A Facebook Face-Off?

I don’t think there’s a person in the world that doesn’t know a big election has been brewing in the United States. Perhaps there’s a handful who don’t know, but that’s not my point. What we have is a voting population that’s very split on the two presidential candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. Republicans and Democrats alike are extremely adamant about their man to a fault. Obama has the right ideas! No, Romney is best! It’s a real lesson in American civics; a true look into the theoretical and practical aspects of our citizenship. Each side is right, of course, and their constituents are convinced of it. The other side is dead wrong. That’s the problem with people. We tend to only see virtue in our candidate and vice in the other. 

If we look into the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin tragedy, it seems as if civilized society is divided the same way, like the parting of the Red Sea, and depending on which side of the fence we’re on, our guy was the victim. The other guy started it. As in politics, it’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world; only this one reeks of racism, gun rights and a sense of morality that’s unique to each of us. And as sure as the upcoming election, the truth is not somewhere in the middle. Someone is going to prevail; someone is going to be right, whether it’s the truth or not.

§

I arrived at the courthouse about a half-hour or so early on Friday. As I approached the entrance, an SUV with tinted windows was parked nearby and the media were standing close enough (with microphones and cameras in hand) in hopes that George Zimmerman would emerge. I glanced but continued to walk. Once inside, I passed through security and began the standard ritual of putting my belt back on and putting all my stuff back in the correct pockets. That’s when I looked up and, there, within inches, was George. As he walked by me, we looked into each other’s eyes, but it was for a mere second. As he continued to head toward the elevators, I turned and followed him with my eyes. My, my, I thought, George put on quite a few pounds.

Less than a minute later, I was ready to go up to the fifth floor courtroom. A local TV journalist accompanied me on the ride up. She asked if I had seen him. Yes, I responded, he just walked by me. She said he looked like he gained a hundred pounds! I figured he must be pretty lethargic these days, I told her; not being able to go anywhere for the most part. That, and all the pizza and Chinese takeout he probably eats. We both chuckled briefly, but then the door opened and we were ready for business.

Before you go into the courtroom, you must pass through another security check. Unlike the last hearing, this time we didn’t have to remove our belts and shoes — just what was inside our pockets. Moments later, I entered the double doors and took a seat near the back.

When court came to order, Judge Nelson got right down to business. I don’t want to give you a blow-by-blow account of what transpired during the next hour-and-a-half. After all, most of you watched it on TV, saw it on the news or, marginally, read about it on a Website. Right now, I’m more interested in the ramifications of some of the judge’s decisions. I will say that, from what I and most of you observed, Judge Nelson will be a perfect fit for this case. She’s quite adept and strict enough to keep both sides in check. No nonsense, in other words, but she’s not without a sense of humor, either, which is great for calming nerves and abating tense moments from legal disagreements.

I didn’t get the sense that any of the attorneys were all that familiar with her style. Certainly, with Bernie de la Rionda, I could understand, but Mark O’Mara and Donald West didn’t seem to feel right at home, either. One thing is clear, she will not allow her courtroom to veer off course one bit. When O’Mara and de la Rionda started to whine and snap at each other like yappy little dogs, she told them to heel, and heel they did. She wasn’t gentle, nor was she harsh. She just made it clear enough to let them know what she expects from them. It was exactly what I anticipated at the heat of the moment. She recognized how it could have easily gotten out of control and made an “adjustment.” West, on the other hand… he’s a pitbull, and even when the judge admonished him, he kept going. This guy has a chip on his shoulder and he makes O’Mara look like a saint, with de la Rionda somewhere in between. I am sure George would freak if West were working for the other side. Big Boi Don West.

§

With no fanfare or special order, here’s the way I saw the judge’s orders. She granted the State’s request for George’s medical records, but limited how much the prosecution would get. How much? O’Mara was willing to give them 30 days before the incident and 30 days after. However, he handed the court all documentation that was available to him. Judge Nelson said she would look at the logs and dates and decide what is appropriate based on privilege. Personally, I think the State should get everything, but it’s just my opinion.

I’m not going to bother with the phone call recording that Benjamin Crump turned over to the FBI. After a discussion, that one will be resolved, and most of the nitpicking issues over evidence will be cleared up, too, so I’m not going to write about them unless they become problematic down the road.

What was interesting was the motion filed by West asking for regularly scheduled hearings. In that motion, he also asked for a second judge; a senior judge to oversee docket soundings, but Judge Nelson never entertained the thought. I think, by that time, West knew better than to address it. She had pretty much made it clear at the docket hearing earlier in the week, which she reiterated, that her schedule would remain wide open for them, including weekends and holidays. She will do whatever it takes to move this case forward. 

This leads me to the meat of the hearing — Citing prior case law, the judge granted the defense motion seeking Trayvon’s Facebook and Twitter records. Since Zimmerman is mounting a self-defense claim, he has a right to see evidence that may support any aggressive and/or violent behavior by Trayvon. It will be tough, though, because they’ve got to go through Facebook and Twitter to get those records. Not an easy task.

Here’s where some of you may not agree with me. I think the defense has a right to see it and I will explain why. Just like in this heated election, we have a propensity to take sides. Not only do we take sides, we fervently believe our man is right and the other guy has got to lose. That’s all there is to it. Only it doesn’t work that way in a court of law. No matter how you feel, the way our system works, George is innocent until proven guilty. The law favors him, not Trayvon. Sad, but true. Florida law states:

90.404  Character evidence; when admissible.

(1)  CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.—Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except:

(a)  Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait.

(b)  Character of victim.—

1.  Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or

2.  Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor.

(c)  Character of witness.—Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610.

O’Mara cited Dwyer v. State, 743 So. 2d 46, 48 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 1999):

Generally, evidence of a victim’s character is inadmissible, but a defendant who alleges self-defense can show, through the testimony of another witness, that the alleged victim had a propensity for violence, thereby inferring that the alleged victim was the aggressor. Smith v. State, 606 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992); see also Ehrhardt, Florida Evidence § 404.6 (1999 ed.); Graham, Handbook of Florida Evidence § 404.1 (1987).

A defendant’s prior knowledge of the victim’s reputation for violence is irrelevant, because the evidence is offered to show the conduct of the victim, rather than the defendant’s state of mind. Ehrhardt. Accordingly, evidence of one of the victim’s reputation for violence was not prohibited by Dwyer’s lack of prior knowledge of that victim’s character traits. 

Here’s where I am rather confident, though. Let the defense have at it. When I was 15-years-old, I called out a kid in school. He never showed. There was no fight and nothing was reported. Suppose we did fight. Would that be enough to render me a violent youth? A “gangsta” in today’s world? Would Mr. O’Mara use that against me? You bet he would. But the point is, I never got close to a fight again in my life, and that kid I called out has been my best friend ever since. You’d better believe that Mr. de la Rionda would be quick to point that out, too.

O’Mara said that videos exist showing Martin’s involvement in MMA (mixed martial arts) fighting. I say, let him find them. Trayvon’s parents will counter that their son never took MMA lessons. O’Mara will tell the court that Trayvon boasted of beating up other kids. I will tell you right now that male children and young adults readily tell their peers how tough they are, but does that make it true? They will boast about their manhood and brag about prouesses sexuelles, outstanding abilities in bed and incredible lasting power, not to mention a long list of nameless conquests — nameless because they don’t exist. I know, because I heard them all growing up. So did O’Mara, and if he plans to use this sort of thing to trash Trayvon, it would be a real disgrace. It’s braggadocio, and everyone does it. Besides, it doesn’t prove a thing.

O’Mara was also granted power to subpoena the Facebook and Twitter accounts of Trayvon’s girlfriend because he’s convinced her online posts will contest the story she gave police about being so devastated by his death that she couldn’t attend his funeral. Like she got over him in record time. Judge Nelson told de la Rionda that he can contest this part of the ruling in writing if he wishes.

Let me tell you, I have a friend with a 15-year-old daughter and she flits around hourly. Friends come and go on a mere whim. Adults forget the mind of a teenager, when hormones rage. Besides, people mourn in their own way. Put the girl’s mother on the stand and see what she’s got to say. While O’Mara shreds the children, why not look at what the Zimmermans told each other about being rich and famous while he sat in jail. “It’s gonna be a great life!”

Did Trayvon’s death bring her a great life?

I will say this. If Trayvon was such a tough and violent gangsta, how come no one has come forward? So far, I haven’t heard a peep out of anyone he went to school with. I think the defense is going down a dangerous and slippery slope; one that could backfire if handled improperly. You’d better be able to prove what you say, Mr. O’Mara, or your name will be sliding down an ugly and vicious path.

One final thought… I wouldn’t put it past ANY defense attorney to make their client look sickly and weak in court, hoping that the judge takes pity. Just look at the poor, poor boy and what he’s been through. Instead, I hope the judge keeps Trayvon’s memory alive. He’ll never have an opportunity to get fat, and by the time O’Mara gets into his character assassination mode, Trayvon is going to be transformed right before your eyes and ears — from a momma’s boy into a horrible monster. Just remember, monsters aren’t real. George is.

 

Cross posted on the Daily Kos

October 19 Post-Hearing Photos

 Instead of spending my evening writing on the hearing that went on in the courtroom, I’ll publish some of the photographs I took. This will give me time to write my thoughts on the day’s events over the weekend. There were, obviously, some very interesting things that were argued over and decided in the courtroom. Judge Nelson is a fantastic judge. She’s stern, but fair, and she has a sense of humor. More on her later.

Click on photos to enlarge

In the next two photos, Robert Zimmerman, Jr. responds to a question posed by NBC national correspondent Kerry Sanders

Mark O’Mara during post-hearing press conference

WFTV’s legal analyst Bill Sheaffer and Zimmerman defense attorney Donald West

WFTV’s legal analyst Bill Sheaffer and Mark O’Mara

All Photos © David B. Knechel - ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

Nelson Acts Admirably - Sets Trial Date

The new judge in the George Zimmerman murder case, Debra S. Nelson, wasted no time when she set a June 10, 2013 trial date at a routinely scheduled docket sounding this morning. The hearing lasted a whole six minutes.

This ends months of speculation over whether it would follow in the footsteps of the Casey Anthony case, which took nearly three years to end; from her arrest in mid-July of 2008 on a first-degree murder charge to her being found not guilty on July 5, 2011.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, “Zimmerman attorney, Mark O’Mara, was noncommittal about when he’d be fully prepared.”

One of Zimmerman’s defense attorneys, Donald R. West, filed a motion on October 12 asking the new judge to consider assigning a senior judge to assist in the hearings.

MOTION TO SCHEDULE STANDING HEARINGS TO ADDRESS DISCOVERY AND OTHER CASE MANAGEMENT ISSUES OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO REQUEST ASSIGNMENT OF A SENIOR JUDGE TO MANAGE DISCOVERY

The motion cited several discovery problems to date:

Upon reviewing the discovery provided it became apparent that the state had failed to include information it had or should have had, or provided the information in a form that was useless for review by [defense] experts or investigators. The defense made specific oral, then written requests to the state to clarify or to produce this discovery.

It also includes other complaints, such as accusing the state of groveling over expert depositions and witness sketches, among other assorted frustrations and delays. While I can understand the frustrations, I fail to see why the problems couldn’t be handled by one fell sweep. In other words, the judge could issue a stern warning that both sides (to be judicially fair) produce discovery in a timely and organized manner. Why the motion goes beyond that by suggesting the “Appointment of a Senior Judge to Handle Discovery Matters Including Problems that Arise During Depositions” is beyond me.

It’s almost as if the defense is hinting that Judge Nelson might not be qualified to handle the whole case. Why?

Remember, Zimmerman waived his right to a speedy trial and the wheels of justice turn slowly, and at this morning’s hearing, O’Mara flatly stated that he had no idea whether he’d be ready by June 10 or not, so why is there a hurry now, and is the defense sending mixed signals?

This Court has a heavy docket, it may be weeks before the Court can schedule sufficient hearing time to address the many issues that have already arisen and will most certainly arise as the discovery phase of the case continues. In order to promote an orderly progression of the case toward a realistic trial date, promote an economy of resources and avoid delay and disruption of this Court’s docket it is suggested that the Court, at a minimum, schedule regular hearing time to address case issues. But, recognizing the heavy time demands this case will require, this Court is asked to consider requesting assignment of a senior judge to preside over discovery and related matters during the pretrial phase of the case.

Senior judges are retired judges, like O.H. Eaton, who serve on an on-call basis to assist in the absence of a judge, or to help one with a heavy docket. In this situation, Nelson wasn’t even given an opportunity to get her feet wet before this motion was filed. If I had gotten a letter like that, I’d dare say someone was blatantly questioning my competence before I had a chance to prove my worth. As a writer, I’d more than likely lambaste the person, but as a judge, I’d gracefully turn down the request and proceed on schedule. Judges, after all, are more thick-skinned than ordinary people like me.

In the quote from the motion, West wrote, “… promote an economy of resources…” I interpreted those words as meaning that regularly scheduled hearings and/or adding another judge to the case would save the county oodles of money. It really caught my attention, so I called the Chief of Court Services in Tallahassee. Is it cost effective to bring on a senior judge? No, right? Well…

Yes, it is.

Senior judges are paid a flat fee of $350, plus change, per day. That means you utilize a judge for the full 8 hours, if possible, which turns into a much more manageable $43.75 per hour. It would be foolish to have a judge show up for a 15 minute hearing because they would still earn $350.

Judge Nelson has two options. She can outright deny the request or she could take the motion into consideration. If she chooses the latter, it would set off a dynamic that would involve the administrative judge and the chief judge of the circuit. It would mean a mini-conference of sorts, moving up the circuit ladder directly above her. She wouldn’t be able to assign a new judge on her own, in other words, but she would be part of the decision-making process.

What I didn’t take into consideration with “… promote an economy of resources…” is that each circuit gets an allotment of senior judge days from the state. They are built into the fiscal budget, which runs from July 1 through June 30 of each year. If a circuit needs to go over that allotment, the state understands that courts are not going to make frivolous requests. There are checks and balances and formal mechanisms in place and the court would petition the chief justice for more days, so it’s not as if the taxpayer is going to be on the hook for wasted funds. There is also the option to have a magistrate handle some of the docket, but in most cases, they are limited, too, because of heavy workloads.

Nothing personal, but here’s the way I see it. If anything, this defense is responsible for a majority of the delays because of the motions filed to recuse two judges, including an appeal. This gave the defense time to square things with the state, and if these problems do exist, this is the matter that the defense should request the court address — not whether the judge can handle the docket. George Zimmerman already removed two judges and before the new one had a chance to sit on the bench, he questioned whether she is up to the job or not. Well, she is. At this morning’s hearing, she noted that she will be reassigned to the civil court in January, and that will free up her schedule and give her more time to continue with this case. Remember, Judge Strickland was in civil court when he was handed the Anthony case. There is nothing unusual about retaining cases.

Senior judges, for the most part, fill in when judges fall ill or a vacancy opens up. In the new judge’s case, it is neither. My questions are simple. What kind of message is George Zimmerman trying to send to the court? That he will never be happy no matter who sits on the bench? Or is he still gunning for one judge in particular? Either way, he’s out of options. Damn the torpedoes, Judge Nelson, full speed ahead. You are at the helm and George is downstream searching for a paddle.

 Cross posted on Daily Kos

NBC: Liable for Libel?

The very first thing that struck me as exceptionally odd in this George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin fiasco came almost immediately after the news broke that he had shot a teenage boy dead. It had nothing to do with whether he or the victim were black, white, brown, yellow or red. It had nothing to do with color at all. It was simply the fact that he got out of his vehicle with a loaded gun. He knew as soon as he slammed the door shut that he was entering a very dangerous territory; one that immediately compromised his own common sense and sanity. Given what I know today, I feel the same way.

Forget the recording with the dispatcher for a moment. Initially, I paid little attention to it. Whether Trayvon attacked him first or not was not that important to me because, as far as I was concerned, Zimmerman knew exactly what he was capable of doing with that gun when he steadied himself and sidled into the unknown. No one walks with a gun without understanding the possible consequences, and that Kel-Tec PF9 pistol empowered him. It enabled him to play police officer, judge, jury and executioner with all of the bravado of Paul Kersey, and that’s precisely what he did. Paul Kersey was the character played by Charles Bronson in the Death Wish movie franchise. Take away the weapon and George Zimmerman would never have moved stealthily into the darkness, confronting a fictional fear that was as frightful as the shadow he cast on that dreary Sunday night. There was no real danger lurking about; it was created by his need and strong passion to become some kind of legendary hero that haunted his soul for years. He had to prove to himself and others just who he was. To that end, he succeeded, but at a huge loss.

Trayvon Martin was a nobody in the sense that none of us are, but you cannot put a price tag on life. He was a typical teenager who would have spent his teen years in obscurity, like most other boys and girls his age — listening to the songs from Mac Miller’s Blue Slide Park and kickin’ to the rhythmic beats of Akon. His world was different from ours as adults and unless we are in step with the minds of today’s youth, we just don’t get it. Right on and out of sight were as out of sync to him as lunchin’ and tizzle are to us. Certainly, when Zimmerman was lunchin’ that night, Trayvon was in a tizzle. (See: Hip Hop Slang.)

Because of what George Zimmerman did on the night of February 26, Trayvon is classified as either a martyr or a gangsta, when all that really matters is that he should have been left the hell alone. Because of Zimmerman, this child will never walk in his father’s footsteps. He will never become what he aspired to be, whether his mind was made up or not. After all, he was still quite young. He was at an age when aspirations are supposed to run wild. Sadly, he was snuffed out by a thief in the night, whose only screams were for power and glory.

§

My thoughts on this matter have nothing to do with NBC or any other media organization. I think on my own two feet, thank you, and if racism ever crossed my mind because the victim was African-American and the perpetrator was not, I never jumped to that conclusion. Most certainly, had I, it would NOT have been because of something that appeared on the Today show. I’ve learned, like most people, that you cannot trust any one news source. Where the Wall Street Journal runs on the conservative side, for instance, the New York Times is at the opposite end of the spectrum; and since the advent of reporting on newsworthy events, from thousands of years ago, opinions have been an integral part. It’s the nature of the beast. Who remembers the tears flowing from Walter Cronkite’s eyes as he announced the death of JFK on live television? Who could possibly be neutral on the day the Twin Towers fell? As objective as media are supposed to be, they are not, and the only advice I can proffer is to consider all options; listen to every side, considering that all sources are multi-faceted and not always reliable. Remember when WFTV reported that George and Cindy Anthony inked a book deal with Simon and Schuster? Did you ever read that book? Was the story ever rescinded?

This leads me to whether or not NBC should be held accountable for a story that skewed the events of the night of February 26. Quietly, I will tell you that skews and news are pretty much interchangeable these days, but in this case, the report that originated at an NBC affiliate station in Miami, WTVJ, before it aired on the Today show, ran perpendicular to the actual event, where Zimmerman purportedly said:

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.”

The New York Post reported a slightly different version on the NBC coverage:

“This guy looks like he’s up to no good or on drugs or something. He’s got his hand in his waistband. And he’s a black male.”

The actual transcript of the conversation between Zimmerman and the Seminole County emergency dispatcher clarified the error. Zimmerman did not say it like it was reported:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

I will agree that the televised segment made George Zimmerman look like a racist because it appeared that he pointed out Trayvon’s color without being prompted, and that’s simply not true. However, does it rise to the level that warrants a lawsuit and monetary settlement? 

I’m not here to defend Zimmerman, but I’m not going to condemn him, either; certainly not on this one. Why? Because I have experience in this field and I can genuinely empathize with him. NBC clearly did him an injustice. The network does, however, have more going for it than meets the press, so to speak. For one thing, did George Zimmerman have a “good” name at the time of the report? While the incident happened over three weeks prior, the news of the event actually broke over a week before the NBC story aired. By then, Zimmerman’s name was already festering, and rumors of racism had already abounded.

§

Many of you are aware of what happened to me during the Casey Anthony case — that I was attacked ferociously and voraciously by a fringe element that labeled me as gay, with AIDS, an alcoholic with DUI convictions, and a convicted felon. Convicted of what felonies, I do not know, but the list didn’t end there, nor did it end with me. My friends and family were insulted and accused of crimes, as well. Names and addresses were published. Online documents, such as tax records, were altered. My parents were supposedly card carrying gay communists with AIDS. Several of my e-mail accounts were hacked. I saw counterfeit documents with my own eyes, so I completely understand why Trayvon’s family shut down his social sites.

I went to the police with what I thought was hardcore evidence on my computer. Granted, it’s not easy to identify creeps that call themselves “DEAD DAVE” and other anonymous names, but they can be found. That’s what computer crimes units are for. While it went nowhere, I also contacted a defamation attorney who helped me tremendously. Ultimately, between the two resources, I gathered comprehensive knowledge of what constitutes libel and what can legally be done about it.

First of all, here’s a quick primer. If it is written, it’s libel. If it is spoken, it’s slander. Both are considered defamation. In NBC’s case, it could be all of the above because it was seen, read, and heard. The problem is, it’s tough to prove and the laws in the United States make it a very difficult nut to crack.

In my case, there was a genuine malicious design. The objective of those people was to destroy me, physically and emotionally. They wanted me dead and said so. That’s what trolls do. In NBC’s case, there was no such intent. Was there bias? Yes. Or maybe no. It depends on which side of the fence you’re on. The media are supposed to remain truthful, but we know that, in today’s world, it’s far from reality; where even reality shows are well-choreographed. While Zimmerman’s supporters will tell you NBC’s report was so slanted against him it was sickening, Trayvon’s people will tell you the complete opposite. NBC will tell you it was a matter of time constraints — editing a story to fit in a defined time slot.

While my trolls wanted me dead, I had no direct threats. No one said they were going to kill me and without any real menace, veiled or otherwise, law enforcement was powerless to act. That’s when I decided to contact a defamation attorney. While I had no money to mount any sort of lawsuit, the attorney did tell me he would freely advise me if I found a local attorney to take on my case. I never did pursue that venue, but he continued to help. One of the key aspects of proving libel deals with search engine standings. A lot hinges on how search terms stack up in the hierarchy, and engines differ in their results. If you do a search for “marinade dave”, how long do you have to scroll before something nefarious shows up? The higher the defamation in the pecking order, the more of a case you may have. Still, in my situation, I couldn’t go after any one person or even a group because no such entity existed. There was no structured organization; no corporation and no headquarters. In Zimmerman’s case, there’s NBC.

So what does Zimmerman have stacked in his favor? Not much, really. When the news broke, he automatically became a public figure. Actually, it began the moment he squeezed the trigger, whether he knew it or not, and just because it wasn’t reported right away, which it was, locally, he was no longer a private citizen. While I was merely a bit player in the Casey Anthony case, he became the star attraction; the center ring in a vast media circus. While media outlets could have looked at me as a culprit in my situation, they chose not to. In Zimmerman’s case, he is either guilty or he’s not, and there’s no in between. I think we’ve already established that the media is not always fair and impartial, and to be frank, there’s no law that forces them to be.

According to The Florida Bar, the “mere fact that a person does not like the way an article portrays him does not entitle him to damages. Rather, a defamatory communication, in its classic definition, is one that tends to hold a person up to hatred, contempt, or ridicule or causes him to be shunned or avoided by others.”

If people are shunning Zimmerman, could it be because of his own doing, not NBC’s?

In Florida law, there’s also the element of substantial proof: 

While “truth is a defense” to a claim of defamation, Florida common law has taken that notion slightly further by permitting publishers of allegedly false statements to show those statements are “substantially true” or that portions that are untrue are so insignificant that a typical reader neither would realize the difference nor draw a different conclusion about the plaintiff if the false statements had not been included. In determining, then, whether an article is libelous, Florida courts review the article as if the allegedly false statements had been omitted. If the article purged of the error would not affect the mind of the reader differently, the article is not libelous. This test allows a defendant to demonstrate the general truth of the report, even though some portions may contain inaccuracies.

If we remove the NBC report from what we know to date, would it change our minds about George Zimmerman? Did the report motivate anyone (or enough people) to turn against him by altering their opinion (at that time) regarding whether or not he was a racist, and what kind of adverse effect  could it have on his future? Who or what is more to blame, NBC or George himself?

It’s very difficult to prove libel. It’s very expensive, too. Who or what is prompting the defense (or George) to file a suit? Robert, Jr.? Where will the money come from? Because this would be a civil matter, how would his criminal defense attorneys fit into the equation? Zimmerman would be up against a huge corporation, so, unless he is hoping for a quick out of court settlement, what kind of risk is he willing to take considering his odds of winning or losing?

I understand that this situation is far removed from what I went through, but in the case of media, there are issues concerning time constraints that would work in their favor. I question how difficult it would be to prove that the network set out to destroy George Zimmerman’s reputation. One other thing to take into consideration is the competitive nature of an industry where advertising revenue is based on ratings. Scoops are what count. Yes, news outlets should strive for the truth, but tell me honestly, aren’t shocking stories what we really want ? Aren’t they called headlines?

I have one more question that I’d like to address, and this one goes to George Zimmerman’s most ardent supporters. It deals with the goose and the gander. If NBC should be held responsible for destroying his “good” name, who should be held accountable for the horrible smear campaign against Trayvon Martin? What Website(s) wrote: “TRAYVON MARTIN WAS A DRUG DEALER” and “A YEAR OF DRUG USE CULMINATES IN PREDICTABLE VIOLENCE…” with nothing to legally substantiate the claims? Do they fit the description of defamation?

Incidentally, George Zimmerman was on drugs, and that’s the truth. You can’t sue me. Whether he took them that day is something else, but why not try Googling “trayvon martin was a drug dealer” and see what you get on the first page? Hmm… Could that be a lawsuit just waiting to happen?

Cross posted on the Daily Kos

Family Response To Motion for School Records and Social Media and Why Trayvon's Facebook Page and Twitter was taken down after his Death

From Benjamin Crump, attorney for Trayvon Martin’s parents:

“Trayvon’s parents maintain that his school records and Facebook page are completely irrelevant to George Zimmerman’s decision to get out of his car to profile, pursue, and shoot their son in the heart on February 26, 2012.  How does George Zimmerman’s review of Trayvon Martin’s high school and middle school records and Facebook page bear any relevance to Zimmerman’s decision to pull the trigger and kill a seventeen year old child?  Is this going to be a new legal standard we are setting- for a murderer to review the school records and Facebook page of his teenage victim to determine whether or not he should have killed him?

 

“After Trayvon’s death, there was a small group of hateful and racist people, who attempted to destroy his legacy, reputation, and image.  These people hacked this dead youth’s social media accounts, his email account, and stooped as low as to plaster the internet with photoshopped and fake images purporting to be Trayvon. On the advice of counsel, and with the intent to preserve Trayvon’s public reputation, Trayvon Martin’s parents deactivated all of his electronic accounts.”

Lucy

I lost my little girl tonight. She had a great life, though. I think she was 19.

Suburban Drive - Four Years After

Suburban Drive is not far from Orlando International Airport, so as I left the Gun Rights Policy Conference early Saturday evening, heading for home, I decided to take a peek at where Caylee Anthony’s remains were found. What does it look like today? It’s been over four years since that steamy night in mid-June of 2008, when her tiny body and personal effects were thrown into those woods like a bag of trash.

What I expected to find was something akin to what it looked like back then, dumped beneath a tree in kudzu infested woods, a mere 19’ 8” from the curb. From all of my trips to the site, I never sensed the spirit of Caylee, but I was aware of all sorts of vermin, like snakes, that call the place home. I never wanted to go near it at night because of what may be lurking about.

What I saw Saturday was pretty much what I expected. Soon after law enforcement, anthropologists and forensic teams moved in on December 11, the day she was found by Orange County water utility meter reader Roy Kronk, the place was rendered as bald as the top of my head, as if an exfoliant like Agent Orange had been sprayed throughout. I knew the place would take a number of years to spring back to life and I didn’t expect it to ever look quite like it did that fateful day, before investigators began their work. Mother Nature has taken back what is hers, and for six short months, Mother Nature was more of a mother than Caylee ever had.

To anyone who questions whether she was purposely killed, I will tell you what I heard from prosecutor Jeff Ashton on more than one occasion — you don’t make an accident look like a murder.

You don’t throw a precious little girl into dark and murky woods, either; dead or alive. 

Caylee Marie Anthony. Born 8/9/05. Found at 8905 Suburban Drive.

—

To the right of the cross is a tree wrapped in kudzu (Photo 4.) At its base was where Caylee’s skull and personal effects were found, along with other bones. The rest of her skeletal remains were scattered over a half-mile area.

Click photos to enlarge

Mark O'Mara's Speech at the Gun Rights Convention

I think I’ll pretty much just let this speak for itself. Bear in mind that  the video does go in and out of focus, so you may get aggravated occasionally. Maybe not. The sound is intact, and that’s the main thing.

I have two more speeches that were introductions to this one, by attorneys Eric Friday and Jon Gutmacher, but they are giving me some problems. I know this is the one you want to see the most, though. However, I do feel it’s important to bring you the other ones, and when (and if) I can fix them, I’ll present them here and on YouTube.

I hope this video generates great discourse. I must say that, while sitting in the room with him, he does give a good speech. At least, I think so, but you can see for yourself…

Also posted at the Daily Kos

Shooting Pix at a Gun Conference

If I am going to continue writing about the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, I need to learn as much as possible about guns and carrying concealed weapons. Last night, I went to the Hyatt Regency Orlando, Florida, Airport to register for the 27th Annual Gun Rights Policy Conference that runs through Sunday. Today, Mark O’Mara will be one of the guest speakers.

I must say I had some very interesting conversations and met quite a few people, which I will report on in a future article. One was with an attorney who went through — and is still going through — a SYG nightmare with a 22-year-old client. I will dedicate an article exclusively to this case.

Meanwhile, please take a look at a few of the pictures I took last night at the conference. Today, there will be many more, I’m sure.

The first one is looking toward the hotel from inside the airport terminal.

Where I've been

I need to answer some comments, but I’ve just been busy working on different things lately and I’m sorry.

One of those things deals with this blog. It’s built on the Squarespace 5 platform. There is now a version 6 and it’s a totally different beast. I’ve been experimenting with it. I’ve tried playing around with different templates and I can’t seem to duplicate this design, which I do like.

Take a look at it. I can match up all of the text colors, so that’s not a problem other than taking a lot of time. Speaking of which, I am paying for that one while maintaining this one. That’s why I’ve been pressing myself there. Getting nowhere, basically. I will, but please hang in with me. I’m headstrong and once I put my mind to something, I keep at it. 

Pay particular attention to the comments. Although I haven’t adjusted the colors, look what happens when you hover your cursor over the name of the commenter. Three little circles appear on the right side. The far right one is to directly respond to that particular person, which will improve comments tremendously. 

Anyway, the link is HERE. Please refrain from commenting there because it’s not an active blog yet; not in the sense that I want it to be. If I can’t match this one, I’ll scrap that one. If only I could bring the commenting format over here…

Thanks for being patient and concerned. 

Cindy Anthony's Mother Passes

  From the Orlando Sentinel:

Shirley Marie Plesea

PLESEA, SHIRLEY MARIE, 85 of Mt. Dora, passed away Thursday September 6, 2012, after enduring metastatic breast cancer. Born Shirley Marie Giddings, a native of Warren, OH, she and her surviving husband of 66 years, Alexander retired to Florida in 1989. She leaves behind three sons, Daniel of Fort Meyers, Gary of Port St. Lucie, Rick of Murfreesboro, TN; a daughter Cynthia Anthony of Orlando; five grandchildren; and her sister Mary Lou Lillicotch of VA. She is preceded by her mother Velma Lucille Giddings; her brother Robert Giddings; her sister Anne Markle; and her great granddaughter Caylee Marie. Shirley was a devoted wife, loving mother and grandmother, a cherished sister and friend. She will be sadly missed. In lieu of flowers, the family is requesting a donation be made in her memory to Susan G. Koman for the Cure. Donations can be made online or mailed to:

Susan G. Koman

Attention Donor Services

PO Box 650309

Dallas TX 752650309

To everyone who followed the Casey Anthony case, we all had a soft spot in our hearts for Shirley. At this time, I would like to extend my condolences to her entire family. Take comfort in knowing that she is holding on to Caylee Marie.

Holstering a Lie

 

Frantically, White-Hispanic Man fought for his life, screaming, kicking and shimmying, as the mighty monster, Big Black Gangsta Boy, grabbed the gun from its holster, nestled along the right backside of our legendary hero, George ZZZIMMERMAN. Tossing and turning they went, as Trayvon Martin, gripping George’s head with both hands, smashed it over and over and over against the sidewalk pavement, in what must have been at least one-hundred times. CRACK! CRACK! CRACK! People on-scene heard the muted sounds of breaking eggs. Trayvon was better than the best Ninja fighter, everyone later described, as he took his third and fourth hands and covered George’s nose and mouth. Good thing he was still able to blow those desperate cries for help out his rear end. Better yet that, as Trayvon held onto George’s arms with his fifth and sixth hands while grappling for the deadly gun with his seventh, super-duper ZZZimmerman was able to break his arms free from the gangsta’s vice-like grasp and pry the gun away in the nick of time, single-handedly taking precise aim and firing it directly into our enemy’s rapidly beating heart. POP!

Yes, God was on our mighty hero’s side that night because, Trayvon, who stood 5-feet taller and 300 lbs. heavier than the demure, yet pudgy George, ended up losing the war after knocking the man 40-feet south with one single blow. KAPOW! Through the air ZZZimmerman went, in the opposite direction, too, as the young teenage Trayvon, with one giant leap, landed viciously on top of his stunned target, like a lion lands on its prey.

HA! HA! HA! PFFFT…

That’s the way some people like to describe the way it happened, but in reality, it didn’t. As a matter of fact, I believe the gun’s recoil hit George in the face, not Trayvon’s fist, but speaking of blows…

In a huge blow to the defense, forensic tests made public today show that Trayvon’s DNA WAS NOT found on George’s gun. The only DNA that could be identified was George’s. That means Trayvon NEVER touched the gun. PERIOD. Or you can buy into the Zimmerman spin on it, I’m sure, and excuse it this way: Just because it’s not on the gun means nothing. George’s super-clean DNA wiped off dirty Trayvon’s. George’s is much more powerful. Besides, Trayvon was just “going” for the gun. George stopped him from ever touching it. Our hero! End of story.

Sure.

Just remember that, in a court of law, evidence that’s not evidence is no evidence at all. That means the DNA found on the gun is real evidence. George’s DNA. The DNA that wasn’t, isn’t. Get it? The lack of Trayvon’s DNA on the gun will do nothing to help the defense. It may, however, be argued earnestly on pro-Zimmerman blogs and forums, but that’s it. Call it damage control. My advice is to ignore them. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement tested samples from the gun’s grip. Just George. No one else, and with more tests performed on other parts of the gun and holster, technicians were only able to positively identify that he had control of it. Was George too fast on the draw for Trayvon to try to defend himself?

Does that mean Trayvon never fought for the gun? Does anyone really believe he had a seventh hand? How about a third?

I rest my case.

Links:

Case Part 5: Gorgone FDLE Complete Report

FDLE Reports R

GZ State’s 7th Supplemental Discovery (Redacted)

Cross-Posted at Daily Kos

The Labors of Social Ostracization

IT’S ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE! IT’S ALIVE!

“Osterman’s book and TV spot, although well-intentioned, are ill-timed and done without input and NOT approved by the defense.”

So said a recent @gzlegalcase Tweet from the George Zimmerman Legal Case website in response to the release of Mark & Sondra Osterman’s book, Defending our Friend: the Most Hated Man in America. Mark and his wife are the Zimmermans’ closest friends. Mark considers George his brother. It’s much more than just a mere bromance. From Dr. Phil’s interview:

“George had pure ideals, a nobility of character that I admired. I kind of wanted to be like him,” Mark says. “When I first heard that George had shot someone else, I was extremely shocked. I know that it would have been the absolute last resort.”

I sense a rather strange relationship between Mark O’Mara and his client. I’m certain that the attorney begged his ticket to fame and fortune to refrain from going on The Sean Hannity Show to spill the latest version of his face-to-face with Trayvon Martin. I think Osterman, Zimmerman’s own personal zenmeister, coaxed his li’l grasshopper to take to the airways. Unfortunately, that particular outing did absolutely nothing to enhance his credibility, but I suspect it was God’s plan all along to show the world exactly what made this grasshopper hop. In that regard, Osterman succeeded, and so did God, I guess, because li’l grasshopper ended up winning the hearts of no one. But don’t tell the Ostermans.

That’s why I am inclined to believe that this new book revelation came with George and Shellie’s blessings. Another shot. Any opportunity li’l grasshopper has to expose his name to glaring lights and stardom, he’s all for it. Cha-cha-ching! After all, he took this shooting as his ticket to paradise, as he and his wife alluded to in a taped phone conversation during his initial incarceration at the Seminole County jail, as the money kept rolling in:

“After this is all over, you’re going to be able to just have a great life,” Shellie said.

“We will,” George replied. “I’m excited.”

“Yeah, you should be. You should be excited,” Shellie said. “I wish you were here, of course.”

“I will be,” he said.

“Isn’t it crazy how something like this just makes you put everything in perspective in life?” Shellie said. “It’s amazing how insignificant the things we stress out over are.”

“I agree,” he replied.

Imagine that. They both agreed that the shooting death of Trayvon Martin was so insignificant, it was nothing to “stress out” over. Why, even the second-degree murder charge was nothing but a farce, and this is a complete contradiction of what Osterman told Dr. Phil. Oh, how George cried and cried. What this illustrates to me is that Zimmerman looked up to Osterman as his iconic mentor; the man who would justify his need to be a top cop. While I’m never going to infer that the 28-year-old set out to shoot anyone that night, he had convinced himself that it was a right thing to do given the right circumstances. He was trained. It was pumped into him and he was primed. What better way than to set those circumstances up the right way? His way. This would make him Osterman’s equal. Yes, this was God’s plan; this was his destiny. Osterman would be proud. And in the end, he was.

While I could ostracize the air marshal, I won’t. He has no idea what kind of Frankenstein monster he helped create. He only saw his student’s docile side. Granted, Osterman was once fooled by a con man when he and another Seminole County sheriff’s deputy met Juan Diaz, who convinced them he was a second basemen for the New York Yankees. Sure, the guy took them to strip clubs flashing money, and Osterman ended up losing his job over it in 1998, but that was a long time ago. Certainly, he wouldn’t be deceived again. Would he?

I think so. But still, I won’t hold it against him. Not personally. Even in the 1931 horror movie, we could feel some compassion for Dr. Frankenstein, who didn’t set out to create evil, but in the end, he still came to the beast’s defense and lost whatever innocence was left. While I am convinced Osterman is a fool for believing Zimmerman’s alibis, we all tend to put faith in our friends; some more than others, and there remains that inherent element of naiveté. We want to think people are well-intended. How many professionals — doctors, lawyers, airline pilots and, yes, federal agents — find out their spouses have been cheating on them long, long after the fact? Let’s face it, Zimmerman is a natural born liar. While you may question Osterman on his judgment, I think I’ll be looking at something else that hit me like a brick; something he said on the Dr. Phil show. It may be meaningless, but still…

“When I first heard that George had shot someone else, I was extremely shocked.”

Someone else? Just how many people has George Zimmerman shot? That triggered my alarm. Where was Osterman’s safety when he was shooting his mouth off? Oh, that’s right, he doesn’t use one. Straight from the hip. Just like li’l grasshopper.

TO EACH THEIR OWN

Speaking of the monsters we create, it’s easy to see what can happen when people let things get out of hand. Caution is thrown into the wind and trouble flares. During the entire time I covered the Casey Anthony case, I watched people go from friendly and mild-mannered to as loony as they come, all in the name of justice for a little girl they didn’t even know. Don’t get me wrong, we all seek justice, but people vary on how intent they are to get it and how far they are willing to go to prove it is their way or the highway. Talk about standing your ground. What is often neglected is that it is up to the court system to decide, not the public, as we shockingly found out when the jury came back with their verdicts at the end of Casey’s trial. Interestingly, as adamant as people were throughout that ordeal, how quickly they moved on.

Because I had a popular blog, I was subject to a lot of scrutiny. I think there’s another blogger who is quite aware of that now. Out of the woodwork came bands of miscreants determined to shut me down. I was gay, I had AIDS, I was a convicted felon and so were my parents. I was a plant for the defense out to take down the sitting judge. One woman had her grandchildren chanting “Death to Marinade Dave!” and she proudly told others. Everyone who dared comment on my blog became targets for attack. One was supposed to be thrust into a snow bank and left to die. It was the most disgusting group of people I had ever run into in my life. Ironically, these very people prayed deeply to God that justice would come for Caylee while they hypocritically spewed hatred on people they didn’t know from Adam.

Here we are, at it again. With Zimmerman, there’s the race factor. There’s gun rights. Emotions are running quite high across a much broader spectrum. There’s politics; liberals against conservatives and Democrats against Republicans, not to mention the NRA and Second Amendment rights. There’s a $10,000 bounty on Zimmerman’s head, dead or alive. We are witnessing character assassinations of the “n”th degree, with “n” being the word that most folks should have thrown away with the dirty bath water they washed their mouths out with long ago. Once again, people are getting hurt in so many God-awful ways. Ironically, one blog opens their day with The Lord’s Prayer before their brood goes on a self-righteous rampage on everyone and anyone who stands in their path. Trayvon was a drug addicted thug dealer with a history of violence. Every single word that comes out of the mouth of George Zimmerman is the Gospel truth. Every word. Yet, they really know nothing about him.

This is my opinion. What they talk about over there is their business. While I certainly disagree with their opinions, they have a right to discuss the case the way they want, although I do draw the line on spreading falsehoods and, particularly in this day and age, republishing copyrighted artwork that’s licensed to someone else, especially when it’s pirated from the website they are attacking that actually paid for the work. This is a real war, folks, and people are going to get hurt.

CLICK TO IMAGE TO ENLARGE

There are also blogs that are intent on implicating others in the crime. We saw it with Roy Kronk during the Casey case. The poor guy was run through the ringer because he found Caylee’s body. Even Leonard Padilla claimed Kronk was involved in some sort of intricate daisy chain. Kronk placed the body there, not Casey. How sad that people who do good things are sometimes burned beyond recognition by a false story that’s so fiery to touch, it blinds some to the truth. Sadly, his life will never be the same. Almost a hero, he’s also seen as a villain.

Look at one of the rumors that’s made the rounds of late. Someone was in the vehicle with George Zimmerman the night of the killing. It was Frank Taaffe. No, it was Shellie. No, it was Mark Osterman. Whoever it was, it has become Gospel to those “fact” finders who choose to buy into it. They need no proof because, so it was written, so it must be true. Call it the Lemmings Doctrine.

The problem with this sort of missive is that it can destroy a person. No doubt, Frank Taaffe has his own monsters to fight, and he certainly needs no further encouragement to go off the deep end, so why push him off the edge? Is it fun to belittle a teetering man?

The fact is, George Zimmerman acted alone. All by himself, he pulled the trigger. Why try to include others? In his book, Mark Osterman wrote that Shellie was at her father’s house at the time of the shooting. She immediately called him while he was out walking his dog in his own neighborhood. He was never at the scene prior to the police showing up. Whether you choose to believe him or not is your own prerogative, but I base my opinion not on what he wrote. Instead, I use common sense, just like what generally guided me throughout the Casey Anthony case. I take my guidance through documentation, evidence and the State. Nothing points to anyone else. Not one shred of evidence.

For example, every piece of trash in the woods where Caylee’s body rested was not attributable to her. That old worn out tire did not come off her car. There was no proof the needle in the bottle ever touched her hands. The State of Florida never used it in any of their documents, and that’s where I put my faith. Nowhere in this present case has the State mentioned an accomplice at all, and until they do, the thought of it is not plausible.

In the meantime, we are not put here on this earth to make a mockery of others, are we? Take it from one who knows; one who’s experienced it — it’s not fun being the target of incessant, never ending ridicule, abuse and lies that lead nowhere but down, especially coming from people hiding behind some really strange faith in a god that not only encourages it, but seems to relish in it. That’s not my God, and it’s as much of a mockery of God as Zimmerman telling Sean Hannity that the shooting was God’s will. How ludicrous.

Tree hugger, Tray hugger, what’s the difference if it’s nothing more than a stupid mind game where all that matters is that YOU win? Plow into everyone in your path!

Cross Posted on The Daily Kos

A Portrait of War

There isn’t a day that goes by when the thundering echoes of war escape us. Today, we live in a world rife with radical extremists, defiantly justified to maim and kill in the name of their god. The following story is my hideous wake-up call. It came at a time when wars were fought over more mundane causes - patriotism, democracy, communism, bigotry and territorial rights. This was back when building a bigger and more powerful bomb was all the rage, and nations proudly strutted their massive hardware in a show of strength and unity in order to intimidate their neighbors and enemies. Today, our enemies just strap a bomb to their chest and blow themselves up.

On a distant morning in 1967, one of my classmates was quietly asked to get up from his desk and follow the administrator out of the classroom. I remember that day and wondering why. Did he do something wrong? It didn’t take very long before the school principal announced on the P.A. system that his cousin, Van Dyke Manners, was killed in action in Vietnam. He was one of the first from Hunterdon County, New Jersey to die in the line of duty. I didn’t know him personally, but I remember it well because it was a solemn day. My friend had lost a loved one. Greg did not come back to class that week. To a 14-year-old, those echoes of war were a distant sound that lightly flickered in our young minds. We never thought of death then. We were invincible, but with each passing day, the reverberation grew louder and louder, and reality hit us fast and hard. The Vietnam War was in full boom.

Back then, what was going on in our own back yards seemed more important than anything else, but the Vietnam war was lurking out there. Despite our youthful dreams and aspirations, the war never escaped us. We saw it on our black & white televisions. We heard it on our AM radios. It made headlines in the daily newspapers. Everywhere we went, the specter loomed large and it cut deeply into our subconscious minds.

Early in 1968, a girl who lived up the street from me asked if I would be interested in creating a portrait of her boyfriend. Back in those days, a small town was just that. Windows were left open because air conditioning was a luxury. We weren’t afraid to leave our doors unlocked, and neighbors knew all the gossip. I was known as the left-handed artistic kid. Ask Dave. He knows how to draw.

She was a little older than me, and her boyfriend had enlisted in the Army. She offered to pay me and I accepted. I asked her to round up whatever photographs she could so I had something to work with. I asked her if I could meet him. To an artist, it’s good to know something about a subject that photographs can’t tell you. Because of that request, I got to know Mike Baldwin. At 21, he was a man. At 15, I was not. He was old and mature. I was still a kid. He shaved, I didn’t. With a war going on, I was in no hurry to buy my first razor.

His girlfriend asked me to draw the portrait as big as I could. When I went to the store to buy materials, my old “Be Prepared” Boy Scout lessons taught me to have a back-up plan, so I purchased two poster boards, just in case I messed up. I couldn’t just go to the store back then when I was too young to drive.  Well, I didn’t mess up, so I had a blank sheet and decided to draw another one, identical to the first. Buy one, get one free. I don’t know what compelled me to do it, but I’m glad I did. Maybe I thought if the relationship didn’t work out years later, at least he would have one to share with his family. That must have been the reason. Maybe the death of Van Dyke put apprehension in my heart. You know, one for his mother, just in case.

When I finished the drawings, I made a date to deliver the artwork. My neighbor had invited Mike and his mother to “attend” the presentation. Everyone was very pleased with the job I had done, especially his mother, who was honored to have her son’s portrait captured by a local artist.

Soon afterward, he left for Vietnam. He went because he believed in a cause. He believed in America and freedom. In school, we were taught about the Domino Effect. Red China didn’t exist on any of our maps and globes. It was just a grayed out mass of nonexistent land. Call it Peking ‘duck and cover.’ Back then, the Domino Effect was a theory that if one country falls under the influence of communism, then the surrounding countries would follow. North Vietnam was one of those countries. South Vietnam was not. Today, it is one country, but back then, 58,000 red-blooded Americans gave up their lives. Michael Baldwin was one of them.

44 years ago today, he became a statistic. His body was zipped up in a bag and shipped home. That was the day I awoke to the tragedy of war. It was my first real experience with the horrors of conflict and someone I knew was dead because of it. 

One of the things I learned, and it’s very important, was that Michael Baldwin put his country before his life. We lost so many and what did we gain? I know I gained a whole lot of respect for our fellow citizens who march off to war. He was a man and I was a boy back then, but I still look up to him and I am now 42 years older than he was on the day he died. To this very day, I wonder what would life be like had he lived. Would he have married my neighbor or someone else? Would he be bouncing his grandchildren on his knee today? Would he be happy? Or would he be mourning the loss of his children and grandchildren because of our present day wars? The more war changes, the more it remains the same. Death is still death and the loss of loved ones over religion and politics is still just as senseless as it was when Michael Baldwin died.

Today, he would be 67-years-old, soon to be 68. I will remember him as a true American hero; a very proud young man. As for the identical pictures I drew, they are lost and gone but not forgotten. In my mind, the memory of them will forever remain a haunting portrait of war.

Sgt. Michael Richard Baldwin (7/19/1947 - 9/12/1968) KIA - Binh Long Province, South Vietnam, ambushed while on reconnaissance 5 kilometers Northeast of Loc Ninh, along with:
Ssgt. Phillip Kenneth Baker - Detroit, MI
Pfc. Eugene Russell Boyce - Spartanburg, SC
Sp4. Wayne Daniel Jenkins - Bryson City, NC
Pfc. Kenneth Leroy Martin - Los Angeles, CA
Pfc. Marion Luther Oxner - Leesville, SC
Pfc. Dale Arden Palm - Toledo, OH
Pfc. Kurt Francis Ponath - Cudahy, WI
Sp4. J C Williams Jr. - Muncie, IN
Pfc. William Wittman - Binghamton, NY

September 12, 1968, was a long and sad day for Alpha Company, 1st Battalion, 28th Infantry, 1st Infantry Division.

Pfc. Van Dyke William Manners (11/10/1945 - 2/15/1967) KIA - Kontum Province, South Vietnam

To all our brethren lost in wars, rest in peace. Your deaths will never be in vain.

I first published a different version of this story in 2006. Michael Baldwin’s cousin searched his name on Google and found my blog about a year later. She wrote me and said, “I just found your website and read your article about Mike.  I just wanted to say thank you…  It touched me and helped me remember my cousin very fondly.  He was a good guy and the last of the Baldwin men in our family.  He is remembered fondly by many of my friends who still [live] in Flemington, as well as my family.

“I also wanted to let you know that Aunt Peg didn’t handle Mike’s death very well.  She couldn’t even bring herself to go to the funeral.  I do remember that both she and my Uncle Alvin (Mike’s Dad) did attend the memorial at Ft. Dix after his death.  That was really all she could handle.  She always said she preferred to remember people while they were alive.  I can’t say that I blame her.  I didn’t understand it in 1968, but I get it now.

“Mike left a large impact on me.  The memorial service was really something and I can still remember the 21 gun salute at his funeral in the cemetery in Flemington.”

Mike’s mother passed away in 1993. His sister contacted me right after her cousin got in touch with her. Here is what she told me:

“My cousin called me and told me about your blog.  She had seen Michael’s name in it and read the story.  I read it too and also your reply to her.  I am Mike’s youngest sister.  You made me cry—but it was a good cry.

“My family and I are so pleased that we are not the only one’s who remember Mike.  Looking through your blog and your e-mail to Mary, I found it so interesting that there are so many things we are connected through.

“I go to church at Kirkpatrick Memorial Presbyterian church in Ringoes. Van Dyke’s mother went there before she died a couple of years ago and there is a stained glass window dedicated to him.

“My father worked for the Forans in the foundry they owned in Flemington.  My father was friends with Walt Foran. [My friend Frank’s father.]

“When I read your blog, I could feel that you knew Mike well.  He was a great kid and we loved him.  You talk about my mother—you may not know it but I had a brother who was older than Mike—his name was Alvin—we called him Skip.  He died in a car accident on Sept. 13, 1958.  No, I didn’t confuse the dates, it was one day short of 10 years later that Mike was killed.  It was a blow that my parents never recovered from.

“I am so glad that you wrote about Mike, it makes me feel that we are not the only ones who remember. Thank you again for keeping his memory alive.”

Please see: NJ Vietnam War Memorial - Michael Baldwin

Rick Rescorla

A HERO OF THE FREE WORLD

Originally published in 2006, this is my account of but one man. I plan on posting this every September, on or near the 11th, in honor of Rick and all who perished that day. I will do this until I can do it no more.

Rick Rescorla was born in England. He enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1963 and retired as a colonel in 1990. Rick was a bonafide hero of the Vietnam war. In 1965, at the la Drang Valley battles, Lt. Gen. Hal Moore described him as “the best platoon leader I ever saw.” Rescorla’s men nicknamed him “Hard Core” for his bravery in battle. His heroism was documented and highlighted in the 2002 movie “We Were Soldiers” from the book “We Were Soldiers Once… and Young” co-written by Gen. Moore.

Since 1985, he worked in corporate security, subsequently becoming Vice President of Security for Morgan-Stanley/Dean-Witter, the largest tenant in the World Trade Center. After the 1993 attack, he trained all employees to evacuate the building. He maintained a structured, quarterly drill carried out byall staff to orderly get out. He is the man who predicted 9/11. Please see The Richard C. Rescorla Memorial Foundation.

On that fateful day, he safely evacuated all 2,800 Morgan-Stanley/Dean-Witter employees but himself and a few of his security staff. After doing his job, he returned to rescue others still inside. These were not even his people, yet, they were all his people. He was last seen heading up the stairs of the tenth floor of the collapsing WTC 2. His remains have not been recovered. He left a wife and two children. This man is widely recognized as being solely responsible for saving over 3,000 lives. Is it of any importance that he became an American citizen after Vietnam? He is a citizen of all mankind.

Rick Rescorla is but one hero who perished that fateful day, but what a man he was and what a soul he has that will and should live forever in the hearts and minds of everyone who cherishes freedom. All over the world.

See also: 

Calegion Post 149

Mudville Gazette

September 11 | A Memorial

Please help if you can

The Misconception Of A Stand Your Ground Hearing

Right after Judge Lester was removed from the bench, Mark O’Mara said he would likely schedule a “stand your ground” hearing sometime next year. On August 31, Rene Stutzman of the Orlando Sentinel wrote:

Nelson will now be the judge who must decide whether Zimmerman, who is charged with second-degree murder, is entitled to immunity under Florida’s much-debated “stand your ground” law, which allows anyone with a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury to use deadly force against an attacker.

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara has said he would likely schedule that hearing next year.

“It will take a tremendous amount of judicial courage at this point to throw the case out following an immunity hearing,” said Winter Park criminal-defense attorney David Faulkner. “My guess is that any judge, Judge Nelson or otherwise, is going to let a jury decide this issue for the benefit of the public.”

Of late, there’s been a lot of discussion and, perhaps, some arguments, over the difference between filing a stand your ground motion and a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal. In essence, they are nearly interchangeable; sort of like buying a GM or Chevy vehicle. You can’t have a Chevy without GM, but it doesn’t work the other way around. Without the stand your ground law, there would be no immunity and dismissal motion applicable in this case. In other words, the important thing to remember is that the immunity and dismissal motion is based on Florida’s stand your ground law, F.S. Statute 776.032: Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force, which states:

A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer… As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

Initially, the Sanford Police Department followed the tenets of the stand your ground statute by not placing George Zimmerman under arrest, but that act did not mean he was free from future prosecution. Now arrested and charged, Zimmerman has a right to file the immunity and dismissal motion based on the statute. F.S. 776.012 states:

Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

Right now, we will pay particular attention to 776.012(1) and whether or not Zimmerman was right to believe that firing his gun into Trayvon Martin’s chest was necessary to prevent imminent death. After all, he said he was being pummeled to death by the teen. We will ignore 776.013 because it addresses the unlawful and forceful entering of “a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle…” 776.031 doesn’t apply, either, because it covers the use of force in defense of others.

Before going into F.S. 776.012, it’s important to first mention F.S. 776.041 and the “Use of force by aggressor.”

 Use of force by aggressor.—The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

Here is where some of the confusion may originate over stand your ground and immunity. By most witness accounts, and certainly something the State can clearly establish, the fight did not end where Zimmerman described. Trayvon’s body was found 30-40 feet south of the “T” joining the east/west sidewalk with the north/south one. Witnesses will testify that there was a scuffle with people running and yelling. Who was chasing whom is not relevant at this point because, once able to escape, Zimmerman chose not to. After all, he was the man with the gun. The bottom line is, he cannot prove that Trayvon cold-cocked him there at the “T” intersection. Furthermore, he cannot prove that’s where the fight ended with a bang, as he showed in his reenactment the next day. His best bet is to not bring it up at a dismissal hearing and that means the State will not be able to address it. That’s why, in my opinion, the Defense made an “adjustment” in its strategy, and it’s what led to the confusion over stand your ground and the impending dismissal motion.

At some point, the Defense realized it stood a better chance if it heeded F.S. 776.041. Where the Defense would most likely falter during a Motion for Declaration of Immunity and Dismissal hearing lays in (1) and the first part of (2) in 776.041. Why? In (1), will the Defense be able to factually establish that their client was not the aggressor, who forced himself upon the victim, therefore committing a felony? The shooting at the “T” has been debunked by evidence. The gunshot took place far enough away to establish that Zimmerman’s story is false. If the Defense goes in that direction, so will the State, and Bernie de la Rionda will have every right to do so. And, boy, will he ever!

There’s a big word in (2)… unless, and here’s where it will come into play. Let’s move south. For sure, there was a fight, and since no one can really prove who was on top and who was on the bottom, it’s important for the Defense to lay claim that Zimmerman was on the bottom, being beaten to death. I don’t believe (2)(b) will apply because there’s no testimony by the defendant that he attempted to withdraw. He will most likely assert that his mouth was covered and couldn’t speak, but if he does, the State will counter with the lack of evidence; there was no blood, saliva, or any of Zimmerman’s DNA on the victim’s hands. The Defense will not be able to prove it, any more than it will be able to prove that their client was the one yelling for help. If they try, the State will mention that the screaming stopped immediately after the gunshot while Zimmerman stated that he continued yelling for help as he spread the victim’s lifeless hands away from his torso.

Let’s try (2)(a) instead. Bingo! Here’s Zimmerman’s greatest hope. By claiming, which he has all along, that his life was in danger and that he had exhausted all means to escape, he had no choice but to shoot. OK, fine, but how did he gain access to his gun? The only way to explain it is to show the judge exactly how he did it, and the only person who could do that is George. Without taking the stand, he can’t do that because the video reenactment is too sketchy. If not that, then what’s left?

The medical records.

Yes, let’s just say that Zimmerman did have a fractured nose, meaning broken to some extent. The ARNP who diagnosed him was qualified to do so, and that’s what she wrote in her report:

1. Scalp Lacerations: No sutures needed given well-approximated skin margins. Continue to clean with soap and water dally. We discussed the red flag symptoms that would warrant Imaging given the type of assault he sustained. Given the type of trauma, we discussed that it Is imperative he be seen with his Psychologist for evaluation.

2. Broken Nose~ We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal deviation. The swelling and black eyes are typical of this injury. I recommended that he be evaluated by ENT but he refused.

Review of Systems:

Constitutional Symptoms: Denies fevers and/or chills.

Eyes: Denies loss and blurring of vision, diplopia.

Ear, Nose, Mouth, Throat: Admits nose pain. Denies hearing loss, tinnitus.

Cardiovascular: Denies palpitations, chest pain/pressure.

Respiratory: Denies shortness of breath.

Gastrointestinal: Denies abdominal pain, nausea and/or vomiting.

Integumentary: Admits- (Scalp lacerations).

Neurological: Admits head trauma. Denies tingling, numbness, weakness, headache, dizziness, speech difficulty, gait disturbance, loss of consciousness.

Psychiatric: Admits stress. Denies suicidal thoughts or attempts.

Nothing in that document paints a portrait of a person remotely close to death the day before. Even the Sanford Fire Department EMT report from the night of the incident showed nothing life threatening. Patient Conscious. Breathing normal. No external hemorrhaging. Mucous membrane normal. Extremities normal. Abrasions to his forehead and bleeding/tenderness to his nose. Small laceration to the back of his head. All injuries have minor bleeding. If you combine both reports, it doesn’t help the defense because Zimmerman cannot, in any way, shape or form, establish that he was remotely close to death, and if he tries, he opens a can of worms the State is going to take full advantage of.

§

Back to the matter at hand — the legalities. Enough of the medical. If Zimmerman can factually establish that his use of deadly force occurred under the circumstances outlined in the above statutes, he could walk. Peterson v. State, 983 So. 2d 27, 29 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) showed that F.S. 776.032 established a true immunity and not just a justification for what he did. According to the Jacksonville law firm, Hussein & Webber’s website:

The Court stated that, when immunity under the law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court (at a hearing) must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.  Petersen held that a defendant may raise the question of statutory immunity pre-trial and, when such claim is raised, the trial court must determine whether the defendant has shown by a preponderance of the evidence that immunity attaches. Unlike a motion to dismiss, the trial court may not deny a motion for immunity simply because factual disputes exist.

The main issue in this case will be whether or not Zimmerman will be able to show enough evidence to establish immunity. Once again, I must reiterate what I touched on in The Prince and the Pea: Subjective or Objective Fear in the Petitioner? Was Zimmerman’s fear subjective or objective? Was he correct in fearing for his life or did he just panic? That’s the difference, and there’s a huge distinction between the two and whether or not immunity applies. Of course, there’s one more thing that could only be brought up at trial; did George Zimmerman shoot Trayvon Martin in cold blood? For that reason alone, and for the lack of evidence showing “by a preponderance of the evidence,” Mr. O’Mara had better be preparing his client for trial. I see it no other way.

Cross posted on the Daily Kos

The Adventures of Zimmerman: Lesson #1

This is the first of, what I hope to be, many lessons from the mind of George Zimmerman. Here, he explains why there’s a discrepancy between the time he laid out (differently on more than one occasion) and the actual time it took for the night of February 26 to unfold…

Hopefully, Ol’ Georgie Boy will be open to answering some of your questions in future videos…

A Full Nelson?

On November 6 of this year, Americans who are registered to vote will have the opportunity to elect the next president of the United States. This may or may not include hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens and half the roster of dead people in the city of Chicago, but that has nothing to do with the context of this post.

If President Barack Obama prevails, he will have another four years in the White House. If Mitt Romney wins, he will be sworn in as the 45th president on January 20, 2013 — Inauguration Day. How this election fits in with the topic du jour is quite simple. There will be a smooth transition between the outgoing and incoming members of the executive branch. It’s the same as it’s almost always been since the inception of this great country. Every four or eight years, we witness this peaceful transference of power, and the country never skips a beat.

It’s the same with the George Zimmerman case. In a 2-1 vote, the Fifth District Court of Appeal rendered its decision regarding Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. 

PER CURIAM.

George Zimmerman petitions for issuance of a writ of prohibition. This is the proper mechanism for challenging the denial of a motion to disqualify a trial judge. See, e.g., Lusskin v. State, 717 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). Reviewing the matter de novo, see R.M.C. v. D.C., 77 So. 3d 234, 236 (Fla. 1st DCA 2012), we grant the petition…[.] Accordingly, we direct the trial judge to enter an order of disqualification which requests the chief circuit judge to appoint a successor judge.

PETITION GRANTED.

While some may gloat over the decision to remove Lester from this case, I most certainly do not. I feel that the judge scolded Zimmerman and nothing more. I am convinced that he would have soldiered on, putting that reprimand behind him. He would heve continued to rule judiciously and fairly, but that’s old news now; what’s done is done. There’s no point in arguing over the how and why of it. While we had our discussions and disagreements over the motion to recuse and subsequent writ of prohibition, today, it is nothing more than water under the bridge, and it’s time to move on.

I am convinced that, just like our election process, there will be a very smooth transition from Judge Lester to the person Chief Judge Alan A. Dickey names as his successor. Who will it be…?

First of all, let me explain what I know about the inner workings of a courthouse, having some experience in it. 

At the very beginning of the Casey Anthony case, Ninth Circuit court Chief Judge Belvin Perry, Jr. asked several judges if they’d be willing to take the case. One by one, they said their dockets were too full. Keep in mind that these were judges working the criminal division, not civil. Judges routinely rotate between criminal and civil every two years or so. No one wanted the case. Perry then turned to someone else. He made a wise choice when he asked Judge Stan Strickland to take the case. You are one of my best judges and, most certainly, extremely qualified to handle it. Strickland agreed, despite having recently moved from criminal to civil. It’s important to note that Strickland continued to hear civil cases, too. Judges, like criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors, are not narrow-minded or restricted. Like servers in a restaurant, they can wait on more than one customer at a time. Trust me, to Judge Lester, the Zimmerman case was just a job and nothing more. What happened to him is part of the process.

When the first judge in the Casey Anthony case was asked to step down, he did so without argument. Why he did it is of no relevance in the Zimmerman case. What matters now is, where do we go from here? When Judge Strickland removed himself from the bench, what happened next was somewhat revealing and it will be similar, if not identical, to the type situation that Judge Dickey is faced with today.

[Since this writing, Judge Debra Nelson has been named to replace Judge Lester.]

During the Anthony mess, media pundits were reporting that, generally, chief judges take on highly problematic cases. Judge Belvin Perry certainly did end up doing just that, but in the interim, it was far from as simplistic as the news actually reported. Behind the scenes, Perry was asking his Orange County circuit court judges to take over the case. I will never reveal how I know that, but it came from more than two sources — all at the top. One-by-one, they turned him down. Do you see the caseload I’m sitting on? I’ve got over 3,000 cases on my docket right now, was the common mantra. Ultimately, Perry was left with no choice. It was, after all, a most problematic case and, reluctantly, he decided to take the helm. The rest, they say, is history.

§

In one of his recorded phone calls from jail, Zimmerman discussed what judge he wanted with his wife, Shellie. This was just as Mark O’Mara signed on to defend him, so it was an early conversation. Zimmerman hoped to get retired judge O.H. Eaton. Eaton has a sterling reputation as a fair judge, levelheaded and extremely knowledgeable in law. What Zimmerman knew about him then is a mystery, but even I was aware of it.

He ain’t gonna end up with Judge Eaton. And I’ll tell you why I think that. Eaton is a retired judge. That’s not to say he’s too old. It has nothing to do with that. Retired judges are not salaried. Retired judges are freelancers. They make a lot more $ per hour than sitting judges. This trial is at least a year away. Would the taxpayers of the 18th District, particularly voters in Seminole County, agree to that kind of arrangement? Granted, you couldn’t end up with a better judge, but would he be willing to take on the task if asked? He doesn’t need it. He’s the kind of retired judge who listens to cases to take the burden off other judges, but they are not major cases like this one. If Dickey runs out of judges in Seminole County, better yet that he would discuss this matter with some of his active judges in Brevard County before handing it over to someone outside of his circuit. Technically, Eaton is no longer active.

One of the names being bandied about is Seminole Circuit Judge Debra S. Nelson. She is every bit as qualified as Judge Lester to sit in judgement of Zimmerman. As a matter of fact, she is most deserving because she is also a no-nonsense judge who was appointed to the 18th Judicial Circuit in 1999 by then-governor Jeb Bush.

In 2007, Judge Nelson presided over a rape case. The accused male, then 41, was eventually convicted of dragging a 10-year-old girl into the woods, choking and raping her. It might be interesting to note that the perpetrator, Antonio Rosales, was in the United States illegally. Also, during the trial, he confessed to murdering a woman in Tucson, Arizona.

While his trial was under way, he went berserk in the courtroom:

His defense attorney, Tim Caudill, moved for a mistrial. He claimed that the outburst tainted the jury. Judge Nelson rejected that, and upon sentencing, she did something unusual. Let me preface this first. Because of the girl’s age, in rape convictions, the charge carries a mandatory life sentence. Judge Nelson decided to take it two steps further. She added two additional life sentences, but she never gave a reason why. To this day, the sentence stands. (See also: Orlando-area jury convicts illegal immigrant of 2003 child rape)

What’s most interesting to me is that Judge Nelson has a reputation for setting harsh sentences. In George Zimmerman’s case, he’s facing a mandatory 25-years to life in prison. That’s because of the 10-20-life law enacted by Governor Jeb Bush in 1998. It’s sometimes referred to as “Use a gun and you’re done” law. According to Florida’s 10-20-life statute, anyone who pulls a gun during a crime receives:

• Felon in possession of a gun - mandatory minimum 3 year prison sentence
• Brandishing a gun in the commission of a crime - mandatory minimum 10 year sentence
• Discharging a gun in the commission of a crime - mandatory minimum 20 year sentence
• Injuring or killing another person in the commission of a crime, by discharging a firearm - 25 years to life in state prison

Just ask Marissa Alexander, a young Jacksonville mother who was convicted of three counts of aggravated assault and sentenced to 20-years for firing a warning shot into a wall during an argument with her husband. She lost her Stand Your Ground motion and she had, what appears on the surface, to be more of an excuse for pulling the trigger than Zimmerman will ever be able to conjure up. Incidentally, the prosecutor during that case was none other than Angela Corey. She said that Alexander was angry and reckless the night of the shooting, not fearful of her life. She will bring the same argument into court when Zimmerman files his immunity motion. Was he more angry or afraid? If in fear, was is objective or subjective?

Judge Lester ruled judiciously and so will his successor. Whoever Zimmerman ends up with, that’s it. There will be no more musical benches, and who he gets will not be singing anything in his ears. He may be laughing today, but his silly games are now over.

Just for your information, In 2012, Judge Lester was deemed the best judge in Seminole County (in all categories) by his peers of criminal defense attorneys and prosecutors. So was another judge in Orange County back in the day. Oh well. If Judge Dickey decides to take the case, it’s not going to be any easier than Nelson or anyone else. Judges are not amused by the antics of George Zimmerman. Of course, that’s my opinion, but I am allowed to be judgmental… or let me say, I am allowed to say so. So will the next judge. Zimmerman is plum out of dismissal motions.

Click to enlarge image

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

This article was written prior to the court’s decision regarding Judge Debra Nelson.

The Prince and the Pea: Subjective or Objective Fear in the Petitioner?

In his ORDER SETTING BAIL on July 5, 2012, Judge Kenneth Lester made several stipulations clear about what attorney Mark O’Mara’s client, George Zimmerman, could and could not do. For instance, he would be able to travel anywhere he wants as long as it’s within the boundaries of Seminole County. If he finds it necessary to leave the county, all he has to do is pass it by the court for authorization. It’s a rather plain and simple directive and something a five-year-old should be able to comprehend.

However…

In his MOTION TO MODIFY CONDITIONS OF RELEASE dated August 22, 2012, Mr. Zimmerman, through his attorneys, cited two issues pertaining to matters addressed in the judge’s above order. Call them problematic. The Court, for instance, must realize by now, due to the great amount of national and international publicity, not to mention notoriety and animosity, that Zimmerman “and his entire extended family have had to live in hiding, fearing for their own safety.” Therefore, he should be able to move out of the county, too.

I disagree with Mr. O’Mara’s choice of words. He exaggerates. How? In many ways, but for now, here’s a ‘for instance.’ It’s one thing to complain about the woes that have befallen his client, but his client and only his client was responsible for the big mess he’s in — not his family. Daddy did not hold his hand the night he pulled the trigger. Therefore, why bother bringing up any issue over his family’s fears for their own safety? It’s not that I don’t care, it’s just that there is nothing stopping them from moving out of the area any time they please. There are no restrictions on them whatsoever, and to suggest in that motion, albeit indirectly, that the Court was somehow responsible for this problem is, well, not showing a clear sense of responsibility. There is no way the Court can magically order the public to leave the Zimmerman family alone.

This is George’s unfavorably conducive style; his M.O. These are his edicts, sua sponte, not necessarily those of his attorneys. While his motions are filled with innuendos that tend to absorb what little substance they hold, it’s when he opens his mouth that we see him for what he is.

Full of Zimmermanure.

He not only speaks with a forked tongue, he also twists his tongue when he speaks. A good example of this came during his Hannity interview on FOX News. When asked if he would have done anything any differently, given ample opportunity to think about it now, he said he really hadn’t had the time to think about it, but after thinking about it, he wouldn’t have changed a thing. He regretted nothing and it was God’s plan. He had nothing to feel sorry about. Did that make sense? Wait. It gets worse.

Later in the broadcast, he turned and faced the camera, and in his best “My fellow Americans…” presidential-style address, he apologized to the nation, his wife, and everyone involved in the case, including Trayvon Martin’s parents. In my opinion, it was, at best, sickeningly insincere. Incidentally, a truly biased judge would have called him on the carpet for addressing Trayvon’s parents because, in his order, Judge Lester wrote:

“The Defendant shall not have any contact with the victim’s family, directly or indirectly, except as necessary to conduct pretrial discovery through his attorneys[.]”

Redundancy

My complaint, while being about the Petitioner, also includes his attorney and how he’s handling the case; his motions, in particular. In this very same Motion To Modify Conditions Of Release, O’Mara wrote:

“One of the conditions of release is that Mr. Zimmerman is not to leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this court.”

Right, Mr. Knechel, you already said that. Well, yes I did, but so did the judge and Defense, and just to clarify, this is a two-part motion. The second part addressed traveling outside the county, not moving out. The judge’s order covered it and the defendant acknowledged it, so what was the point of this final statement in Zimmerman’s latest motion?

“The restriction of Mr. Zimmerman not to leave Seminole County has had a deleterious effect on his ability to assist in the preparation of his own defense. Communications have been unnecessarily limited to telephone and occasional visits by counsel. Mr. Zimmerman must be able to travel to meet with his lawyers, and to attend to various other necessary matters to prepare this matter to move forward.”

Hmm… deleterious… injurious to health; pernicious, hurtful, destructive and noxious according to dictionary.com. My, what $5.00 words he uses that won’t impress any sitting judge let alone little old me. While I realize the motion also asked that Zimmerman be allowed to move outside of Seminole County, a request the Court denied, the rest of it is redundant. Here, verbatim, is what the judge wrote in his July 5 order:

“The Defendant shall not leave Seminole County without prior authorization by this Court[.]”

How much clearer can one get? All the defense had to do was ask. Why was it necessary to dedicate the brunt of this motion on something that was already covered a month-and-a-half earlier? And if O’Mara were really fearful of Zimmerman’s safety while residing somewhere in the entire county of Seminole, how much safer should he feel while his client is sitting in his office in downtown Orlando? Talk about deleterious! I’m serious.

Here’s the way I see George Zimmerman. When he doesn’t get what he wants, he whines and cries. He feels boxed in and claustrophobic. He gets restless and can’t sleep at night. His mattress turns lumpy. You see, George is starting to remind me of The Princess and the Pea with one major difference. He cannot get a comfortable night’s sleep until all his demands are met. The pea, in this case, is Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. who must be removed and replaced by a fairy tale friendly judge so Prince George, his friends, his family and his fellow American loyalists will be allowed to live happily ever after.

Fearing Fear Itself

In Nit-Picking Nit-Writ, I addressed the PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION filed by the Zimmerman defense. I pointed out how O’Mara had offered evidence about the shooting on the night of February 26 and why it was not only unnecessary, it was useless. A writ of prohibition, in this case, only pertains to why the trial judge should be recused. It’s not for anything else. What O’Mara did was inflate a very weak document with superfluous fluff, like adding TVP to a package of fatty, grisly hamburger meat, and I don’t feel the appeal court is going to buy any of it. 

I do believe that Assistant Attorney General Pamela Koller offered up a much meatier argument against the Defense appeal. I will elaborate on that a bit and address the finer points of the State’s RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION. In particular, I want to look into the two types of fear that the district court will examine — objective and subjective.

In 2005, I wrote a post about how slants change your views of the news. Titled, An unbiased look at news slants, I last updated it in February of 2010. I think it should give you a foundation on objectivity and subjectivity.

Objective information strives to remain unbiased. Dictionaries and other materials of reference, such as encyclopedias, generally provide factual information. Traffic lights are red, green and yellow. Yellow means caution, green means to go and red means to stop.

Subjective information is formed by personal opinion. Editorial sections in newspapers are subjective. While editorials and letters to the editor can be based on fact, opinions are usually based on personal interpretations of facts. Humans are responsible for global warming. Global warming is caused by natural earth cycles, such as the Ice Age. In these cases, separate and valid viewpoints can be substantiated by citing legitimate sources.

We know that George and Shellie Zimmerman lied to the Court about access to money and a second passport they claimed they didn’t have. The judge acknowledged that in his order revoking bond and Team Zimmerman then proceeded to call it biased, including the judge’s reprimand. (It’s interesting to note that the defendant still managed to post bail despite the Court setting it much higher than what was originally granted.) The fact that bail was granted at all after the second request could be considered a testament to the judge’s fairness. 

The Judge’s Order Setting Bail infuriated the Defendant and his counsel. How dare the Court look at his lies at all, let alone “judge” his actions and lack of respect for the court. To do so was nothing short of biased, they claimed, so they filed their writ of prohibition with the higher court. The bottom line now is how the Fifth District Court of Appeal will look at this motion — as an objective or subjective complaint — and rule accordingly, based on objectivity. Does Zimmerman have a leg to stand on? Is his distress based on a paranoid fear of persecution in general (subjective) or has this judge exhibited (objective) behavior in the past that truly legitimizes his concerns?

Let’s look at this objectively. In its response to the writ, the State wrote:

Petitioner complains about rulings in the past in his background section, but it is well established that “[t]he fact that the judge has made adverse rulings in the past against the defendant, or that the judge has previously heard the evidence, or ‘allegations that the trial judge had formed a fixed opinion of the defendant’s guilt, even where it is alleged that the judge discussed his opinion with others,’ are generally considered legally insufficient reasons to warrant the judge’s disqualification.” Rivera, 717 So. 2d at 481 (quoting Jackson v. State, 599 So. 2d at 107; see also Areizaga v. Spicer, 841 So. 2d 494, 496 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (It is well established that a trial court’s prior adverse rulings are not legally sufficient grounds upon which to base a motion to disqualify).

In other words, this is not merely a complaint about Lester’s language in the bail order, it’s also about his prior rulings in Zimmerman’s pretrial motions. This is something that should be taken up post-conviction, if necessary, not now, and it epitomizes my description of superfluous fluff; not worth the paper it’s printed on. What the defense wants to do is set a silly precedent; that every single defense motion denial is biased. This would then have to include every case that has ever come before a court. Overturn every verdict because motions were denied! All in the name of George! Clearly, this is subjective thinking. “I think,” O’Mara could opine, “every motion that was turned down was done so by judicial bias.”

Of course, it’s every defense attorney’s dream, but most are smart enough to know it’s nothing more than a whimsical flight of fancy. Cheney Mason tried the same thing during the Anthony case and got nowhere.

The State cited Rolle ex rel. Dabrio v. Birken, 984 So. 2d 534, 536 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008):

Likewise, we recently pointed out that a “mere ‘subjective fear’ of bias will not be legally sufficient, rather, the fear must be objectively reasonable.” Arbelaez v. State, 898 So. 2d 25, 41 (Fla. 2005) (quoting Fischer v. Knuck, 497 So. 2d 240, 242 (Fla. 1986)). We do not find Mansfield’s allegations of fear to be objectively reasonable. See also Asay v. State, 769 So. 2d 974 (Fla. 2000). Our cases support the trial court’s denial of the motion to disqualify, and we affirm the trial judge’s order. 

Notwithstanding, Lester had every right to keep Zimmerman behind bars because the State went on to say that:

The judge again set a bond for Petitioner, and Petitioner is currently out on bond. Thus, the grounds listed by Petitioner in his motion are facially insufficient.

… and that the Petitioner is manipulating the system. From Cf. Brown, 561 So. 2d at 257 n. 7:

(“We hasten to add that our holding should not be construed to mean that a judge is subject to disqualification…simply because of making an earlier ruling in the course of a proceeding which had the effect of rejecting the testimony of the moving party. At the very least…there must be a clear implication that the judge will not believe the complaining party’s testimony in the future.”).

While the assistant attorney general cited many examples of why this particular writ of prohibition is without merit, it is, by its very nature, nearly as subjective as the writ itself. Both sides came to their respective conclusions based on their own interpretations of case law. As the appellate court looks at this issue with complete objectivity, it should see that Judge Lester has not been prejudiced against George Zimmerman — and most assuredly, not personally. In my opinion, based on what the Defense and State both submitted, the original motion to disqualify the trial judge in this case was legally insufficient. Judge Lester made the right choice, and so will the appellate judges,  C. Alan Lawson, Jay P. Cohen and Kerry I. Evander.

Poor Prince George is not just afraid of a li’l old pea, he’s also afraid of his shadow. Oh, and don’t even get me started on (d)(1) and (d)(2). That’s a whole “nother” bedtime story.

Cross posted at the Daily Kos

Zimmerman Needs More Than Help

From very early on, something just didn’t seem right about George Zimmerman and his gun. It wasn’t one thing, either. It was a series of things, but one stuck out like a sore thumb. Zimmerman is left-handed, or so he claimed when handed a pen by an investigator with the Sanford police while being questioned in one of the interrogation rooms. Why, being left-handed, did he reenact the shooting using his right hand? Twice! That’s one puzzle I may be able to answer, but at the same time, it opens another one.

There are also questions about his confrontation with Trayvon Martin and how the gun came into play. Why wasn’t Trayvon’s blood on Zimmerman’s clothing? Why was there no gunshot residue on Zimmerman’s firing hand? Who or what inflicted the injury on the upper right side of his nose?

One of the questions I’ll answer is in response to something posed by ecossie possie on the previous post simply titled, The Kel-Tec PF-9. Could it have been a burn from the shell casing? I responded that I seriously doubt it, but that I would check with someone who knows.

I have a very close relative who is a major in the USAF. He did one tour of duty in Djibouti and two in war-torn Iraq. He is an avid gun collector and his personal “arsenal” is second-to-none. No one would ever question his credentials as an authority on weaponry, including pistols. To emphasize that point, he owns a Kel-Tec, but it is a model that’s a few notches up from Zimmerman’s. 

I told him I had never heard of anyone being injured by a shell casing as it ejects out of the chamber. There isn’t enough velocity. He agreed, but before I could ask him if he was aware of anyone being injured, he said he had gotten a nasty burn on his face from one. But it only touches you for a split second, I responded. He said that casings are extremely hot and one only needs to touch you for a split second to burn. So… to ecossie, you are correct, Sir. It can cause a burn, but the odds are very low that it will hit you in the first place.

I asked him if the recoil of the gun or the back movement of the slide when fired could inflict harm, and he said he doubted it. “Only if the gun is very close to the shooter’s face to begin with.” I guess that means it’s possible, but highly improbable. In this case, who knows?

What about blood splatter? Why wasn’t any of Trayvon’s blood on Zimmerman’s clothing? He knew the answer right away. The blood coming out of the wound was quickly absorbed by his clothing. We know that Trayvon was wearing a light grey Nike sweatshirt (ME-8) and a dark grey Fruit of the Loom hooded sweatshirt (ME-12). That’s two barriers that absorbed the blood. 

What about the lack of gunshot residue on the hand that fired the gun? Could this mean that someone else was involved? Of course not. In the case of a revolver, the drum holding the bullets revolves each time the gun is fired. The “silo” that holds each bullet is open on both ends. As the bullet fires, the drum rotates to the next bullet and, like a rocket, emits whatever is left out the back end, causing residue on the hand in the form of spent gunpowder, gunpowder that wasn’t ignited, metal flakes and possible burns. In the case of a 9mm like Zimmerman’s, the slide most likely prevented residue from shooting out the back because there was no escape route. Whatever there was got ejected with the spent shell casing, out and up the right side.

My source is familiar with the type of holster Zimmerman had. If you look at the above photograph, you can see the Velcro. What you cannot see is the Velcro on the other side and the metal clip that holds it to his waistband. The clip slides over the waistband and the holster is worn inside the pants, between the pants and underwear. That’s what keeps it from shifting around and, most of all, conceals the gun from view. The following photograph shows Zimmerman’s holster with the clip attached. It would be way too flimsy to wear on the outside waistband because there’s no strap or any other barrier to hold the gun in place; nothing to keep it from falling out of the holster. I realize he’s left-handed, but there’s a good possibility he’s ambidextrous, meaning, he could shoot the gun with his right hand. With this in mind…

In his on-scene reenactment the following day, Zimmerman demonstrates how he pulled the gun out of his waistband and managed to shoot Trayvon, but his explanation is next to impossible to perform. Study the next picture. It looks plausible, but it’s not. At this point, he has the gun pulled and he’s trying to position it to fire. His left arm represents Trayvon’s. He’s showing the investigators how he pinned Trayvon’s arm under his and was able to contort his arm enough to pull the gun out of its holster. In real life, he would have to have bent his elbow, but in his world, he did not. Somehow, he managed to keep Trayvon’s arm locked tight, pull his gun, move his arm into position and fire directly into his victim’s heart. What incredible aim!

Let’s just assume for a second that Zimmerman played The Amazing Rubber Boy at carnival sideshows around the country and this is the truth. OK, downright impossible, but let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. Wow, maybe he’s a hero after all. Except for one small, but incredibly huge detail. You see, Zimmerman admitted that he wore his holster on his back right hip. The next photo clearly shows where it was as he described it to investigators. It appeared to be above his back right pants pocket.

This is extremely problematic for two reasons.

• He had to partially lift his right backside (that means butt cheek, folks) in order to pull the gun out of its holster. That’s tough to do with someone sitting on you.
• If this is true, as his very own testimony to police demonstrates, there is absolutely no way that Trayvon could have seen that gun if it was holstered, unless he could see through belly fat. This basically proves that Trayvon never spotted the gun to begin with during this ‘so-called’ wrestling match and never went for it, or else it’s the obvious. He did see it because Zimmerman had it drawn all along.

This leads me to one final thought to ponder…

Near the end of his reenactment, Zimmerman tells the investigators that after he shot Trayvon, he continued yelling, “Help me! Help me… I need help,” as he spread the dead boy’s arms out and away from his body. 

By now, we know that Trayvon’s arms were beneath him when authorities arrived. Most importantly, we know from listening to the 911 recordings and from witness’s testimony that once the shot was fired, all screaming ceased immediately. There were no more cries for help. It was Trayvon’s cries we heard.