never provided AFTER he began to doubt the integrity of the investigation. IMO IMO
I don't recall Tracy stating publicly to the press that he would not provide the pin, I may have missed it tho.

Links were posted awhile ago.
I posted the tran to their first Presser which Martin says that at Nat Jackson's.
Tracy Martin said it to a reporter it's just that MSM never seized on it, just letting it go by.

Just review the links that I cite to support my comments.

You can go back and find the Tracy's comment that he has to talk to his lawyer first in discovery release , 183pp.

art tart wrote:

justanopinion wrote:@ Alessandra thank you the links provided were very helpful.

I do not understand why anyone would hinder the investigation of the death of their child. There were things I wish others had not seen when my child died... but I did nothing to cover those things up.. in fact I made a point of bringing those things to the attention of the LE involved so that things could be resolved in a timely manner. JMO JMO

justanopinion - I know it must have been difficult for you, but you wanted the truth in the investigation of losing your child, an unimaginable loss for us that have not had children die.

The thing about Tracy refusing to share the pin number that grates on my nerves are the ridiculous Media Blitz appearances that the Handler's claim "they are cooperating fully with LE as well as Tracy and Sabrina." ANOTHER, blatant, handler lie to the public. Cooperating would be providing the pin number. Then, Tracy has said "he is not cooperating."

imo, there is information that Tracy nor Sabrina want released on that phone that is going to put Trayvon in possibly a negative light, not the image that they have put forth in the MEDIA. Does that make Trayvon guilty of anything? Absolutely not. Does it portray who Trayvon was? imo, yes. Just like the tweets give insight into Trayvon's personality.

Why should that bother you Art? They should have (available through Tracy's T-mobile bill) records to PROVE that Trayvon WAS on the phone with DeeDee and records of incoming and outgoing texts.
The only reason the defense would need anything more would be to start a bigger smear campaign of a dead teen than they already have.

IMO, no different than the murder's handlers stating we aren't getting paid,
but GZ's DEFENSE NEEDS $$$.

Kimmy -It bothers me because it is more lies that have been generated by the Handler's. It matters because in fact Tracy is not cooperating, nor is Crump, more lies from the Handler's.

why does MOM want the phone records?

In addition to revealing whom the high school junior talked with and when and what text messages he sent and received, it could be an electronic record of what he thought — captured in email, videos and photos — and the websites he visited.


imo, this is the very reason Tracy does not want to give up the pin.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-27/story/key-piece-evidence-trayvon-martin-case-remains-locked#ixzz2FF9jIhnZ

Tamta wrote:

KimmyK wrote:

BBM-Do you have a link for that? IIRC, Tracy said he needed to speak to his lawyer first.
I think it was never provided AFTER he began to doubt the integrity of the investigation. IMO IMO
I don't recall Tracy stating publicly to the press that he would not provide the pin, I may have missed it tho.

Links were posted awhile ago.
I posted the tran to their first Presser which Martin says that at Nat Jackson's.
Tracy Martin said it to a reporter it's just that MSM never seized on it, just letting it go by.

Just review the links that I cite to support my comments.

You can go back and find the Tracy's comment that he has to talk to his lawyer first in discovery release , 183pp.

I'm aware of Tracy's comment regarding speaking to his lawyer first.
I just don't remember Tracy saying publicy, to the press, that he would not provide the PIN.

Tamta wrote:

Alessandra_Deux wrote:

Just like Trayvon's school suspensions records were sealed. Right?

Well through Benjamin Crump, Trayvons parents brought this into everyones living room and into an adverserial criminal justice system.

Compromised Privacy and controlling the flow if information seems par for the course in a high profile media campaign.

The main point was that a few days after Trayvon died his father said he would not help investigators.

Less than two days after his son was killed, the investigators, without having conducted an investigation into his son's death, informed him about the conclusions of the their "investigation"; they claimed that Zimmerman had acted in self defense when he shot his son, that there was no evidence to contradict Zimmerman's statements, that they didn't have probable cause to make an arrest and that they were prohibited from making an arrest under the guise of Stand Your Ground Law.

The lack of investigation into Trayvon's death was the factor that precipitated the actions that were taken against the Sanford police.

Tracy didn't have to collaborate with government agencies (the Sanford Police Department and the Seminole State Attorney) that he distrusted, and that he was protesting against because of their decision not to pursue prosecution against the killer of his son.

I won't blame the lawyer if he told Tracy Martin not to give information to the police. They were going to use anything and everything they could to justify the homicide, or at least to make it look like Trayvon was responsible for his own demise. And, that is precisely the reason why they leaked Trayvon''s suspension records to the media. They would have had a field day if they would have found that Trayvon had a criminal history.

art tart wrote:Kimmy -It bothers me because it is more lies that have been generated by the Handler's. It matters because in fact Tracy is not cooperating, nor is Crump, more lies from the Handler's.

why does MOM want the phone records?

In addition to revealing whom the high school junior talked with and when and what text messages he sent and received, it could be an electronic record of what he thought — captured in email, videos and photos — and the websites he visited.


imo, this is the very reason Tracy does not want to give up the pin.

http://jacksonville.com/news/crime/2012-11-27/story/key-piece-evidence-trayvon-martin-case-remains-locked#ixzz2FF9jIhnZ

In addition to revealing whom the high school junior talked with and when and what text messages he sent and received, (ALL available on a T-mobile bill without a PIN, I have T-mobile).

It could be an electronic record of what he thought — captured in email, videos and photos — and the websites he visited. I doubt he was taking pictures and e-mailing about GZ THAT night, seems he was pretty much just on the phone with DeeDee, IMO, SMEAR CAMPAIGN.

KimmyK wrote:

Tamta wrote:

Links were posted awhile ago.
I posted the tran to their first Presser which Martin says that at Nat Jackson's.
Tracy Martin said it to a reporter it's just that MSM never seized on it, just letting it go by.

Just review the links that I cite to support my comments.

You can go back and find the Tracy's comment that he has to talk to his lawyer first in discovery release , 183pp.

I'm aware of Tracy's comment regarding speaking to his lawyer first.
I just don't remember Tracy saying publicy, to the press, that he would not provide the PIN.

That link has been posted twice in the last week