Matt Drudge links to a Reuters story with the following "news":
Trayvon Martin's killer showed signs of injury: neighbors
(Reuters) - Neighbors of George Zimmerman say he had bandages on his nose and head the day after he shot dead Trayvon Martin, supporting statements by the neighborhood watch volunteer that he was beaten in a confrontation with the black Florida teenager.
...
Jorge Rodriguez, Zimmerman's next-door neighbor, told Reuters that when he saw Zimmerman the day after the incident, "he had two big, butterfly bandages on the back of his head, and another big bandage...on the bridge of his nose." He was talking to a police detective in his driveway.
Rodriguez's wife Audria also said she saw the bandages and a third neighbor, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, agreed with the Rodriguez couple's account. "I saw two bandages on the back of his head, and his nose was all swollen up," said the witness, who had watched from a nearby second-floor window.
The neighbors spoke to Reuters on Sunday and Monday, saying they felt they owed him their public support after he was charged with second-degree murder.
Well, we welcome their input. On March 30, Fox Tampa Bay had only one witness:
TAMPA - One of George Zimmerman's neighbors is speaking out, saying looks can be deceiving.
...
The neighbor is talking for the first time about what he saw on George Zimmerman's face less than 24-hours after Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin.
"I saw George. He was banged up. His head had two big bandages, that weren't flat, had a bump on them," the neighbor, who did not want to be identified, said.
He described where the injuries were.
"I seen him have a big bandage on his nose and his nose swollen. On the side, where his eyes were at, it was swollen," he said.
At a guess, and from comparing the descriptions (only two bandages, swollen nose) Fox TB had the same anonymous witness that remained anonymous with Reuters.
It's interesting to see Reuters letting a bit of the air out of a story the media helped inflate. They also include this:
Witness accounts have supported Zimmerman's story that there was some kind of fight between him and Martin. Martin was returning with candy from a convenience store to his father's fiancee's home in a gated community when Zimmerman spotted him and called to police to say the teen appeared suspicious.
...
The neighbors said they spoke to Sanford police and the FBI in their investigations but did not recall speaking to the office of special prosecutor Angela Corey, who charged Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
I think Corey was familiar with the evidence when she wrote the arrest affidavit.
There is a guy full of bandages acting funny in the driveway...he looks white.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 16, 2012 at 11:35 PM
I think some new stuff is leaking out or they recognize that is GZ is killed or there is some other mayhem the public will turn on a dime against the media .
More bad news for DoJ and the FBI
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/convicted-defendants-left-uninformed-of-forensic-flaws-found-by-justice-dept/2012/04/16/gIQAWTcgMT_print.html
niters.
Posted by: Clarice | April 16, 2012 at 11:40 PM
Well, wouldn't you try to fight off a white guy who was hunting you down and trying to execute you just because you were a small, cute, black child who liked candy?
Posted by: Jim Ryan | April 16, 2012 at 11:44 PM
KATIE: New evidence coming to light today shows that Trayvon may have tried to fight off his killer in the last moments of his life....
Posted by: Jim Ryan | April 16, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Judge Hirsh in the Wyche case (black brings scissors to fisticuffs, kills unarmed black) pointed out that Wyche need not have sustained any injuries at all to sustain his defense.
Oh, how I tearn for some commentary from the bubumeister on that one! Where is our teenage friend? His learned discourses have become my daily bread, and now he has forsaken us. Aieee...
Nytol.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 16, 2012 at 11:55 PM
You know, if Zimmermann had claimed the POLICE gave him those injuries, Sharpton and Jackson would probably have believed him.
Posted by: xbradtc | April 16, 2012 at 11:56 PM
The OS twit feed, is like a box of chocolates, from Whizzo Chocolates,
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-14/news/os-trayvon-martin-lessons-beth-kassab-41512-20120414_1_chief-bill-lee-alec-answer-questions
Posted by: narciso | April 16, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Were the bandages...
...white?
Posted by: Some guy | April 17, 2012 at 12:04 AM
Pigfraud:
"Natural News is reporting that in Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has conducted armed raids on pig farmers. In two instances, the DNR organized raids including six vehicles and ten armed men. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources intended to shoot all of the farmers' pigs. The actions of the DNR are based on a new order, the "Invasive Species Order", which declares livestock to be an invasive species. The Invasive Species Order (ISO) deems farmers who raise invasive species, such as these pigs, to be felons.
Joseph O'Leary, an attorney representing one of the targeted farmers, questions the constitutionality of this behavior.
"I think this is an unconstitutional order, these actions of the DNR are way out of bounds," O'Leary told NaturalNews "To take what was six months ago an entirely legal activity, and suddenly people are felons over it. They're not growing drugs, running guns or killing anybody, they're raising animals pursuant to USDA regulations and state of Michigan regulations. They haven't done anything wrong here, and the DNR is treating them like they are hardened criminals."
One farmer who knew the DNR would be coming was forced to shoot his own pigs, one by one, including baby piglets. The farmer wanted to avoid being arrested as a felon, and so he destroyed his livelihood with his own hands instead of waiting for the government to do it for him. The DNR then obtained a search warrant (possibly illegally by lying to a judge) and raided his farm anyway to ensure no pigs had survived."
http://m.examiner.com/civil-rights-in-wilmington/natural-news-editor-mike-adams-calls-for-armed-citizens-arrests-michigan
Gonna wipe out the bacon, just because I can, and never let you forget I'm a G-man.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 17, 2012 at 12:08 AM
You bet you thought the Panther's inciting violence were a problem, nothing of the sort;
http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-15/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-justice-departm-20120415_1_federal-workers-racial-tensions-peacekeepers
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 12:08 AM
"Jesse Jackson said Trayvon was shot in the back of the head"
That is the first I heard this. I knew that one media outlet had GZ shot Trayvon in the back twice.
I will celebrate the day GZ walks. I just hope he has the stomach for the long trial possibly ahead of him without taking a plea.
The only way GZ can ever start to piece his life back is if he sticks to his guns and sees this case to the end without taking a plea.
Posted by: Caspar Weinburger | April 17, 2012 at 12:09 AM
"Grandstanding is unbecoming. There's been no shortage of it in this case so far. Angela Corey, the state attorney from Jacksonville who was appointed special prosecutor, teetered on the edge with her press conference this week."
She deserves a raspberry award for that performance. I was waiting for her to break out in song like in the Sound of Music.
Posted by: Caspar Weinburger | April 17, 2012 at 12:12 AM
When did you forget the lesson that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich?
Oh. And, you can't get a law degree because you watch trials on TV.
Meanwhile, if you think a racist card is worth something, where are all the jobs you'd get IF IT WORKED?
We're watching industries die on the vine.
On the other hand, without a race war, Obama is gonna find it hard to bring out the troops "to restore law and order."
Must be some conundrum working for Obama's re-election committee. Where Zimmerman is just not bringing in the crowds. And, no one laughs over there knowing all they have to do is show up to win over Mittens.
Well, they say Obama dithers. When he's not throwing temper tantrums. So pick your mode. Press its button.
Posted by: Carol Herman | April 17, 2012 at 12:20 AM
As I recall, it was a member of Jesse's organization, who spread that rumor, Beth
doesn't bother to wonder why someone would say so inflammatory and untrue,
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 12:24 AM
She also assumes that Sybrina and co, came forward unprompted, and not part of the Crump play.
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 12:38 AM
More earthquakes. Another 6.5 just hit Chile about 70 miles from Santiago,
Posted by: Sara | April 17, 2012 at 12:44 AM
Jane's podcast with Kevin Williamson and Datechguy is up now!
Posted by: caro | April 17, 2012 at 12:58 AM
Ummm, everybody presumes both the soda and candy were bought and paid for.
Has 7-11 confirmed that?
If the candy was shoplifted it might help explain why TM reportedly doubled back to confront the person following him instead of leading them to a place of safety at the fiance's place that would also identify him.
Posted by: jhn1 | April 17, 2012 at 01:14 AM
There was no candy, iced tea, bag, wrapper, or receipt at the scene. The nearest convenience store is just over a mile away from where Martin was staying, the next closest just over two miles.
As one commenter noted the other day, he'd have to have a mighty sweet tooth to walk that far in the rain for that. More likely he was smoking a blunt outside so his Dad wouldn't smell it, since he'd just been suspended for pot.
Or, knowing he was going to be there a few days, he might have been scouting out targets for his other hobby of collecting women's jewelry.
Posted by: Adjoran | April 17, 2012 at 01:33 AM
Someone called the store and they were told that security tapes were turned over to police and they show a young black buying candy and tea.
Posted by: Sara | April 17, 2012 at 01:45 AM
"It's interesting to see Reuters letting a bit of the air out of a story the media helped inflate. They also include this:"
I do believe that is called, "covering ones own ass"
With the likelihood this case is pitifully overreaching, and the possibility he just walks completely in a couple days; well they might feel they have to show an unbiased stance to try and overshadow stuff like this fantastically non-inflammatory, and completely necessary article from March 20th:
Phone call reveals final moments of slain Florida teen: lawyer
(Reuters) - The case of an unarmed black teenager shot dead by a white neighborhood watch captain who police have failed to arrest will go before a grand jury, Florida prosecutors said on Tuesday.
Complete with money-shot quotes from the sleazy lawyer:
"This confirms that Trayvon Martin was killed only because he was a young black man who was profiled by Zimmerman," Crump told Reuters.
"Her call connects the dots to completely destroy what Zimmerman said (to the police) about ‘this kid was up to no good,'" Crump said. "This kid was simply trying to walk home and get out of the rain while he talked to his little friend. And that's all he was doing. He was completely innocent."
"Arrest George Zimmerman for the killing of Trayvon Martin in cold blood today," Crump said. "It's about equal justice."
and the oh-so-necessary photo which relates the reality of the article in that "what does some completely non-related, unimportant, attention-seeker want to scream to the world after predetermining their personal feelings based off zero actual facts?" kind of way
One can read it here if they enjoy pain and frustration:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/us-usa-florida-shooting-idUSBRE82I17520120321
Posted by: BlahBlahBlah | April 17, 2012 at 01:45 AM
Whatever happens to George Zimmerman, he can take solace in knowing he prevented that punk from getting his first kill. And who knows how many others?
Down with Trayvonchism!
Posted by: Papa Whskey | April 17, 2012 at 02:45 AM
Glasater, Manny T, George M...
Dennis Kucinich wants your input on if he should move to Washington State and became your elected Representative in Congress. Might be worth your while to respond to Kucinich's online poll.
Posted by: daddy | April 17, 2012 at 03:22 AM
reuters finds out GZ had bandages on but no one in the local media can.
Posted by: tommy mc donnell | April 17, 2012 at 04:12 AM
You say Malivinas,
Obama sez Maldives,
One is the Falklands,
the others almost Ceylonese,
"Corpseman," "Oree-on,"
Austrian words for cretin?
Oh lets call the whole thing off....
"Cinco de Cuatro" and
playing nice to Castro,
a "Shovel Ready" pantload and
Intercontinental Railroad,
57 States stuff,
David Brooks adores his pant cuff,
Oh lets call the whole thing off...
Posted by: daddy | April 17, 2012 at 04:42 AM
EMS didn't see fit to bandaging Zimmerman's life-threatening non-existent wounds?
If the back of your head is literally opened and in need of bandaging to stop the profuse bleeding-eh-the day after your injury occured-wouldn't you need a head XRAY to find out if had a concussion?
No?Didn't think so because the apparent wounds were so minor that-if they were there at all- Zimmerman didn't need any kind of follow up treatment.
Sounds like papa Zimm told Georgie to bandage the heck out of himself and make it look realer when the follow up questions came.
Posted by: DublinDave | April 17, 2012 at 05:16 AM
I'm all for relentlessly scraping the bottom of Zimmerman's defence barrel trying to find any shite that'll cast doubt on the prosecutions case,but come on guys...it's getting sad and little delusional when butterfly bandages are the smoking gun.
Hell, there's even guy here arguing that by killing Trayvon George Z was pre-emptively saving a life because as we now know due to empiracal evidence ALL BLACK MEN KILL WHITE PEOPLE.
Jesus Christ.
Posted by: DublinDave | April 17, 2012 at 05:26 AM
Link to the guy Dudu.
Posted by: Jane | April 17, 2012 at 05:57 AM
Hi Jane,
Just finished listening to the podcast Caro linked of you with Da Tech Guy.
You did great, and was especially interesting to hear you and Kevin Williamson of NRO after hour 1. Very sharp the both of you, with each of you beautifully complementary of each others points and views etc. That was great to hear, tho' the Tech guy IMHO is a tad verbose and grating. For those unable to hear the whole thing I'd recommending starting just after 1 hour in.
In other news, here's a Ted Stevens update that might effect you.
Corrupt Prosecutor William M. Welch II, who headed the Stevens case is leaving the Justice Dept. and moving to Boston to join a Law Firm near you.
Interesting to see so many comments in the ADN angry at this Welch guy for not suffering any further investigation or prosecution for his role in the Ted Stevens case. I'm glad to see folks up here are still riled and unsatisfied about that.
Posted by: daddy | April 17, 2012 at 06:14 AM
Martin family lawyer: Video "icing on the cake" - CBS News - March 29
That ABC tape made a swarm of it's own.
Reuters, going from "icing on the cake" to "flies on the cake."
Wait 'til some of the many photos taken by police become public.
Reuters is inadvertently recounting the media's mendacity.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 06:18 AM
-- It's interesting to see Reuters letting a bit of the air out of a story the media helped inflate. --
The media fabricated the story by manipulating evidence, the same way NBC manipulated evidence to convert Zimmerman into a virulent racist.
IIRC, ABC ran with a logo inset or similar to obscure the head shot, and there is evidence that the publicized "grainy video" was edited by removing any part that hinted at a head injury.
More defamation bait.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 06:30 AM
And if he were trying to fake injury to establish his defense, plastering himself bandages is an obvious move. It's like people wearing neck braces to fake whiplash.
It looks like Zimmerman got himself a good lawyer, and I'm sure if there is real evidence of injury -- photographs, x rays of his nose, a doctor's report -- that will come out at trial, and then we'll know if he was really injured. Until then, news stories like this don't prove anything, and it's kind of stupid to latch onto them to continue to flog your "Zimmerman must be innocent because I want to believe he is innocent" theory.
Posted by: Barbara O'Brien | April 17, 2012 at 06:30 AM
Db
Posted by: Sara | April 17, 2012 at 06:31 AM
Having exhausted the story value from one side, it's time to harvest it from the other. When the riots come, that's the big ROI. But it'll be followed up with the lecture phase (from the press) telling us all to get along.
Posted by: egoist | April 17, 2012 at 06:33 AM
Dub:
You have no idea if GZ had an X-ray or not, it has been known for weeks that GZ got medical treatment early the following morning, most likely after leaving the police interrogation. Why do you keep making things up?
Posted by: Sara | April 17, 2012 at 06:35 AM
The lecture phase is ongoing. It pops up when the media wants to distract that its not telling the truth.
CNN can't get simple facts right, it reports, this morning, "Prosecutors did not object when Zimmerman's attorneys asked Recksiedler to seal records last week." Ummm, Recksiedler is not the judge that reviewed the information and supporting evidence; and took O'Mara's oral request to seal the records because they showed witness names.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 06:36 AM
The Arrest of George Zimmerman: Justice or Politics?
Ha- Ha
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 06:53 AM
-- Until then, news stories like this don't prove anything ... --
They are evidence of the media's power to mislead the public. I'd say that power is being proved very well. By withholding information, narrative surrounding facts, and fabricating and fictionalizing facts, the media is able to get the public to believe any falsehood that it (the media) chooses to plant.
Think of the press as politicians with ink.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 06:58 AM
ROTFL - DublinDave wouldn't know if he had a concussion unless there was an x-ray.
Better morons, please.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 07:07 AM
At one time, not so very long ago, politicians could ignore stories that were not widely covered by the NT Times or the alphabet networks. No longer, because these media dinosaurs are now being pushed to cover those things that they would gladly have hidden from the public before most people started getting the news from websites.
Within a few days George Zimmerman morphed from a “white Hispanic” who hunted down a small, angelic black boy who liked candy, called him a racial slur and executed him for walking while black … into a guy who was bloodied and banged up after being punched by Trayvon Martin and shot to defend himself as his head was being pounded into the pavement.
Would this transformation have taken place without the Internet? Not a chance. “The Narrative” was too good. The media had another “Bonfire of the Vanities” and were not about to let go if not for the truth being told by bloggers.
The Bigfoot of them all, the NY Times reacts by going silent on the news pages and letting its columnists carry on the narrative, pandering to the racists on the Left. But the narrative has such hold on the mass media that even Fox News gives Trayvon Martin a new first name: “unarmed” as in Unarmed Trayvon Martin. Every time.
Posted by: Moneyrunner | April 17, 2012 at 07:21 AM
"Within a few days George Zimmerman morphed from a “white Hispanic” who hunted down a small, angelic black boy who liked candy, called him a racial slur and executed him for walking while black … into a guy who was bloodied and banged up after being punched by Trayvon Martin and shot to defend himself as his head was being pounded into the pavement."
And we may yet learn that both of those scenarios are bullshit. Anyone who assumes he knows the whole truth based on what's come out in the papers is a fool.
Posted by: Barbara O'Brien | April 17, 2012 at 07:53 AM
so the neo-nazis patrolling Sanford were really with DoJ?
Posted by: Minimalist Poster | April 17, 2012 at 07:54 AM
While the world clamors for George Zimmermans blood, a small group of JOMmers search for facts and truth... only to be lectured by Barbara O'Brien!
"Zimmerman must be innocent because I want to believe he is innocent"
How about, "Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?"
Posted by: iqvoice | April 17, 2012 at 08:03 AM
Uh-oh. Barbara O'Brien of the infamous Mahablog is on the case to correct us all. "Extremely pro-Obama, O’Brein is also one of the left-identifying women who thinks she speaks for the vast majority of women, except of course for the 514 she thinks stay at home to take care of the kids. She lives in NYC, so I do understand why she’s fallen victim to the noise machine. It’s all she can hear." http://crayfisher.wordpress.com/2012/04/16/the-fine-art-of-trolling-for-women/ I am always amused when lefties go after other lefties.
Posted by: Bob | April 17, 2012 at 08:23 AM
You have to wonder if the libs don't feel just a tiny little bit embarrassed over their drive-by media rolling up the old windows after spraying their hail of bullets and now innocently whistling belated facts as they tool on down the road until the next hit.
Just kidding. They love it.
Posted by: Extraneus | April 17, 2012 at 08:23 AM
Barbara and wee Davey Boy,
All three neighbors mention not only bandages but a swollen nose and face and one of them mentions that the injuries on the back of his head were severe enough to show as bumps under the bandages from a distance.
It's not impossible there is some evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story but the further this thing goes the less and less likely that seems.
We're getting pretty close to 'gee those OJ gloves don't fit do they so he couldn't possibly have done it' territory.
The same imbeciles who still maintain OJ was an attempted frame job will be telling us 15 years from now Zimmerman is murderer even when (or if) he's exonerated.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 17, 2012 at 08:39 AM
Daddy,
Thanks - it was a new experience for me and I liked it. I had a lot more I wanted to ask Kevin about but no time.
Posted by: Jane (where is Jon Corzine?) | April 17, 2012 at 08:43 AM
WElch should be disbarred. I'd love to know what firm he is going to.
Posted by: Jane (where is Jon Corzine?) | April 17, 2012 at 08:51 AM
-- It's not impossible there is some evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story but the further this thing goes the less and less likely that seems. --
So far, the side that had been wildly contradictory of itself, and internally inconsistent, is Team Martin.
Add to that, radical misstatement of law coming from the left, too. Add to that, agitating a lynch mob.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 09:12 AM
Gosh, do you suppose KK sent in reinforcements after she consistently beclowned herself? Or are we just a magnet for crazy NY women.
Posted by: Clarice | April 17, 2012 at 09:16 AM
The initial police report recounts that medical techs at the scene treated Zimmerman for a bloody nose and bleeding at the back of his head. Either the cover-up began right then and there when a cop decided to risk his career and a felony conviction by filing a false report, or Zimmerman had a bloody nose and was bleeding from the back of his head.
Take your pick, and declare which scenario you select. Let's screen out the zanies right here and now.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 17, 2012 at 09:34 AM
I just want to give a shout out to the newest addition to the White Patriarchy; The Hispanics!
Hola Amigos/Amigas.
Bien venudo to OUR world. No more pity parties held by the Democrat Party Elite for Illegal Immigration.
You're evil White folks now.
So join us in wishing Al Sharpton, Eric Holder, and those fun loving folks at the New Black Panthers;
Besame mi culo, pendejos!
Posted by: jakee308 | April 17, 2012 at 09:34 AM
Well obviously Clarice it is because New York women know more than the rest of us.
For instance, this story today from the Alaska Dispatch tells us that opponents of a mining project in Alaska have just paid for a full page ad in The New York Times opposing the Pebble Mine Project.
Thus, just like Congress, they know all the stuff the rest of us in flyover land and Alaska don't know, because they read it in the Times.
Posted by: daddy | April 17, 2012 at 09:37 AM
"When did you forget the lesson that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich?"
Never, you blithering idiot. That lesson means that grand jurors are putty in a prosecutor's hands, because he can pick and choose what evidence he shows them in order to convince them they shoul indict.
In this case there was no grand jury and no indictment.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 17, 2012 at 09:37 AM
Minus 14 at Raz today.
Trails Romney by 1.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 17, 2012 at 09:39 AM
I don't believe there is any more substantial evidence in this case other than what has already been reported.
At trial, they're going to end up with a huge gap where the jury will have to dedcide what happened:
911 call ends with Zimmerman not following Martin and worrying that Martin could be close enough to overhear his address from his phone conversation.
GAP
Eyewitness sees Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him, while Zimmerman is screaming for help.
Based on the available evidence, there's only one logical way to fill in that gap.
Posted by: William Demot | April 17, 2012 at 09:39 AM
Evidence of Zimmerman's injuries was available from the very start in the police reports.
The activists, the media and the Martin family lawyers disregarded the police reports, claiming that the police were racist and helped Zimmerman cover up the crime.
It's very easy to invent whatever scenario you want if your starting point is the supposition that all police officers are rabid racists.
Posted by: William Demot | April 17, 2012 at 09:44 AM
Right now, it seems the substance of the case for the prosecution was that Zimmerman followed Martin cause he was on a crime fighting jihad, and Martin was killed after a fight that Martin might have started.
Lesson -- following a potential suspect who attacks you and gets shot will get you charged with Second Degree Murder in Florida. So don't carry a gun if you are a member of community watch, despite what the laws in Florida might say.
As TM, our gracious host might say, troubling.
Posted by: Appalled | April 17, 2012 at 09:44 AM
"They are evidence of the media's power to mislead the public."
Yet you believe the current Reuters story without question. Please.
One should always assume that a news story could be wrong, and even a lot of news stories could be wrong. But that's not what you're doing. You're cherry picking out the news stories you want to believe and calling the rest of them "misleading."
Why is this story coming out now and not before? Have you considered the possibility that it's because the neighbor wouldn't speak earlier? Or is lying his ass off now, because he likes George Zimmerman and wants to help him?
Posted by: Barbara O'Brien | April 17, 2012 at 09:46 AM
-- Based on the available evidence, there's only one logical way to fill in that gap. --
If that's so, then there is no need for a trial. Trials are used to determine which, between conflicting evidence, is correct.
Team Martin has been arguing its case by creating conflicting conjecture. We don't have trials just because somebody can think of a competing story line.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 09:50 AM
They lied about the tape, the timeline, they
reedited the police station tape, they obscured Zimmerman's ethnicity, his record
of activism in the community. it raises a whole lot of questions
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 09:54 AM
Given that Obama has murdered the economy, shouldn't the media start referring to him as a white african american or a white negro.
Posted by: Robert | April 17, 2012 at 09:54 AM
"How about, 'Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?'"
I agree with that. That's why it was so important to get this case into a court of law, which is what a lot of us have been pushing for. That wouldn't have happened if a lot of people hadn't raised a screaming fit to make it happen.
And now that the criminal justice system has taken the case, let it go. It's extremely stupid to continue to make assumptions about what the trial is going to find, or which news stories are "true" and which ones are "false." Y'all want to accuse me of bias, but I'm the one saying to wait to see what the trial reveals and stop assuming that you already know exactly what happened.
Posted by: Barbara O'Brien | April 17, 2012 at 09:55 AM
No. We look at all the news stories and compare them, and reference the original documents (such as police reports) to find the threads of consistency. Why should we not consider your view on this as anti-cherry-picking, disregarding evidence that you find inconvenient?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy | April 17, 2012 at 09:56 AM
You say Malivinas,
Obama sez Maldives
=========
Awesome!!!!
Posted by: Campesino | April 17, 2012 at 09:58 AM
--Why is this story coming out now and not before?--
Did you read the whole post, zany Babs?
One of the witnesses was on public record on March 30th and all three said they have spoken to the FBI and the Sanford police. We have multiple witnesses including one who saw the fight and police reports and a video all corroborating Zimmerman.
Very few things can be stated with absolute certainty but this one's getting closer.
The "other" reports to the extent they were anything other than innuendo and speculation are misleading and have either been retracted or would require a vast conspiracy on behalf of a small unknown man by a great many people who have no reason to do so.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 17, 2012 at 09:59 AM
The neighbor did speak earlier and upthread there's a story some paper printed about it. It's just that Reuters ignored that evidence until now when the entire case has fallen apart and the media's running for a way to cover it's culo.
Posted by: Clarice | April 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM
The minute the prosecutor claims that Martin punched Zimmerman, she loses the case. No crime was committed until someone punched someone else.
You can't criminalize what Zimmerman did leading up to the confrontation. Even if he looked at Martin, followed Martin and talked to Martin. That was not criminal. If the prosecutor tries to make it criminal, it would criminalize the daily behavior of Florida citizens. You couldn't walk down a crowded street, because that would involve following people.
Posted by: William Demot | April 17, 2012 at 10:02 AM
-- Yet you believe the current Reuters story without question. --
Not "without question." I find the account credible because it is corroborated by other sources of evidence.
-- One should always assume that a news story could be wrong --
It depends on what is said. Toss out the editorializing and consider the underlying source.
-- Why is this story coming out now and not before? --
Good question. The information has been available from the start. It was the press that created "Hey! Zimmerman shows no sign of injury!" story.
And apply your "late stories are a sign of a lying or biased witness" lens, why didn't DeeDee's story come out until three weeks after the incident?
-- You're cherry picking out the news stories you want to believe and calling the rest of them "misleading." --
That accusation is incendiary, and it is false. I'm looking at conflicting accounts, weighing their credibility, and reaching a conclusion through the use of reason. I didn't have a dog in this fight before that.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 10:03 AM
Barbara takes stories like this, at face value,
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/16/cnn-poll-gender-gap-and-likeability-keep-obama-over-romney/
And she hasn't been clued in that 'Rathergate'
was a scam;
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 10:03 AM
"O’Brein is also one of the left-identifying women who thinks she speaks for the vast majority of women, except of course for the 514 she thinks stay at home to take care of the kids."
I was a stay-at-home,suburban mom for five years. I was a working mom for more years. I've been a married working mom and a divorced working mom. I have walked the walk, in other words. Can any of the rest of you say the same thing?
Posted by: Barbara O'Brien | April 17, 2012 at 10:04 AM
-- The minute the prosecutor claims that Martin punched Zimmerman, she loses the case. No crime was committed until someone punched someone else. --
Yep. If the evidence supports Zimmerman's account, and so far it does, then you have to find that Martin was committing aggravated assault - a felony under Florida law.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM
"That wouldn't have happened if a lot of people hadn't raised a screaming fit to make it happen."
Nice assumption coming from someone who insists we not make assumptions.
The special prosecutor made it very clear that her office took over an ongoing investigation from the Sanford Police Dept. They did not reopen a closed case.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM
-- And now that the criminal justice system has taken the case, let it go. --
You are going to be bitching if a judge reviews the evidence and throws Corey's case out - even though that is a function that the criminal justice system is empowered to do, and the outcome that is directed by the law.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM
--Yep. If the evidence supports Zimmerman's account, and so far it does, then you have to find that Martin was committing aggravated assault - a felony under Florida law.
This is the reason for Corey's decision to side-step the whole issue in the affadavit with the awkward phrase "a struggle ensued". If she doesn't use that passive voice in the affadavit, then she can't bring charges. Which is very telling in terms of what she plans for the trial.
Posted by: William Demot | April 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Have you considered the press wouldn't print it because it didn't fit the narrative?
Posted by: Abadan | April 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM
I fail to understand how the ABC "he's not hurt" video report ever got green lighted. For this report to hold any water requires that every single police officer in the station who may have seen Zimmerman to be part of a massive conspiracy and cover up, complete with a willingness to falsify records and perjure themselves just to protect a "white" (Hispanic) stranger who shot an unknown black kid. Who ever could have possibly thought this scenario plausible in any way at all?
Posted by: submandave | April 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM
--The special prosecutor made it very clear that her office took over an ongoing investigation from the Sanford Police Dept. They did not reopen a closed case.--
This is true, but the original investigators found that Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Would Zimmerman's lawyers be able to introduce this at trial? ie say that the state initially found Z innocent and it was only after the media circus that he was charged. Also, could they call the original investigators to testify?
Posted by: William Demot | April 17, 2012 at 10:15 AM
-- If she doesn't use that passive voice in the affadavit, then she can't bring charges. --
Technically, that's not true. One can dream up any number of scenarios (using conjecture) where the use of deadly force becomes no longer justified, even if Martin is found to have coldcocked Zimmerman.
Corey's problem is that she is not denying Zimmerman's account of being coldcocked; and the forensic evidence supports Zimmerman's account.
Corey's case is based on a fictionalized version of law, and conjecture of fact.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM
--Can any of the rest of you say the same thing?--
No Barbara. None of the women here have ever been any kind of a mom except for the Ann Romney illegitimate kind with $250 million. None have worked or been divorced. None have lived in the suburbs. And none of the men have been married to stay at home or working moms either.
Life is just one big bowl of privileged cherries for everyone except Barabara and those who agree with her.
Posted by: Ignatz | April 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM
The same press that hides that the 'war on women,' is run out of SDK Knickerbocker, for
Fluke and Wasserman Schultz, and against Palin, all under one roof.
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM
-- Would Zimmerman's lawyers be able to introduce this at trial? ie say that the state initially found Z innocent and it was only after the media circus that he was charged. Also, could they call the original investigators to testify? --
To your last question, yes. Zimmerman can call any of the investigators. I remarked a few days ago that this is a weird case, because the police investigators stand in opposition to the prosecutor.
The investigators can't opine as to the ultimate conclusion, but they can be required to answer why they did not arrest Zimmerman and advocate he be charged.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 10:20 AM
They altered the tape, because it fit the template,
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 10:22 AM
Barbara,
Which of those walks did you like the most, and the least?
Posted by: Jane (where is Jon Corzine?) | April 17, 2012 at 10:24 AM
THe idea was to poison the jury pool from the start,
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM
"Lesson -- following a potential suspect who attacks you and gets shot will get you charged with Second Degree Murder in Florida. "
Thus far, all we have learned for certain is that you will be charged if your attacker is black and you are not. For other racial permutations the lesson is incomplete.
"So don't carry a gun if you are a member of community watch."
He wasn't on community watch when he left his house to go to the store, lawfully carrying his handgun. He was enroute to the store when he happened to spot a person he viewed as suspicious, with some good reason. Had he not been armed, he might have suffered very serious bodily harm.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 17, 2012 at 10:27 AM
"This is true, but the original investigators found that Zimmerman acted in self-defense"
That reminds me. Since Big Z's gun was never returned to him, I would restate that and say the original investigators did not find enough to hold him that night, but left the door open to charge him later.
As far as assumptions go I have to say the cops were correct on their assumption that Big Z was not a flight risk.
Posted by: Threadkiller | April 17, 2012 at 10:29 AM
As it turns that poll is an outlier,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/us/general_election_romney_vs_obama-1171.html
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 10:31 AM
They weighted it 53/41 in favor of Obama, and
Shazaam, that's what they got,
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM
"...they can be required to answer why they did not arrest Zimmerman and advocate he be charged..."
That will be interesting. If the prosecution objected (irrelevant; calls for expert opinion and speculation on the ultimate issue), if I were the judge I wouldn't let the witness answer.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | April 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM
-- That will be interesting. If the prosecution objected (irrelevant; calls for expert opinion and speculation on the ultimate issue), if I were the judge I wouldn't let the witness answer. --
The ultimate issue is whether or not the investigator had probable case. The answer to that lies in their actions - no arrest. In other words, they have already rendered their opinion on the ultimate issue. The question is simply asking them to recount the observations that contributed to that conclusion.
The prosecution has a new witness, DeeDee, that was unavailable to the on-scene investigator; and the statement of Trayvon's mom that Trayvon was yelling for help. That testimony is Corey's hook to reverse the already-rendered opinion of SPD investigators.
As defense counsel, I'd further argue that the investigator's opinion doesn't render an opinion on the ultimate issue before the court. I am not asking for the investigator's opinion or conclusion -if- he had DeeDee's account.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM
They may not be able to answer "why" directly, but I believe the defense can go theu their entire investigation and what they determined from each part of it and then ask if they had decided to charge GZ after all that. If they say it was the prosecutor's decision they can ask whether he charged GZ on those facts.
Posted by: Clarice | April 17, 2012 at 10:47 AM
-- THe idea was to poison the jury pool from the start --
Damned successful at poisoning the governor and special investigator. Whether or not the threats of street violence and other acts of retribution are adequate to poison the judges is yet to be seen.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM
-- believe the defense can go theu their entire investigation and what they determined from each part of it and then ask if they had decided to charge GZ after all that. --
Change that to ask if they decided to arrest and detain, and there is no need to take the step of getting to a prosecutor. Ask too, what is the threshold they need in order to support arrest and detention (probable cause), and whether or not the evidence that had gave them probable cause.
Posted by: cboldt | April 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM
It's quite apparent that Ms O'Brien has not taken the time and energy to go through all the Zimmerman/Martin JOM threads posted here for weeks prior, before spouting her cringeworthy intellectual profundities. She therefore has drawn no reasonable conclusions from the collective wisdom, knowledge and experience displayed by JOM commenters/posters and has been made to look the fool in comparison.
No one responding on these assorted Z/M threads (aside from the usual trolls and malcontents) has pinned absolute guilt or innocence on any of the parties involved, contrary to O'Brien's accusations. They have, however, carefully deconstructed the obvious lies, misrepresentations, coersions and unprofessional conduct running rampant throughout the entire Zimmerman/Martin affair. Kudos to the truth seekers---raspberries to the know-it-all's...Ms O'Brien's just not as smart as she thinks she is. And she has no idea the caliber of brilliance of those with whom she's tangling on this blog, nor does she seem to understand there are many women who view and post on this blog who have had to deal with far more trying 'life experiences' than what she finds difficult in her own life.
Posted by: OldTimer | April 17, 2012 at 10:53 AM
4-3 Examiner.com:
Taaffe said his home would have been the ninth burglary had it not been for the efforts of George Zimmerman. He said the robbery was documented in a 911 call on Feb. 2, three days before Trayvon was shot and killed. “George, on his nightly rounds watched this burglary in progress, called Sanford PD, waited for them, and helped ensure that nothing bad happened to my house,” Taaffe said.
Taaffe claimed this burglary, as with the previous 8 in the neighborhood, involved young black males. Wouldn't media outlets have petitioned to get this call released in hope of hearing the longed for GZ racial slurs? Is the audio out there, but I missed it?
Posted by: DebinNC | April 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM
... Ms O'Brien's just not as smart as she thinks she is. ..."
Agreed.
Posted by: fdcol63 | April 17, 2012 at 11:01 AM
That's why they torched everyone that vouched for him, DEb;
http://skeweddistribution.com/2012/04/03/the-trayvon-martin-case-why-frank-taaffe-is-as-scary-as-george-zimmerman/
Posted by: narciso | April 17, 2012 at 11:02 AM
Much better than my suggestion, cboldt.
If the jury is too dumb to go from the stated A and B to the unstated C..nothing you can do about it except in closing argument.
Posted by: Clarice | April 17, 2012 at 11:05 AM
Every day when I read about this case, I am gobsmacked by the appalling irony:
A group of Black Democrats is furiously cheering on a White Republican Special Prosecutor to convict a Hispanic Democrat who (apparently) thought he was doing the right thing trying to protect his neighbors - most of whom are also apparently Hispanic and Black Democrats.
If someone wrote a novel based on this story everyone would laugh about how silly it was.
One point I haven't heard anyone make: if Zimmerman was really acting in good faith, part of his motivation was to keep someone from breaking into Mr. Martin's girlfriend's townhouse.
Posted by: Campesino | April 17, 2012 at 11:06 AM