KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The propaganda surrounding Trayvon Martin is thick and gak filled on both sides. Remember the first week or two of news coverage? Pretty sure they were exclusively using photos of Trayvon from Middle School, hell even calling him a child is careful information management, he was certainly well past the age where we call people children, and he (and I at that age) would probably give you a hell of a venomous look and some choice words if you called him one. That's just standard behavior for seventeen year olds.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Be interesting to see how this goes, honestly I think the Prosecutor could nail Zimmerman to the wall for manslaughter but because they were pretty much forced to overcharge with murder two Z's got a solid chance of walking for this... right into some form of witness protection program, hell some poor lady almost got killed in Oklahoma for looking vaguely like (i.e. a caucasian brunette female) Casey Anthony while Anthony was still in prison in Florida. The mob mentality in this country fed by the 24 hour news cycle and evil *********************** like Nancy Freaking Grace is just disgusting.

Nancy Grace is hilarious..... until you realise that she is deadly serious and that she has a significant following She really does sum up "trial by media"

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I know Nancy grace exist, but what does she do that is so bad?

In 2011 a New York Times article David Carr wrote “Since her show began in 2005, the presumption of innocence has found a willful enemy in the former prosecutor turned broadcast judge-and-jury". He criticized her handling of the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart, the Duke lacrosse case, the Melinda Duckett interview and suicide and the Caylee Anthony case. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told Carr that Grace, as an attorney and reporter, “has managed to demean both professions with her hype, rabid persona, and sensational analysis. Some part of the public takes her seriously, and her show erodes the respect for basic rights”.[16]

Elizabeth Smart kidnapping[edit]
During the 2002 Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case, when suspect Richard Ricci was arrested by police on the basis that he had a criminal record and had worked on the Smarts' home, Grace immediately and repeatedly proclaimed on CourtTV and CNN's Larry King that Ricci "was guilty," although there was little evidence to support this claim. She also suggested publicly that Ricci's girlfriend was involved in the cover-up of his alleged crime. Grace continued to accuse Ricci, though he died while in custody.[17]
It was later revealed that Smart was kidnapped by Brian David Mitchell and Wanda Barzee, two individuals with whom Richard Ricci had no connection.[18]
When CourtTV confronted Grace seven months later to ask whether she was incorrect in her assertion that Ricci was guilty, and whether or not she felt bad about it in any way, she stated that Ricci was "a known ex-con, a known felon, and brought suspicion on himself, so who could blame anyone for claiming he was the perpetrator?" When Larry King asked her about the matter, she equated criticism of herself with criticism of the police in the case. She said: "I'm not letting you take the police with me on a guilt trip."[19]
In July 2006, Grace interviewed Smart, who was promoting a legislative bill. Grace repeatedly asked her for information regarding her abduction. Smart told her she didn't feel comfortable discussing it, despite Grace's persistence in the matter. Finally, Grace stopped when Smart said she "didn't appreciate you [Grace] bringing all this up."[20]

Danielle van Dam case[edit]
During the trial of David Westerfield in 2002 for the kidnap and murder of Danielle van Dam, Nancy Grace made it clear on CNN's Larry King Live that she thought he was guilty, but she got many facts wrong, and she also made some statements pointing to his possible innocence.
She accused him of steam-cleaning his RV, but Dr. Henry Lee pointed out that, had he done so, they wouldn’t have found the fingerprints and the bloodstain on the carpet.[21][22] In fact, very little cleaning had been done, as evidenced by the absence of the smell of cleaning products, and the fine layer of dust throughout the interior of the vehicle, and it was the van Dams, not Westerfield, who had a steam-cleaner.[23]
Grace argued that Westerfield’s black jacket was leather, so van Dam hairs and fibers would not have been transferred onto it by “dirty dancing” at the bar on Friday night.[24] But the jacket was open and his shirt wasn’t leather, so there could have been transfer. She also thought he kept his jacket on while taking a shower: “that must be some mighty tough DNA to stick to a leather jacket and live through a shower”. That statement shows she made another mistake: Danielle’s blood was not on the jacket he was wearing Friday night - no evidence was found on any of his Friday night clothing.[25]
The strongest evidence against Westerfield was in his RV, particularly a drop of Danielle’s blood and her handprint. All that small amount of evidence could be innocently explained if, at some previous time while it was parked unlocked in the streets outside her home, Danielle had entered that vehicle, perhaps to explore it out of curiosity. There was no testimony she had done so, but to her credit, Grace said she "can imagine a little girl wandering into a RV and playing in it, much as if they saw a swimming pool, they might jump in, or a playground, they might play on it".[21]
She also thought that the parents’ friend Barbara Easton (the one who “let the cat out of the bag” over the parents’ sexual activities), wasn’t called to testify because she “could go into further evidence of wife-swapping and swinging on the part of the victims' family”. So Grace didn’t think the whole truth had been revealed.[26]

Duke lacrosse allegations[edit]
Grace took a vehemently pro-prosecution position throughout the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, in which Crystal Gail Mangum, a stripper and North Carolina Central University student, falsely accused three members of Duke University's men's lacrosse team of raping her at a party. Prior to Duke suspending its men's lacrosse team's season, she sarcastically noted on the air, "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape!" and "Why would you go to a cop in an alleged gang rape case, say, and lie and give misleading information?"[27] After the disbarment of District Attorney Mike Nifong, Attorney General Roy Cooper pronounced all three players innocent of the rape charges made by Mangum and Nifong.[28] On the following broadcast of her show, Grace did not appear and a substitute reporter, Jane Velez-Mitchell, announced the removal of all charges.[29]
Suicide of interviewee Melinda Duckett[edit]
In September 2006, 22-year-old Melinda Duckett committed suicide following an interview conducted by Grace concerning the disappearance of Duckett's 2-year-old son Trenton.[30]
Grace interviewed Duckett less than two weeks after the child went missing, questioning her for her alleged lack of openness regarding her son's disappearance, asking Duckett "Where were you? Why aren't you telling us where you were that day?"[31] Duckett appeared confused and was unable to answer whether or not she had taken a polygraph test. When Grace asked her why she could not account for specific details, Duckett began to reply, "Because I was told not to," to which Grace responded, "Ms. Duckett, you are not telling us for a reason. What is the reason? You refuse to give even the simplest facts of where you were with your son before he went missing. It is day twelve." According to the CNN transcript, Duckett replied, "(INAUDIBLE) with all media. It's not just there, just all media. Period." Grace then moved on to a media psychologist who asserted that Duckett was "skirting around the issue."[30][32]
The next day, before the airing of the show, Duckett shot herself, a death that relatives claim was influenced by media scrutiny, particularly from Grace.[30][33] Speaking to The Orlando Sentinel, Duckett's grandfather Bill Eubank said, "Nancy Grace and the others, they just bashed her to the end. She was not one anyone ever would have thought of to do something like this."[30] CNN has also been criticized for allowing the show to air in the wake of Duckett's suicide.[34] Police investigating the case had not named Melinda Duckett as a suspect in the case at the time, but after her suicide the police did say that, as nearly all parents are in missing-child cases, she was a suspect from the beginning.[30]
In an interview on Good Morning America, Nancy Grace said in reaction to events that "If anything, I would suggest that guilt made her commit suicide. To suggest that a 15- or 20-minute interview can cause someone to commit suicide is focusing on the wrong thing."[35] She then said that, while she sympathized with the family, she knew from her own experience as a victim of crime that such people look for somebody else to blame.[36]
While describing it as an "extremely sad development," Janine Iamunno, a spokeswoman for Grace,[37] said that her program would continue to follow the case as they had a "responsibility to bring attention to this case in the hopes of helping find Trenton Duckett." Grace commented that "I do not feel that our show is to blame for what happened to Melinda Duckett. The truth is not always nice or polite or easy to go down. Sometimes it's harsh, and it hurts."[30]
On November 21, 2006, thesmokinggun.com exposed pending litigation on behalf of the estate of Melinda Duckett, asserting a wrongful death claim against CNN and Grace. The attorney for the estate alleges that, even if Duckett did kill her own son, Grace's aggressive questioning traumatized Duckett so much that she committed suicide. She also argues that CNN's decision to air the interview after Duckett's suicide traumatized her family. Trenton has never been found.[34][38]
On November 8, 2010, Grace reached a settlement with the estate of Melinda Duckett to create a $200,000 trust fund dedicated to locating Trenton. This settlement was reached a month before a jury trial was scheduled to start. According to the agreement, if the young boy is found alive before he turns 13, the remaining proceeds in the trust will be administered by a trustee – Trenton's great-aunt Kathleen Calvert – until he turns 18 and the funds are transferred for his use. If Trenton is not found by his 13th birthday, or if he is found but is not alive, the funds will be transferred immediately to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. "We are pleased the lawsuit has been dismissed. The statement speaks for itself," a spokeswoman for CNN said.[39]

Caylee Anthony case[edit]
From 2008 to 2011 the Caylee Anthony disappearance and the prosecution, trial and acquittal of her mother Casey Anthony on charges of murder of the child were a regular feature of the Nancy Grace show. She would reveal every new detail of the story.[40] Her program is cited as having "almost single-handedly inflated the Anthony case from a routine local murder into a national obsession".[41] Nancy Grace referred to Casey Anthony as the "tot mom," a phrase Elizabeth Flock in the Washington Post described as “almost derisive-sounding.”[42]
The Nancy Grace audience more than doubled in the weeks after the start of the Anthony trial.[43] David Carr wrote that Grace took her show to the trial scene in Orlando, Florida in order to “hurl invective from a close, intimate distance.”[16] Grace expressed rage at Anthony's acquittal right after announcement of the verdict, saying: "Tot Mom's lies seem to have worked."[41]
In a press conference after the verdicts were read, Cheney Mason, one of Casey Anthony's defense attorneys, blamed the media for a "media assassination" which led to public hatred toward Casey Anthony. He also said: "I can tell you that my colleagues from coast to coast and border to border have condemned this whole process of lawyers getting on television and talking about cases that they don't know a damn thing about, and don't have the experience to back up their words or the law to do it."[44]
Grace took it personally and responded, "What does he care about what pundits are saying?" Stating she had as much legal experience as Mason, she criticized the defense attorneys for taking on the media before mentioning Caylee's name in their news conference and stated that "[T]here is no way that this is a verdict that speaks the truth."[44]
Michelle Zierler, director of the Project in Law and Journalism at New York Law School said Grace "is always certain that the defendant is guilty and needs instant punishment" and this had affected her analysis of the case.[44] Howard Finkelstein, the Broward County, Florida public defender said "Nancy Grace should offend every journalist out there. These lawyers on TV during the Anthony trial only offered one side, everybody believed them, and now you've got a big chunk of the population that thinks the legal system let them down. Every time that happens, you lose part of the national community."[41]
On the day Casey Anthony was sentenced on misdemeanor counts of lying to investigators, a supporter held a sign reading: "Nancy Grace, stop trying to ruin innocent lives. The jury has spoken. P.S. Our legal system still works!"[45]
In a televised appearance with media expert Dan Abrams, Grace stated about Anthony’s being freed from jail that “No one wishes for vigilante justice; nobody advocates that. People who are opposed to the jury verdict, that think it was wrong, are really seeking justice, and I do not believe those people are interested in harming Tot Mom Casey Anthony.” Abrams commented that “There are too many people out there who love Nancy Grace, who watch Nancy Grace on a regular basis, who are going to see her (C.Anthony) out there somewhere and are going to give her a very, very hard time wherever she goes.”[46]

Whitney Houston death[edit]
Mainstream media have suggested that Grace made "wildly speculative" allegations on her program that the investigation into Whitney Houston's death should include the possibility that someone may have been responsible for drowning Houston. Some reporters have pointed out that Grace should have waited for the coroner's report before making this allegation.[47]

Toni Annette Medrano Suicide[edit]
Toni Annette Medrano committed suicide by setting herself on fire, after being condemned by Grace.[48] Following Melinda Duckett's suicide, this is the second suicide to which Grace has been linked.[49] On January 4, 2012, the case was settled, "I can tell you the case was settled in principle two weeks ago," said personal injury attorney Michael Padden of Lake Elmo. A lawsuit was never formally served but "we resolved the case just by negotiation," he said.[50]

Amanda Knox[edit]
Grace commented on the Amanda Knox case: "I was very disturbed, because I think it is a huge miscarriage of justice. I believe that while Amanda Knox did not wield the knife herself, I think that she was there, with her boyfriend, and that he did the deed, and that she egged him on. That’s what I think happened.....I just happen to know the facts...I’m not trying to get Amanda Knox’s first interview because… my show does not pay for interviews...Second, I don’t think she’s going to tell the truth anyway, so what’s the point?”

A New York Times story about jury selection in George Zimmerman's trial says the case is "spotlighting Florida's Stand Your Ground law." In the very next sentence, however, the Times concedes "that law has not been invoked in this case." As I have been saying since this story began attracting national press attention, Zimmerman's defense does not hinge on the right to stand your ground when you are attacked in a public place because he claims he shot Trayvon Martin during a violent struggle in which there was no opportunity to retreat. So why is "Florida's Stand Your Ground law" relevant? According to the Times, because it "was cited by the Sanford police as the reason officers did not initially arrest Mr. Zimmerman." But the provision cited by police, although it was included in the same 2005 bill that eliminated the duty to retreat, has nothing to do with the "stand your ground" principle.

The police said they did not charge Zimmerman right away because of a provision that prohibits a law enforcement agency from arresting someone who claims to have used deadly force in self-defense "unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful." In other words, the fact that Zimmerman killed Martin (which he has always admitted) was not enough; the police also needed reason to doubt his self-defense claim. We can argue about whether that is a reasonable requirement, but it is completely distinct from the right to stand your ground. Even a state that imposes a duty to retreat could still require police to meet this test before arresting someone who claims self-defense.

From the beginning press coverage of this case has routinely conflated these issues, implying that Florida's definition of self-defense is so broad that it gave Zimmerman a license to kill in circumstances that did not justify the use of deadly force. The New York Times has been one of the worst offenders in this respect, running one story after another that either obscured or misstated the legal issues while suggesting that both Martin's death and the delay in arresting Zimmerman somehow hinged on the absence of a duty to retreat. Now the Times is implicitly admitting that its reporting was based on a fundamentally mistaken premise.

Eric Adelson | The Lookout wrote:The lead defense attorney, Don West, declared early in his remarks that “sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying” and then ventured a joke. He confessed it was “a little bit weird” to do so and asked the jury to avoid holding the joke against the defendant.

Then he went ahead.

“Knock, knock,” West said, stunning both the jury and the assembled onlookers.

“Who’s there?” he answered himself.

“George Zimmerman.”

“George Zimmerman who?”

“Congratulations. You’re on the jury.”

There was barely a reaction.

“Nothing?” West said, in genuine surprise.

This was met with some nervous laughter.

It was a deeply strange way to open a trial about a killing that has rattled and vexed an entire nation. The death of Martin, on his way home from buying candy at a local convenience store, has touched a national third rail, launching arguments and protests about race, gun laws and civil rights.

Later, after a lunch recess, West apologized. “I really thought it was funny,” he said. “Sorry if I offended anyone.”

 Jihadin wrote:
Hang Jury

 Jihadin wrote:
Hang Jury

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I am pleading the fifth

 azazel the cat wrote:
I dunno if anyone's posted this yet, but George Zimmerman's lawyer opened with a joke.





He's going to jail. Nevermind the composition of the jury.

With an all-female jury seated (five white, one Hispanic) and opening arguments occurring today, understand that not only should the charge against George Zimmerman never have been filed, but that the case is remarkably backwards. The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it. Whereas the Trayvon Martin case is an anomaly that reverses all of the conventions and behaviors normally present in the criminal justice system.

With that in mind, a primer about what to expect may be useful.

The “Scheme Team”: Attorneys Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson, and Daryl Parks are not only closely aligned with the prosecution, but they have already negotiated one civil settlement with the insurance company representing the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the neighborhood where George Zimmerman lived and served as Neighborhood Watch captain. Crump has been instrumental in engaging the full might of prominent racial-grievance figures, and arguably caused Florida Governor Rick Scott and Attorney General Pam Bondi to appoint Special Prosecutor Angela Corey to charge Zimmerman with second-degree murder. Crump was also pivotal in encouraging the FBI to investigate Zimmerman for hate crime or civil rights violations.

It was Crump who apparently discovered Witness Eight, “Dee Dee,” Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend who was supposedly on the phone with Martin before he was shot. Crump conducted an interview with her with ABC’s Matt Gutman present, and claimed that her testimony would obliterate Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. His claim would influence the prosecution to charge Zimmerman. He eventually arranged an interview with Dee Dee with deputy prosecutor Bernard0 de la Rionda. Not only was the “Scheme Team” present at that interview, but Martin’s mother was seated next to Dee Dee, an almost unimaginable violation of interview protocol.

The Scheme Team represents Trayvon Martin’s parents, ”those sweet parents” as Corey called them at her press conference in the style of a political victory rally announcing Zimmerman’s arrest. For the time being, they have contented themselves with conducting daily press conferences in the courtroom, but if the trial should not go their way, expect them to further inflame racial tensions.

The Prosecution: Without conducting any new investigation, Corey’s office produced an affidavit that not only failed to produce any probable cause that Zimmerman violated any of the three essential elements of the offense. It was also factually incorrect and withheld vital information of Zimmerman’s innocence. Any attorney or police officer filing an affidavit promises to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. This one, filed by special prosecutor investigators T.C. O’Steen and Dale Gilbreath at the direction of de la Rionda and on behalf of Corey, fell far short of the most minimal requirements of the law. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, attorney and commentator Mark Levin, attorney John Hinderaker of Powerline, and other notables took it to task in the harshest terms.

In response, an enraged Corey called the dean of Harvard Law School and, speaking with a representative of the Office of Communications, ranted about Dershowitz for 40 minutes and threatened to sue him and Harvard. Harvard was apparently unimpressed; Dershowitz still teaches there.

Bernie de la Rionda has taken the lead in handling the case. De la Rionda learned no later than August 2, 2012, that Dee Dee committed perjury but, despite multiple requests from the defense over many months, withheld that information until the evening of March 4, 2013, only hours before the matter would be heard in court and he would be forced to divulge the information.

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara filed a motion for sanctions against de la Rionda for improperly withholding important evidence, and de la Rionda filed a petulant, angry, and unprofessional response that is a model of improper legal writing. He eventually admitted in court to withholding the evidence, with an excuse of: “I forgot about it.” Despite multiple defense requests, he forgot — for seven months — that his most important witness was a perjurer. Judge Nelson has yet to rule on O’Mara’s motion for sanctions despite de la Rionda’s admission.

Another example of de la Rionda’s malfeasance is his withholding — for many months — of digital color photographs of Zimmerman’s injuries taken immediately after Zimmerman was assaulted by Martin. It’s easy to see why de la Rionda would not want the defense to have those photos — they clearly depict Zimmerman’s badly broken and bleeding nose, and his bruised, lacerated, and bloody face, as well as multiple bloody cuts on the back of his head.

Recently, the IT director for the special prosecutor’s office blew the whistle on de la Rionda’s hiding of evidence from Martin’s cell phone, including photos of stolen jewelry, an image of Martin blowing what appears to be marijuana smoke, and an image of what appears to be Martin holding a handgun. Discovered in early January 2013, much of that and other evidence was not turned over to the defense until June.

The Defense: Mark O’Mara and Donald West are experienced attorneys who have demonstrated professionalism up until this point in the trial. Normally, it is the defense that tries its case in the court of public opinion, yet in this case it has been the prosecution relying on public opinion and political support to sustain their case.

The Media: The media wasted no time in working with the Scheme Team — their narrative was quickly born and disseminated: Trayvon Martin, 17, was actually a small, slight, innocent scholar with a bright future. On February 26, he was temporarily living with his father in Sanford and walked to a nearby 7-Eleven, where he bought iced tea and Skittles for his little brother. On the way home, he was spotted by Zimmerman, a huge, hulking “white-Hispanic” many times his size who “profiled” Martin and ruthlessly ran him down as Martin fled in fright, desperately trying to reach the safety of his temporary residence. Zimmerman pursued Martin because he was black and wearing a hoodie, and brutally murdered him without provocation.

For the media, the Zimmerman case fit well with their preferred narrative lines, and they embraced it fully as a too-good-to-check case. However, their bias and lack of professional skepticism quickly blew back at them.

NBC was caught doctoring the call Zimmerman made to the Sanford Police to make Zimmerman appear to be a racist (a civil suit against NBC is on temporary hold during the criminal trial). CNN’s attempt to brand Zimmerman a racist by claiming he called Martin a “word not allowed on dakka” during the same phone call also fell flat, and CNN had to retract their story (Zimmerman said that it was “cold”). ABC’s Matt Gutman, who worked closely with Crump, filed a variety of stories, including a story about Zimmerman walking in the halls of the Sanford Police Department without handcuffs. Gutman failed to inform readers that, at the time, Zimmerman was fully cooperating with the Sanford Police and was not under arrest, and like any citizen could enter and walk in the public access halls of any government building.

ABC also provided grainy police surveillance photos purporting to show that Zimmerman suffered no injuries. Clear and unmistakable photos of Zimmerman’s injuries forced them to retract that story as well.

Dee Dee: The young woman known as Dee Dee was represented by Crump and de la Rionda to the court to be a juvenile — a ploy to keep her identity hidden under juvenile privacy laws. However, it was eventually revealed that she was 18 when interviewed by de la Rionda on April 12, 2012. That interview revealed that Dee Dee did not have information that contradicted Zimmerman’s self-defense account, and that she would be a terrible witness. De la Rionda’s questioning of her was inept and appeared to indicate that he had tampered with her testimony, which in many respects made no sense. Dee Dee, by her own admission, knew Martin for many years and would know his habits, his social media posts, and have intimate knowledge of his criminal activities. These are absolutely not things the prosecution would want a jury to hear, yet putting her on the stand would open the door to that, as well as to her perjury regarding her age and her lie that she was so distraught by Martin’s death that she was hospitalized and could not attend his funeral.

The Facts: Normally, the prosecution is the natural ally of the police. Using their investigation — the facts — prosecutors are able to establish all of the elements of the offense and win a conviction. In the Zimmerman case, the prosecution must ignore, try to explain away, or try to construct reasonable doubt about the case of the police — a bizarre state of affairs.

The Sanford Police Department conducted an unbiased and competent investigation, and the local prosecutor, Norm Wolfinger, declined to press charges because all of the evidence supported Zimmerman’s self-defense claim under Florida law, and none contradicted it. Prosecutor investigator Dale Gilbreath admitted this on April 20, 2012.

However, that investigation and its results did not fit the narrative, and so Corey was tasked not with doing justice, but with charging and convicting Zimmerman regardless of the evidence. Corey’s office has never produced the slightest evidence proving that the Sanford Police failed in their duty or exhibited racial bias.

That being the case, what are the grounds for charging Zimmerman with any crime?

The facts of the case are simple. On a cold, rainy evening, George Zimmerman was leaving his neighborhood to shop for groceries when he spotted Trayvon Martin in the gated neighborhood, a neighborhood that had recently been plagued by thefts and burglaries, most committed by young black men. He did not recognize him as a resident. Because Martin was wearing a hoodie, Zimmerman only became aware of his race later when Martin approached his vehicle, and only mentioned his race in response to a dispatcher’s question.

Martin appeared to be under the influence of drugs to Zimmerman, and rather than walking with purpose to get out of the rain, Martin appeared to be casing the area. Zimmerman didn’t know it at the time, but Martin was under the influence of marijuana — it would be found in his blood. Zimmerman called the police and asked for officers to speak with Martin to see who he was and what he was doing, and the dispatcher asked Zimmerman to keep telling him what Martin was doing.

After approaching Zimmerman and circling his vehicle menacingly, Martin ran off between two long rows of homes. Zimmerman told the dispatcher Martin was running, and tried to get to a position where he could see Martin to direct the police he believed to be on the way and due to arrive at any minute. By the time he was able to leave his vehicle, Martin was long gone, and Zimmerman told the dispatcher he had lost him and was returning to his vehicle to meet the officers.

Zimmerman hung up, and within seconds was approached by Martin, who punched Zimmerman in the nose and took him to the ground. Martin repeatedly pounded his head into the concrete sidewalk while Zimmerman screamed for help. This was seen and heard by multiple witnesses, and recorded – poorly — by the police as a witness called 911.

Stunned, helpless, and afraid for his life, Zimmerman drew his 9mm handgun and fired one round into Martin’s torso at near-muzzle contact range. Martin sat up and Zimmerman was able to get away from him.

The police arrived within seconds and Zimmerman cooperated fully with them. Their photographs, observations, and collected evidence — recorded in their reports — fully supported Zimmerman’s account. Zimmerman continued to fully cooperate with the police, including taking and passing two-voice stress tests (a sort of lie detector), and participating in a videotaped walkthrough of the events of that night with them.

There is no question that if Martin wanted to be in his temporary home, out of the rain and out of sight of Zimmerman, he had more than enough time. However, he chose to hide and lay in wait for Zimmerman, a man who thought he had lost track of Martin. Martin was not a slight child, but a lean and muscular 5’11” and 158 pounds — substantially taller than Zimmerman.

But why would a young man like Martin attack Zimmerman? Martin was a teenager on a fast track to trouble. His social media presence shows a young man immersed in thug culture. He tried to obtain guns, and often wrote about drug use, which explains the narrative’s constant repetition that Martin was carrying tea and skittles when shot. He was not. He was carrying a watermelon-flavored drink and Skittles, two of the three ingredients, along with Robitussin cough syrup, of a drug concoction know as “Lean” or “Purple Drank.” Martin often wrote about using that concoction, and about smoking “blunts,” hollowed-out cheap cigars filled with marijuana. There is evidence that Martin bought a blunt at the 7-Eleven he visited about 45 minutes before his attack on Zimmerman. Martin was caught at school with stolen property — women’s jewelry — and had been suspended from school multiple times. The most recent suspension of ten days put Martin with his father in Sanford.

As for Zimmerman’s racism, the FBI’s investigation not only found no evidence of racism, but quite the opposite. When a relative of a Sanford Police officer beat a black homeless man, his tireless advocate was none other than George Zimmerman.

Judge Nelson: Judge Debra Nelson replaced the earlier judge, removed for obvious bias against Zimmerman. Judge Nelson would quickly prove herself no slouch at anti-Zimmerman bias. Her rulings have unmistakably favored the prosecution. Among the most egregious example of that bias has been her treatment of Crump.

Nelson initially allowed O’Mara to depose Crump, but before the deposition could be done, Crump submitted an affidavit instead, and Nelson accepted it over O’Mara’s objections and canceled the deposition. O’Mara was soon able to provide evidence that Crump was untruthful in the affidavit, but Nelson would not allow a deposition. O’Mara filed a motion with a higher court that overturned Nelson’s decision. Unfortunately, this occurred so late in the process that Crump has not yet been deposed and likely will not be before the trial begins.

Nelson has refused to rule on the multiple motions for sanctions against de la Rionda, saying only that she’ll handle them after the trial. This of course gives the prosecution the ability to continue to withhold discovery.

Nelson’s rulings, on balance, have hampered the defense and assisted the prosecution, and she shows no tendency toward balance as the case goes to trial.

What To Expect: As the trial begins, the defense will rely on the police and their investigation — on the facts — and the law. Expect them to move for dismissal at the beginning of the trial, and multiple times during the trial. In an unbiased court, this case would never have been filed. No rational judge would have issued an arrest warrant based on such a badly flawed and inadequate affidavit, and no professional judge would have allowed it to continue.

Zimmerman’s self-defense argument is supported by all the evidence and is not contradicted by any competent evidence. The prosecutor will be put in the unenviable position of arguing against the police, the evidence, and the law. Their case is the narrative, a provably false tale of race and hatred grounded only in a desire to inflame racial passions.

Do not expect Zimmerman to testify. The facts, including his videotaped reenactment of the events, will speak for him. Also expect the defense to produce highly qualified, impressive, and believable scientific witnesses. Expect the prosecution to produce poorly qualified, confusing, and easily impeachable scientific witnesses (particularly expect Judge Nelson to allow such incompetents to testify for the prosecution).

Expect the defense to be calm, steady, professional and trustworthy. Expect the prosecution to be angry, arrogant, and — if their pre-trial demeanor is any guide — to take considerable liberty with the facts and the truth. Expect them to defend the narrative with all their might; it is their case.

The narrative remains. Several prospective jurors expressed fear that a “not guilty” verdict would result in riots, or put their families and themselves in danger. Despite evidence of growing public boredom with the case, this is not an unreasonable fear.

Should Zimmerman be convicted, expect the case to be overturned on appeal due to prosecutorial misconduct, and to multiple and egregious instances of reversible error by Judge Nelson. There is reason to believe that the appeals court is carefully watching this case. Even so, expect Judge Nelson to do all she can to assist the prosecution and to hamper the defense, and to help the Scheme Team.

Regardless of the outcome, there will be no winners at the conclusion.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
The propaganda surrounding Trayvon Martin is thick and gak filled on both sides. Remember the first week or two of news coverage? Pretty sure they were exclusively using photos of Trayvon from Middle School, hell even calling him a child is careful information management, he was certainly well past the age where we call people children, and he (and I at that age) would probably give you a hell of a venomous look and some choice words if you called him one. That's just standard behavior for seventeen year olds.

Now on to Stand Your Ground laws, I'm sick of them being mischaracterized. It is NOT because of SYG that you have the right to legally defend yourself with lethal force if necessary. It simply removes the "Duty to Retreat". Which is to say, you have to attempt to run away first, then you can defend yourself. You can use lethal force when threatened in such a way to justify lethal force.

For a break down of how U.S. Courts handle self defense cases please see the following: http://gunfreezone.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Four-Lies-You-Our-Courts-and-Self-Defense.pdf

The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it.

 LordofHats wrote:
Not only that it's just plain bizarre:

The shooting of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, in Sanford, Florida, was an unremarkable event — similar self-defense related shootings occur regularly. In virtually all of those cases, the local police do their work, local prosecutors review it, charges are filed or declined, and only local communities are aware of or care about it.

What does that even have to do with anything?

The details of the case are far from straight forward and its almost like the author thinks judges are supposed to take turns with their rulings.