George Zimmerman -- Trial for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin --June 10, 2013

another SYG loser...IMO...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/12/s-c-supreme-court-abruptly-halts-murder-trial-to-hear-arguments-on-stand-your-ground-after-an-armed-intruder-uses-it-to-justify-killing-a-homeowner/

LottieM wrote:

carlakay wrote:dunno why they even need to study all the evidence again..it's fairly simple really..Did GZ get out of his truck and go around the back of them houses in the dark for the purpose of finding an address or TM?

IMO since he was a long time resident of that neighborhood he knew good and well there were no addresses to be found on the BACKSIDE of any one of them units.

 Ok..no, can't let this one go. Z said he was walking to the FRONT of the apts so he could see a number to give the police....because there were no numbers on the back....this has been said in court umpteen thousand times! Z was going to the FRONT to find a number!

I didn't say a word about what GZ may or may not of said..the absolute fact of this case that can not be disputed is that a seventeen year old boy was found dead BEHIND those housing units where there is no addresses.
In the video of the walkthru GZ did with LE I clearly saw an address on the front left side of that first unit as they were walking down that same path where GZ claims TM started running. The same walkway GZ claims to of walked down looking for an address..prosecution pointed this out in the courtroom. Defense claims it was hid by a shrub..and it was from a certain angle on the street but if one were walking down that path with a flashlight there would of been no need to proceed further over to your own street to find an address.
This is why I believe GZ ran IN FRONT of those units and slipped thru a cut through..(he even mentions this during one of his many interviews!) and found TM still walking towards his dads on the other side. Tm did NOT run all the way from when GZ lost sight of him..DiDi testified to that..she testified he said he had lost the man following him IN THE TRUCK..then he tells her he is back and the sounds of the scuffle is the last thing she heard. The trail of evidence tells me the scuffle started near that cut through and led back to the T..it did not start at the T as GZ claims because the evidence does not support it. I sure hope this jury was paying as close attention as I was,if not more,and don't make a judgment based on GZ's version of events.

Carla, I wasn't taking up for Z's story...just saying what I heard him say about the addresses....I personally do not think he was looking for an address at all. I think he was keeping an eye on 'the suspect' as he was doing before the operator told him "we don't need you to do that". I think he wanted to look down the way he saw 'the suspect' disappear from his sight into because he was 'in the area' already. I think he was wanting to finish what he started, that being to hopefully be able to tell the cops where 'the suspect' was/went when they finally got there. But that's my personal opinion. 

Everyone sees things differently. I think that's interesting. And I see  the "we don't need you to do that" remark differently from most as well. Here's why...the operator can't tell a citizen to follow a suspect, nor can they tell them not to. There is no law against following a person. The wording of what the operator said is the key here...he said WE don't need you to do that, meaning the police do not NEED him to follow the suspect. It in no way means Z can't keep following him if he wants to as a citizen. And..it's a good thing this operator said that to Z in light of what went down, because if they had not absolved the police department of involvement in this following of 'the suspect', they too would be being heralded as racist...the entire police force would be heralded as racist.

colsnipe wrote:Judge Nelson info.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/12/who-exactly-is-the-george-zimmerman-trial-judge-a-few-things-you-may-not-have-known-about-debra-nelson/

The Smoking Gun via theblaze.com wrote:Records show that for her first election campaign, Nelson’s “financial supporters included Zimmerman lawyers Mark O’Mara and Don West… O’Mara gave $250 to Nelson’s campaign, while West–who has tangled frequently with the jurist as he has defended Zimmerman against charges that the neighborhood watch volunteer murdered Trayvon Martin–donated $100,” the Smoking Gun reports.

Thanks for this.

Any peeps on the prosecution team make a donation to Nelson's campaign?

LottieM wrote:

WeeBonnie wrote:

Sorry- he was standing at the FRONT of houses where he could see address numbers everywhere (!!!) when he left to walk (towards Trayvon) two blocks away from his car - to a place with equally visible numbers where DID NOT STAY TO MEET THE POLICE- so he had NO REASON to GET THAT ADDRESS!!  He already told cops to call him when they got there- he had no intention of sticking to one spot or giving cops that address.

Who did he fool with that one?

 I'm not going to argue with you. I thought his explanation of going to look at numbers sounded confusing anyhow, but my point was that Z said the Front not the Back aka he never said he was getting numbers from the Back of apts regardless to if his story made any sense.

He was already at the front- surrounded by numbers. And he knew that street name- AND this was at the car- where he claimed he was "walking back" to meet police. He already had the only address he wanted or needed. Sorry I can't let THAT go. Because it's obviously a lie.

colsnipe wrote:another SYG loser...IMO...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/12/s-c-supreme-court-abruptly-halts-murder-trial-to-hear-arguments-on-stand-your-ground-after-an-armed-intruder-uses-it-to-justify-killing-a-homeowner/

I'm glad this is happening- SYG is a license to kill because you were scared. I have heard in Fla criminals are using it in gunfights- and they and this burglar could be just as "within the law" as GZ or anyone who wants to get in scrapes and use their gun to murder with impunity. The law wasn't very well thought out at all. Hopefully citizens realize what an ugly can of worms they opened.

LottieM wrote:

"because if they had not absolved the police department of involvement in this following of 'the suspect'....
------------------------------

They ... the police would have been legally liable for Trayvon's death.

"We don't need you to do that" ... literally means, "we don't want you to follow the "suspect" ... "the police are on the way, they will take care of it" .... 'we don't need you to do the job of a police officer"...

Zimmerman's job  as a neighborhood watchman was to call the police and report any suspicious activities in his neighborhood, he called the police, he gave them the information, that's where his responsibility ended. As I have stated before, Zimmerman was not a police officer, he could not pursuit or detain someone that he found suspicious, that was not his job.

Zimmerman took the laws into his own hands, His perception of who he believed Trayvon was ended up in a horrible tragedy, and the worse thing about all of this, is that Trayvon had the legal right to be where he was,  he was not violating the law nor was he in the process of commiting a felony, the 17 years old teenager was minding his own business walking in the rain from the store. He wasn't doing anything wrong.

It is not illegal to follow someone, but when the person who is being followed ends up dead, there are legal ramifications, e.g., responsibility, accountability and liability. If Zimmerman didn't do anything wrong, why did he lie?

State Attorney Angela Corey fires information techonology director who raised concerns in Trayvon Martin case

Posted: July 13, 2013 - 12:16am  |  Updated: July 13, 2013 - 12:32am

By David Bauerlein


Associated Press
Ben Kruidbos, an IT worker from the state attorney's office, testifies during a hearing in the George Zimmerman case in Sanford on June 6.

State Attorney Angela Corey fired her office’s information technology director Friday after he testified last month about being concerned prosecutors did not turn over information to George Zimmerman’s defense team in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

On the same day attorneys finished their closing arguments in that nationally watched trial, a state attorney investigator went to Ben Kruidbos’ home about 7:30 a.m. to hand-deliver a letter stating Kruidbos “can never again be trusted to step foot in this office.”

The letter contended Kruibos did a poor job overseeing the information technology department, violated public records law for retaining documents, and noted he was questioned in March when the office was trying to determine who had leaked personnel information obtained through a computer breach.

Read more:

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2013-07-13/story/state-attorney-angela-corey-fires-information-techonology-director-who#ixzz2Z2H2jSal

The jury is in recess until 1:00 PM.

Zimmerman Jury Resumes Deliberating in Teenager’s Shooting (1)

By Tom Schoenberg and Chris Boyd
July 13, 2013

A six-woman jury in Sanford, Florida, is weighing whether the shooting of Trayvon Martin, a black teenager, by George Zimmerman, a Neighborhood Watch volunteer, was a crime or an act of self-defense.

~Snipped~

Jurors, who resumed deliberations today, will have to “consider the circumstances surrounding the killing” to decide whether it was second-degree murder or manslaughter, or whether it “resulted from justifiable use of deadly force,” Seminole County Circuit Judge Debra Nelson said, reading from jury instructions.

~Snipped~

Deadly Force

Nelson’s instructions to the jury included language on justifiable use of deadly force, including Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which allows individuals who feel threatened in a public place to “meet force with force.” The 2005 statute removed the obligation to retreat if possible to avoid a deadly clash.

“If George Zimmerman was not engaged in an unlawful activity and was attacked in any place where he had a right to be, he had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force,” Nelson told jurors.

Zimmerman could use deadly force if he reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, she said.

Read more:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-07-12/george-zimmerman-jury-starts-deliberating-in-teen-s-shooting

Alessandra_Deux wrote:

It is not illegal to follow someone, but when the person who is being followed ends up dead, there are legal ramifications, e.g., responsibility, accountability and liability.

 Exactly! And that's why this entire case actually begins with the physical altercation. At the point of the physical altercation assault and battery was committed. Can't charge a dead guy with that posthumously, but if TM had not been killed he surely would have been charged with assault and battery of Z....and there would have been nothing on TM from which to charge Z with anything.

LottieM wrote:Carla, I wasn't taking up for Z's story...just saying what I heard him say about the addresses....I personally do not think he was looking for an address at all. I think he was keeping an eye on 'the suspect' as he was doing before the operator told him "we don't need you to do that". I think he wanted to look down the way he saw 'the suspect' disappear from his sight into because he was 'in the area' already. I think he was wanting to finish what he started, that being to hopefully be able to tell the cops where 'the suspect' was/went when they finally got there. But that's my personal opinion. 

Everyone sees things differently. I think that's interesting. And I see  the "we don't need you to do that" remark differently from most as well. Here's why...the operator can't tell a citizen to follow a suspect, nor can they tell them not to. There is no law against following a person. The wording of what the operator said is the key here...he said WE don't need you to do that, meaning the police do not NEED him to follow the suspect. It in no way means Z can't keep following him if he wants to as a citizen. And..it's a good thing this operator said that to Z in light of what went down, because if they had not absolved the police department of involvement in this following of 'the suspect', they too would be being heralded as racist...the entire police force would be heralded as racist.

Hun I know you weren't taking up for Zimmerman..I wrote what I did because too many people,the prosecution included,IMO have formed an opinion based upon what GZ initially told. I have tried to form my opinion based ALL of the evidence as a whole..his statements..the witness statements..the items found on scene..the location of the body..etc etc.. and what I came up with don't jive with either self defense or murder 2. I find the entire case upseting..I feel a young kids life was taken based upon GZ's assumption that he was one of the ones responsible for the break-in's in his community. GZ had every right to assume this..TM did match the description..To GZ someone matching the exact description of one who had done a home invasion a couple months prior;standing around in the rain;seemingly talking to themself looked gave him reason to call the police..the dispatcher did tell him to observe and report (my words there) and he did. His mistake was leaving his vehicle IMO. Nevermind who or what TM was really doing..GZ followed what he believed to be a criminal capable of committing a home invasion into a darkened area with a loaded weapon on him. That is a HUGE risk for the people of that community. Let's say TM had been one of those thugs..what if he had maniged to take that gun from GZ and get away and the next night use GZ's gun to kill the next person he decided to rob? This is what has me so upset (aside from the racial strife it's brought into light)..as a gun owner I believe this case could cause further uproar. I dont want to lose my rights because GZ was a dumbass,ok nor do I want my kids or grandkids to grow up in a world where they can no longer walk to the damn 7-11 in the rain with their hoodie up without being shot because some jackass thinks they may be a criminal.
Last year an elderly lady on the next block over answered her door at 6 in the evening to a skinny white boy high on bathsalts. He bout beat her to death..no one heard or saw anything and it was a beautiful clear evening with everyone out enjoying the weather. Does that give me the right now to strap on my gun and follow and ask every single skinny white boy that I think may be on dope and is walking down the street that connects her home and mine "What you doing around here?" As of today..I do not think so because last I heard this was America where people are free to walk anywhere at anytime..but that could be subject to change depending on this verdict.

LottieM wrote:

Alessandra_Deux wrote:

It is not illegal to follow someone, but when the person who is being followed ends up dead, there are legal ramifications, e.g., responsibility, accountability and liability.

 Exactly! And that's why this entire case actually begins with the physical altercation. At the point of the physical altercation assault and battery was committed. Can't charge a dead guy with that posthumously, but if TM had not been killed he surely would have been charged with assault and battery of Z....and there would have been nothing on TM from which to charge Z with anything.

How do you know this Lottie? See this is what I am talking about..aside from GZ statements we have absolutely no evidence that tells us when his nose got injured. Even Jeantell could not state 100% who laid hands on who first..she said she believed the thump sound she heard was when TM got hit but that dont make it fact.
Let's say after George asks What you doing round here? TM made a move to retreat and GZ grabbed him by his hoodie..(evidence shows his hoodie was torn) in an attempt to detain him til police arrived. Remember GZ never stated he told TM he was NW so what if GZ was the one to lay hands on TM first? Did TM not have the right to defend himself against an unknown man grabbing him? What proof is there it didn't happen that way? I aint saying it did..I was not there.. my point is it is possible TM may not of started the physical confrontation and if that is what happened then it truly is very tragic.

1:07

Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV
Jury deliberations were paused at noon for lunch. It's now 1pm, so #VerdictWatch should be back on. #Zimmermanon9
1:27

Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV
"@NookyHolla: WHY... WOULD JUDGE ALLOW THE JURORS TO GO HOME AND TO GO TO LUNCH?" They've been sequestered. #Zimmermanon9
1:29

Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV
@djhunt7 Defense alleges discovery violations at.wftv.com/12LDjhK | Kruidbos termination letter at.wftv.com/10T1y0d #Zimmermanon9

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

Threats and other info:

TwitchyTeam ‏@TwitchyTeam 32m

Teen arrested for Zimmerman-related 'mass homicide' tweet; What about all the other threats? http://bit.ly/15aIJVM


DRUDGE REPORT ‏@DRUDGE_REPORT 47m

Teen Arrested for Tweet... http://drudge.tw/13HlEOX

Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 2h

Here's the termination letter from the State Attorney's Office to IT director Ben Kruidbos: http://at.wftv.com/10T1y0d #Zimmermanon9

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter 3h

Angela Corey fires IT ee who blew whistle on Zimmerman team withholding info on Trayvon's phone from defense - http://bit.ly/137o1av

John Brown ‏@JohnBrownTV 4h

IT guy who testified in #Zimmerman trial fired! He claimed the state may have withheld evidence. http://ow.ly/mVDNC



https://twitter.com/search/%23Zimmermanon9

Anna ‏@anna12061 16h

Want to see how corrupt the Zimmerman trial is? Read these public records, including three hidden and (cont) http://tl.gd/n_1rlaqr6

https://twitter.com/search/%23Zimmermanon9

The termination letter to State IT employee:

PDF 6 pages
http://www.wftv.com/documents/2013/jul/13/document-termination-letter-state-it-employee/
_________________________________

1:47


Comment From Guest
Kruidbos is obviously an honorable man and we are fortunate he chose to blow the whistle and expose criminal wrongdoing by the prosecution. What is this I have heard about Attorney General Eric Holder planning to file civil rights charges if Zimmerman is acquitted?

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

carlakay wrote:

LottieM wrote:

 Exactly! And that's why this entire case actually begins with the physical altercation. At the point of the physical altercation assault and battery was committed. Can't charge a dead guy with that posthumously, but if TM had not been killed he surely would have been charged with assault and battery of Z....and there would have been nothing on TM from which to charge Z with anything.

How do you know this Lottie? See this is what I am talking about..aside from GZ statements we have absolutely no evidence that tells us when his nose got injured. Even Jeantell could not state 100% who laid hands on who first..she said she believed the thump sound she heard was when TM got hit but that dont make it fact.
Let's say after George asks What you doing round here? TM made a move to retreat and GZ grabbed him by his hoodie..(evidence shows his hoodie was torn) in an attempt to detain him til police arrived. Remember GZ never stated he told TM he was NW so what if GZ was the one to lay hands on TM first? Did TM not have the right to defend himself against an unknown man grabbing him? What proof is there it didn't happen that way? I aint saying it did..I was not there.. my point is it is possible TM may not of started the physical confrontation and if that is what happened then it truly is very tragic.

If Trayvon would have survived, Zimmerman would have been charged with aggravated assault or worse.

O'Mara's "shot through the hip" hypothesis was misleading, hypotheses are not facts.

Freckles wrote: Anna ‏@anna12061 16h

Want to see how corrupt the Zimmerman trial is? Read these public records, including three hidden and (cont) http://tl.gd/n_1rlaqr6

https://twitter.com/search/%23Zimmermanon9

thanks Freckles..despite the fact I already had suspected corruption I really had no proof..I like proof so I am going to read em all..but without having done so yet, I gotta say I have not believed from day one that this case was ever about GZ or TM....

The letter firing the employee:
pdf 6 pages

From page 2-3:
" ...On June 6, 2013, under oath, you testified that in the course of your duties as the IT Director for the SAO, you were requested by Bernie de la Rionda to print a Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) report regarding a cellphone belonging to Trayvon Martin. You were not given this information to do any analysis. create any report or to become an expert witness in the case. In fact, you have never been qualified as an expert on computer issues of any sort in any court of law. As you acknowledged in court on June 6 you are not a forensic expert in this, or any other, area of computer science. FDLE was responsible for all expert analysis and testimony in the homicide case.

In the course of your very limited involvement in the case, you noted there may be more information available on the cell phone that needed to be explored. You acknowledged Bernie de la Rionda told you he would turn that information over to the FDLE expert inasmuch
as the FDLE expert would be the one testifying at trial. Mr. de la Rionda told you that the source file for the victim's cell phone would be given to the defense in the discovery process. It is indisputable that you were told and understood that both these actions were being taken. .... "

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2013/07/13/Binder1.pdf


From news media comment and reporting of the above:
IT director who raised questions about Zimmerman case is fired
By Tom Watkins and Nancy Leung, CNN
updated 1:55 PM EDT, Sat July 13, 2013

" ...He received the termination letter, dated July 11, on Friday, the same day jurors began deliberating Zimmerman's case. The letter states: "It has come to our attention that you violated numerous State Attorney's Office (SAO) policies and procedures and have engaged in deliberate misconduct that is especially egregious in light of your position."

Kruidbos said that, when he printed a 900-page Florida Department of Law Enforcement report from Martin's cell phone in late 2012 or early 2013, he noticed information was missing.

Concerned that attorneys did not have all the information they needed to prepare the case, he said, he reported his concerns to a State Attorney's Office investigator and later to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda.


Kruidbos said he generated a report that was more than three times the size of the one that had been handed over.

For example, Kruidbos said that 2,958 photos were in the report given to the defense but that his report contained 4,275 photos.

Kruidbos also said that he has been told to not put specific case-identifying information into internal e-mails.

Through his attorney, Wesley White, Kruidbos informed Zimmerman's defense team that the information existed. ..."

" ... O'Mara said he learned about the missing information months after he was to have received it. "The only way that we really found out about it ... and the only way that we really found out about the intensity of the failure to give us information was when a person from their own office, a whistle-blower, came forward and said, 'I gave them that information in the middle to end of January' and we didn't get it until June 4th."..."

http://us.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter

carlakay wrote:

LottieM wrote:Carla, I wasn't taking up for Z's story...just saying what I heard him say about the addresses....I personally do not think he was looking for an address at all. I think he was keeping an eye on 'the suspect' as he was doing before the operator told him "we don't need you to do that". I think he wanted to look down the way he saw 'the suspect' disappear from his sight into because he was 'in the area' already. I think he was wanting to finish what he started, that being to hopefully be able to tell the cops where 'the suspect' was/went when they finally got there. But that's my personal opinion. 

Everyone sees things differently. I think that's interesting. And I see  the "we don't need you to do that" remark differently from most as well. Here's why...the operator can't tell a citizen to follow a suspect, nor can they tell them not to. There is no law against following a person. The wording of what the operator said is the key here...he said WE don't need you to do that, meaning the police do not NEED him to follow the suspect. It in no way means Z can't keep following him if he wants to as a citizen. And..it's a good thing this operator said that to Z in light of what went down, because if they had not absolved the police department of involvement in this following of 'the suspect', they too would be being heralded as racist...the entire police force would be heralded as racist.

Hun I know you weren't taking up for Zimmerman..I wrote what I did because too many people,the prosecution included,IMO have formed an opinion based upon what GZ initially told. I have tried to form my opinion based  ALL of the evidence as a whole..his statements..the witness statements..the items found on scene..the location of the body..etc etc.. and what I came up with don't jive with either self defense or murder 2. I find the entire case upseting..I feel a young kids life was taken based upon GZ's assumption that he was one of the ones responsible for the break-in's in his community. GZ had every right to assume this..TM did match the description..To GZ someone matching the exact description of one who had done a home invasion a couple months prior;standing around in the rain;seemingly talking to themself looked gave him reason to call the police..the dispatcher did tell him to observe and report (my words there) and he did. His mistake was leaving his vehicle IMO. Nevermind who or what TM was really doing..GZ followed what he believed to be a criminal capable of committing a home invasion into a darkened area with a loaded weapon on him. That is a HUGE risk for the people of that community. Let's say TM had been one of those thugs..what if he had maniged to take that gun from GZ and get away and the next night use GZ's gun to kill the next person he decided to rob? This is what has me so upset (aside from the racial strife it's brought into light)..as a gun owner I believe this case could cause further uproar. I dont want to lose my rights because GZ was a dumbass,ok nor do I want my kids or grandkids to grow up in a world where they can no longer walk to the damn 7-11 in the rain with their hoodie up without being shot because some jackass thinks they may be a criminal.
Last year an elderly lady on the next block over answered her door at 6 in the evening to a skinny white boy high on bathsalts. He bout beat her to death..no one heard or saw anything and it was a beautiful clear evening with everyone out enjoying the weather. Does that give me the right now to strap on my gun and follow and ask every single skinny white boy that I think may be on dope and is walking down the street that connects her home and mine "What you doing around here?" As of today..I do not think so because last I heard this was America where people are free to walk anywhere at anytime..but that could be subject to change depending on this verdict.

 

Carla-

If this info on the IT employee, Kruidbos, is correct then we may have the smoking gun as to why the prosecution *Bernie de la Rionda) was dispirited in presenting this case. Sanctions would be imposed against him/his office IF GZ was convicted; as in the Baez (C Anthony case) sanctions are often dropped IF the presenting atty LOSES the case.

So, IF the prosecution wins the conviction, the judge may go forth with sanctions against the prosecution as well as the defense automatically appealing;
IF the defense wins and there is no conviction, the judge may NOT go forth with sanctions against the prosecution and the defense would NOT file for appeal of sentencing, etc..

The individuals and the office for the prosecutor may be hoping to lose this case as it would be in THEIR best interest. They cannot be seen, however, as intentionally tossing the case.

This is more than an employee taking the initiative to offer more work product than his job title provides. This, IMO, is an employee who overstepped his job duties by "being too helpful" or providing info the prosecutor's office did not want released.

This sickens me as it further cheapens and tarnishes Trayvon's name just from association. If I was Trayvon's family, I would be preparing to file against the STATE PROSECUTOR'S office for intentionally withholding info, sullying the name of Trayvon, destroying the opportunity for justice in the death of Trayvon.

Appears to be tampering with evidence or cheating.
We don't need cheating when the truth is so prevalent.

carlakay wrote:

LottieM wrote:

 Exactly! And that's why this entire case actually begins with the physical altercation. At the point of the physical altercation assault and battery was committed. Can't charge a dead guy with that posthumously, but if TM had not been killed he surely would have been charged with assault and battery of Z....and there would have been nothing on TM from which to charge Z with anything.

How do you know this Lottie? See this is what I am talking about..aside from GZ statements we have absolutely no evidence that tells us when his nose got injured. Even Jeantell could not state 100% who laid hands on who first..she said she believed the thump sound she heard was when TM got hit but that dont make it fact.
Let's say after George asks What you doing round here? TM made a move to retreat and GZ grabbed him by his hoodie..(evidence shows his hoodie was torn) in an attempt to detain him til police arrived. Remember GZ never stated he told TM he was NW so what if GZ was the one to lay hands on TM first? Did TM not have the right to defend himself against an unknown man grabbing him? What proof is there it didn't happen that way? I aint saying it did..I was not there.. my point is it is possible TM may not of started the physical confrontation and if that is what happened then it truly is very tragic.

Ok well...number one...TM didn't get socked by Z or they'd have found some sort of bruising on him somewhere during the autopsy. 2...I should have been more clear in that I was suggesting the gun was never fired so TM would not have been shot at all. 3...who knows when his hoodie got torn. Could have been torn prior to that night. 4...I should have included that TM would have been charged IF he was still there when the cops showed up.

So...basically, all we have is Z's statement and evidence that supports it, and like it or not, the evidence supports what Z said happened during the physical altercation. It is not really up to anyone to imagine a conspiracy theory about any other scenario in attempting to determine guilt or non-guilt.

SNAP! Got it!

This is why the judge, Nelson, would NOT let in the info re Trayvon's cell phone. Remember her stating she did NOT know how the info got on to Trayvon's phone; anyone with a password could have put it there; his parent's may have deleted the info?

Judge Nelson was "politely" addressing the issue stating the phone may have been tampered with the additional and the deletion of pics, texts, etc., WHILE IT WAS IN THE PROPERTY OF THE STATE!!
The so-called "porn" pics MAY have come from an outside sources AFTER Trayvon was dead; the hand with the gun MAY have been planted (altho, IMO, there is nothing wrong with a hand holding a gun OR a person texting they wanted to buy/sell a gun) and the comments re wanting to learn how to fight MAY have come from outside sources. NONE of this can be easily documented and provided (especially when the jury is sequestered) and the judge did NOT want to open that window.

IF Trayvon was spending nonstop marathon hours on the phone with ONE friend, and he had other friends, WHEN would he have had time for the porn pics, the gun pics, the "Iwannbe a thug" as opposed to GZ's "I wannbe a cop" ?

The jury has been deliberating for 9 hours.

Lottie-
IMO, there are no defense wounds on GZ so his story doesn't work, IMO. Not once in those reported dozens of head blows does GZ raise a pinky to stop Trayvon despite GZ having a few years of training;

The sidewalk scenario doesn't work as there would have been injuries to the BACK of GZ's neck had his head been repositioned so the head was near the edge of the sidewalk. No injuries.

There were no defense injuries to Trayvon as he was surprised, pulling back to flee (hoody and sweatshirt shots indicate something was pulling the clothing down and away from his body,) and simply did not have time to raise a hand before GZ shot him. This means GZ HAD THE GUN OUT when he confronted Trayvon.

Further, GZ could NOT have pulled the gun out while prone; he shot Trayvon in an upright position.

Tryvon's cell phone was in the possession of the Sanford Police Department until Corey took over the investigation and the FDLE entered the picture. We don't know what the Sanford Police did or didn't do.

We know that Serino, the lead investigator,  was the one who was pushing for manslaughter charges and was ("mysteriously") demoted to overnight patrol.

We also know that Shiping Bao tried to sink "the prosecution's ship".

Freckles wrote:Lottie-
IMO, there are no defense wounds on GZ so his story doesn't work, IMO. Not once in those reported dozens of head blows does GZ raise a pinky to stop Trayvon despite GZ having a few years of training;

The sidewalk scenario doesn't work as there would have been injuries to the BACK of GZ's neck had his head been repositioned so the head was near the edge of the sidewalk. No injuries.

There were no defense injuries to Trayvon as he was surprised, pulling back to flee (hoody and sweatshirt shots indicate something was pulling the clothing down and away from his body,) and simply did not have time to raise a hand before GZ shot him. This means GZ HAD THE GUN OUT when he confronted Trayvon.

Further, GZ could NOT have pulled the gun out while prone; he shot Trayvon in an upright position.

 I like a good discussion...so...no defense wounds on Z? What kind of defense wounds are you expecting to be on Z from a fist fight?

Neck? What about his head?

I do not believe for one second that TM was the fleeing kind. Even his gf said she told him to go home etc more than once, and did he flee then? Did he say, Yeah you're right I'm getting the hell away from this crazy cracker?

Adding one....his gf said TM said 'get off, get off' and then she heard a thud and the phone went dead. Ok....what if 'get off get off' was TM telling HER to get off/hang up because he can't do it because he's using bluetooth and hasn't got time right then to get his actual phone out or bother taking time to disconnect with her because he ....thud...punched Z in the face.

And the gun being drawn already....not imo because TM would have had his hands on it at the nose punch.

Prone position shooting....the fact...yes FACT that the hoody and sweatshirt under the hoody were not against TM's skin when he was shot reasonably concludes TM was leaning forward AND that Z did not PRESS the muzzle against TM's body.....hence, reasonably to me, Z shot from an emergency type vantage point where he simply grabbed and shot....and I still think it may have gone off by accident, but if not by accident then in hasty fear even if anyone who wasn't there can't wrap their head around reactionary fear. GZ followed the wrong guy! GZ was not prepared for physical contact battle and once the gun was seen he and everyone else knows if a gun is exposed in a fight the danger to the losing party of being shot with it is greatly enhanced. Z was clearly on the losing end of the fight. No one can deny that. You just can't. Not unless you just want to.

EXPLORE FORENSICS

Defensive Wounds

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/defensive-wounds.html

Jury has a question. All are at the courtroom.

What could it be this late in the day? What's for dinner? OR

Can we get an armored car to take us out of here when we have a verdict?

OMG I really wish they would stop for the day..I am very tense..

the question asked was for clarification on instructions for manslaughter..

Catching up on the blog listed below.
Seems to me the jury is working hard and we may have a verdict either tonight or in the AM...


http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

6:43

Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV
Lawyers are back in court but judge isn't here yet. #Zimmermanon9

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 41m

For second degree murder, the jury would have to find #Zimmermanon9 killed Martin with hatred and spite.
Expand
Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 41m

For manslaughter they would have to find #Zimmermanon9 had a reckless disregard for Martin's life.
Expand
Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 41m

Jury instructions including manslaughter: http://at.wftv.com/12MnyY8 #Zimmermanon9

https://twitter.com/KBelichWFTV

LIVE

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

Just guessing...
IF the jury is asking about definition of manslaughter they may have decided against the higher charges...
JMO
I am guessing the verdict will be manslaughter and it will come in about 8:30 Florida time...

Carry a gun is 10 years added to sentence;
use the gun add 20 years to sentence;
someone gets hit would make it life...

This is according to Bill Sheaffer at
http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

Message approved by judge and attys sent back to the jury.
Message is asking for clarity on the original question the jury has submitted...

Persons are staying put in the court;
1 hour dinner break for the jury and the court...

Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 3m

They will send a note to the jurors and wait to see if they submit a specific question. #Zimmermanon9
Expand

Reply
Retweet
Favorite

Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 3m

The judge is going to tell them she can't have a discussion but might be able to answer a specific instruction. #Zimmermanon9
Expand
Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 7m

Martin's parents aren't here but 3 of their lawyers are and possibly 2 other relatives. #Zimmermanon9
Expand
Kathi Belich, WFTV ‏@KBelichWFTV 8m

They are trying to figure out whether the jury has a question about the law or the instruction and specifically what.

Freckles wrote:Just guessing...
IF the jury is asking about definition of manslaughter they may have decided against the higher charges...
JMO
I am guessing the verdict will be manslaughter and it will come in about 8:30 Florida time...

 I agree Freckles. I think I recall the Judges instructions were to consider the charges in order and they could not consider Manslaughter unless they had ruled out Murder2. Now with manslaughter they have to decide if they believe it was self defense or not. If not, then he gets manslaughter. I don't see how this could take much longer after they've considered enough to rule out murder2. It's basically just down to Is it self defense or not. I think they already know what they think...so maybe tonight as you say.

7:03


Bill Sheaffer:
We are predicting verdict tonight from our mobile studio-- stay tuned

7:06


Bill Sheaffer:
LE and Needs to Know? the jury will never be told the sentence. They have no idea it's effectively life in prison for GZ

7:10


Bill Sheaffer:
It might be advisable if they have a verdict-- that the Judge tells them to go to the hotel, sleep on it and come back in morning-- Saturday night verdict could be problematic

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

I dunno why Shaffer believes a Sat night verdict is problematic...

7:17

Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV
The jurors' meals are here. Court is in recess for an hour. #Zimmermanon9

What was that stunt the court just pulled? The jurors asked a specific question already. It was for clarification of the manslaughter instructions. To me that means they need the instructions explained. They don't understand the instructions. So now at this late hour, what do that get back from the court? A question! About their question! 6 women- aka too much estrogen in one room- are not going to be happy about this. LOL

You know, I'm just thinking out loud but I think the confusion they are having might be that if they've already decided Z didn't commit this killing by being a right jerk about it, and if the manslaughter instructions exclude negligence then all that's left is self defense. If they have decided it was Z screaming then they could go for not-guilty all around. I wonder if they will do this tonight though. I'm not so sure, but it would be a good idea to do it so they can leave under cover of darkness before the riots start. And I'll add...sadly, I don't think any verdict other than Murder 2 is going to stop Team Trayvon from rioting. Wouldn't that be ironic considering how they wanted to portray Trayvon as such a non-violent harmless child? To honor him requires violence. Weird.

8:16


Bruce at WFTV:
Court is in recess for a few more minutes. Not sure what the plans are. If the jury is deliberating the judge and attorneys might not come back into court until needed.

Lottie-
The question asked by the jury was vague and the court (judge plus both sets of attys) did not understand what the jury was asking, and because they did not understand, they had to ask for clarity before they responded. Keep in mind, everything involving the jury MUST be first discussed with the judge, the State, and the dteam....

There IS danger in answering to an "unasked" question.
And there are some questions the jury might ask which would be inappropriate to answer while they are sequestered.

8:44


Bruce at WFTV:
The entire trial, video and blogs, are here: http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/george-zimmerman-video-blog-archive/nYHgf/