Through Paranoid Eyes (The Clincher)
Friday, June 29, 2012 at 1:29AM And his own words that are nothing but lies
In the last post, I wrote about the inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s stories about what transpired the night of the shooting. The following 8 photos are video screen shots taken from his reenactment. Below it will be an overhead view of the location, according to George, of where the fight and gunshot took place.
Approximate area where Trayvon stood according to Zimmerman.
The above photos show George’s reenactment positions during the confrontation. I have several problems with that. One, where was Trayvon hiding? The sidewalk paths are open except for the spindly trees — certainly no place to hide. Two, Trayvon was positioned southeast of George, who said he was heading back to his vehicle. In order for this fight to have occurred where George said, it meant he would have had to go to Trayvon. If it was the other way around, the fight would have taken place where George stood, on the sidewalk heading west. The third problem with the scenario George gave was that Trayvon shouted out to him. I’m not a fighter, but common sense tells me that if I am going to surprise someone with a punch, I am not going to say a word beforehand, which would give my opponent a warning first. I’d hit him and then ask him why he was following me.
Do you understand the problem? George would have to have turned toward Trayvon and walked to him. That’s all there is to it. Of course, there’s one more thing that makes absolutely no sense at all, and one of the commenters, CherokeeNative, brought light to it last night, before I had a chance to put this post up. THIS IS THE CLINCHER. To those of you who don’t read the comments, you can see from the next image why there’s a major, major problem with George’s account of the events the night of February 26. Had George been walking back to his truck like he said he was, from east to west, then why was Trayvon’s body found much farther south?
George must have surprised Trayvon, and that means he was never walking back to his truck from checking house numbers, like he said in his reenactment. Nor was he ever asked by the dispatcher to do such a thing.
Dave Knechel | in Angela Corey, Benjamin Crump, Bernie De la Rionda, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Judge Kenneth R. Lester, Jr., Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Mark O'Mara, Neighborhood Watch, Sanford Police Department, Seminole County, Slimm v. Zimm, Stand Your Ground, State Attorney Angela Corey, Trayvon Martin, Zimm v. Slimm, marinadedave | Share Article | 2 References 
LEGAL NOTICE
©David B. Knechel. All Rights Reserved. No portion of this site can be reproduced in it's entirety or in part without expressed written permission by the owner/administrator of this site in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Section 512(c)(3) of the U.S. Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §512(c)(3). The charges against defendants are mere accusations and the subjects are presumed innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
Reader Comments (245)
Dave~~hey, I can see you in this short video clip. I am also trying to find what some legal analysts are saying about the hearing today and see if they are predicting Judge Lester's ruling. Jean Casarez mentioned earlier on CNN Prime that bond is not considered a punishment and she feels he will be bonded at a much higher price.
NBC News’ Kerry Sanders provides an update on the recent developments
I did not see where Omara showed where the state has a weak case at ALL. Did anyone else see a presentation of a weak case?
Porky, I have a question for you. How do you explain that MOM's hired gun didn't know anything about money in a safety deposit box? Did MOM "forget" to mention that little detail?
Porky, I thought the prosecution did an excellent job today of rebutting MOM's attempt to rehabilitate GZ in the eyes of the Court. Judge Lester also didn't appear to be going for MOM's attempts to pull a "reverse Arthur" in presenting evidence or allow "backdoor" testimony from GZ. Judge Lester offered GZ the opportunity to address the issues and he declined. I do not think MOM made his case and I got the feeling that the Judge was expecting more.
EDRN- Yes, I noticed that MOM conveniently did not provide any information pertaining to the funds put into thesafety box - most likely hoping no one would mention it. By doing so, he left his expert out to dry. I wouldl not be a happy expert if I were the accountant. Being sly backfired IMO
Porky - In fact, I found it quite comical that Judge Lester pointed out to MOM that he could see what he was trying to do....by pulling a "reverse Arthur." Judge Lester saw the MOM was trying to conduct an Arthur hearing, which is what MOM should have done at the earlier hearing and failed to do - MOM was attempting to create a better record in order to support a writ should bond be denied. The Judge appropriately told MOM that that was not what the present hearing was about. The issue was GZ's deceit and the explanation for that. In that area, MOM failed completely. Reputation or not, he isn't impressing this judge at all IMO - and he certainly isn't impressing me. LOL
Whomever asked the question about GZ Father ...Yes he apeared in person today an took the stand to give evidence for his son ,He was played the 911 call with the screaming for help an gunshot in the background.He stated that it was absulutely his sons voice screaming/shouting for help.I M O he looks frail an not in good health appeared to walk with akward gait an limp.
Made me laugh when the judge interrupted MOM and told him that they were there in regards to the bond.
GZ's father didn't look like anything I had pictured in my mind. But I got the impression that he would say anything that would help GZ be found not guilty, whether he believed it or not. I can't help but believe that GZ's obvious dislike of LE and disrespect for the judicial system is a direct result of what he has been taught by his father. I noticed that it appears that Daddy Z has been an active side-kick of GZ's throughout this entire fiasco.
Dave - Thanks for the mention in your article - but you didn't have to do that. I am just glad to see we are on the same page. By the way, I am having the same problem that EDRN is having with the "comment box" disappearing after each post. The only way to correct it is to log off and then log back in again - very annoying. Is there any way to fix that? Thanks.
Good that you are having the problem too CN..I thought it was just me. Well, not good for you. It is annoying tho.
Im not impressed with M O M either he more or less confirmed his guilt ie lieing to the court an G Z wifes knowinglly lieing to the court as well or allowing his wife to do so on his behalf..His excuse that his client didnt trust the system isnt mittigatting circumstance either.If he was a lawer working for me he would be sacked.I Bet GZ is fumeing that M O M has all his cash an doing such a woefull job..Judge asked M O M why did his client lie to the court ....Answered by I forgot to tell him not to was comical even in such serious proceedings...
Made me laugh when the judge interrupted MOM and told him that they were there in regards to the bond.
You got it EDRN - I found myself chuckling more than once at Judge Lester's comments to MOM. I found it interesting today that during the hearing BDLR told the Judge that he had interviewed GZ himself about the case and that GZ stated he could not remember who was "on top" during the altercation between he and Trayvon. Of course that is one interview we will most likely never see since it probablly falls under work product, I would still love to hear it.
I would love to see that interview too
Ecossie - I was thinking the same thing...if I was paying this guy $450 an hour, I would sure have expected more than I have seen thus far. Time will tell if his reputation rings true.
ETA - In fact, if Judge Lester does grant bond, I would venture to say that it isn't because of the presentation put on today by MOM, but more that the Judge is compelled to under case law and statute.
Porky - I just read your comment up thread about GZ and Witness #9. I agree with you - there is more than enough evidence to make an inference that GZ has racial attitudes - There is his MySpace "tobekingagain" where he makes racial comments about Mexicans; there is the "TheRealZimmerman" web site that posted a racial slur that had been graffitied on the wall of a black college; and now there is witness #9 - all of which could be allowed into evidence if the prosecution so desires to offer it. Of course, since the prosecution is not prosecuting this case as a hate crime, they may not do that....but it is direct evidence. And we all know what a great impression Frank Taffe made on all of the networks admitting that he and GZ profiled black boys and men when patrolling their little village ---- what'd he say? Something like "if they plant corn...." Ugh.
Snoopy, Wit 9 says she has experienced GZ being racist. What qualifications do you think she needs to repeat what she has seen/heard come out of GZ's mouth? She is not an expert, she is a person who has WITNESSED it. She doesn't need any more quaifications other than she heard it. It is not heresay, it is firsthand knowledge.
As to badmouthing Mexicans....it leads me to believe that he is a racist. And I bet most people would agree with me. If I were badmouthing French Canadians, would you not think of me as a racist?
I await your response.
GZ's mere close association with Taffe also begs the question also. Taffe is clearly a racist and usually when people object to racism, they dot develop close relationships with racists. I think the media frenzy put out by the defense to make him look non racist has made is awkward to cal him what he likely is-- a racial profiler at the very least
EDRN~ ~ahhh since you insist...I think it would be best if you asked that question to a French Canadian.
OK.....I apologize for that if it was incorrect or offensive. Wasn't meant to be. I was just trying to draw a parallel. Any other thoughts?
EDRN
I am telling you Omara is very sharp on one hand but he slips in others. I think Natalie Holloway's explanation explains the fiasco with the "accountant". You see O'Mara planned to ambush the prosecution today ( that's right, the same guy who complained along with others that he was ambushed the last hearing). But De La Romda has been on a murder trial the past 2 weeks. O'mara had planned on these fireworks and never anticipated that De La Ronda would be present. Ooops! But I see signs that he may not be as strong as believed. Don't get me wrong, he is a VERY good attorney, but clearly, that accountant was not given access to ALL of his client records. Kinda shady too.
I get what you were saying about the French Canadian thing. I had pair of very good husband and wife friends who are Canadian. Nice couple and college professors. They used to tell me about the whole French Canadian thing which would astonish me. But I think those conflicts are more between two groups vying about language an nationality turf.
Yea, I was shocked that the accountant guy (who was actaully not an accountant, but a family law attorney) didn't know about the safety deposit box. Wonder why? I know nothing of MOM, never heard of him before this and I am sure he is an adequate attorney, but I expected much more from all the hype I heard.
EDRN~~ no need to apologize as I did not take any offense at your question. I try to be neutral and impartial while participating on blogs when it comes to racial profiling of our fellow contributors. IIRC, Dave mentioned awhile back that he wanted to avoid bringing racial issues into the discussion.
Dave, am I correct or did you mean on that other particular post??
I'm not sure how you can avoid discussing racism in relation to this case. As long as everyone acts like an adult and discusses it rationally, it shouldn't be a problem. But this is Dave's house. I will abide by his rules when I hear it from him.
I hardly see how anyone can avoid all discussion of race when the GZ/Trayvon case has racial undertones, and we are discussing a witness that has been identified by the prosecution. While the prosecution is not prosecuting its state case against GZ as a hate crime, the DOJ can still bring an action at any time before, during or after this trial..or SYG motion... But the fact remains that the state has listed Witness #9 as one of their witnesses and as such, her statements are relevant to the issues of the case.
And, I am not sure my question has so much to do with racism as it does about Wit #9's qualifications to address GZ's mindset. Whatever the mindset.
George's dad made an ass out of himself today. I loved it when De La Ronda asked him how Zimmerman could have been screaming if Travon has his hand over his mouth. Dad, obviously caught off guard tries to deflect and starts saying how the media has said no many different versions. But DeLaRonda is not talking about the media he is walking about ZIMMERMAN's version. I loved the way De La Ronda just walked away like "whatever".
But here is something that got my interest. Why would someone attack another person and cover their mouth? Robbers, rapists for sure but it doesn't make sense here.
Finally I look at those photos that Dave took. GREAT work Dave. 2 things. Those shrubs are very low to the ground and if Travon is 6ft tall, there is no way he can even conceal himself in those small shrubs. This shrubs are 3 feet tall at -best-
And, I am not sure my question has so much to do with racism as it does about Wit #9's qualifications to address GZ's mindset. Whatever the mindset.
ah gotcha EDRN
Totally agree
Dave~~wasn't that gentleman (sry, don't recall his name) that took the stand re the finances not a forensic accountant who specialized in divorce cases? He certainly came across as being very knowledgeable. I believe the cash withdrawals from Shellie's account eventually made their way back into Zimmerman's account.
A forensic accountant deals with figures on paper and does not handle the actual cash so has no need to get a key and open someone's safety deposit box. lol
And if witness 9 testifies as I predict she will, it will surely call into questions George;s views on race,but he has already given us a hint of that with his close association to Taffe,
Trying something to see if I can get my comment box back without going out and coming back in each time I post. Sorry if this posts twice.
That was happening to me for almost a full week EDRN
What fixed it Porky?
But here is something that got my interest. Why would someone attack another person and cover their mouth? Robbers, rapists for sure but it doesn't make sense here.
There is speculation among some that in GZ's attempt to give a realistic rendition of what occurred that night has reversed roles...things that Trayvon did, GZ is saying he did, and things that GZ did, GZ is saying Trayvon did. The whole hands over mouth and nose sounds more like it would be GZ doing this to Trayvon if it happened at all. Personally, I believe the entire scenario is a lie. Based upon the forensics and autopsy, I do not believe that Trayvon did anything more than try to hold GZ down and prevent him from shooting him - he failed unfortunately. This is why Trayvon had none of GZ's DNA on him...he was only holding onto GZ's arms (which were covered by his jacket sleeves) and sitting on him...not bashing his head and all of that stuff GZ has made up. I believe that GZ already had the gun out of his holster, in hand or in pocket, and that is what caused Trayvon to try and hold him down to begin with.
A forensic accountant deals with figures on paper and does not handle the actual cash so has no need to get a key and open someone's safety deposit box. lol
LOL = The forensic accountant was supposed to track the money from the Paypal account to the various accounts and other places that the Z family had disbursed the funds to. Part of that money was placed into safe deposit accounts and MOM conveniently failed to advise the accountant of this fact. That is what is being discussed. MOM's failure to advise the accountant that some of the Paypal funds were transferred to a safe deposit box....no one expected him to have a key and actually go visit the safe deposit box.
EDRN~ ~a good rule of thumb is to type your comments, if lenghty, in notepad or other then copy and paste in here. I log in before submitting my comments even if it shows me as being logged in. Hope this helps.
This may only work if you are registered at this blog.
CN, the Forensic Accountant was actually a Family Law Attorney....Adam somebody...I had his name when he testified...can't remember it now.
That's right - I remember now - Adam Magill, a Family Law Atty - 85% of his work is in Family Law and has testified in numerous cases.
A forensic accountant deals with figures on paper and does not handle the actual cash so has no need to get a key and open someone's safety deposit box. lol
LOL = The forensic accountant was supposed to track the money from the Paypal account to the various accounts and other places that the Z family had disbursed the funds to. Part of that money was placed into safe deposit accounts and MOM conveniently failed to advise the accountant of this fact. That is what is being discussed. MOM's failure to advise the accountant that some of the Paypal funds were transferred to a safe deposit box....no one expected him to have a key and actually go visit the safe deposit box.
As a current student of accounting, I will tell you that cash on hand is an -integral- part of any accounting report. Money in a safe deposit is just as important as say money in a bank account, a bond or even a note. Omission of cash on hand would understate the true value of the accounting entity. Spot on CN
Thank you Porky - and EDRN's point was that MOM did not inform his witness that there had been monies that had been placed into safe deposit boxes....which made the witness appear unprepared, etc. MOM was hoping this would be overlooked so long as all of the monies were accounted for - BDLR gets an atta boy for that catch.
I still find it very interesting that BDLR told the court that he personally interviewed GZ and that GZ couldn't remember whether he or Trayvon was on top during the altercation. Doesn't that strike you as odd? If GZ's memory is that terrible, how can we possibly rely upon him to know what happened that night - not to mention his apparent troubles with being totally candid.
In fact, at the time (before counsel), I would not put it past GZ to have been playing up the "can't remember crap" routine so that he could try to rely upon his ADD or ADHD to compensate for his obvious discrepancies in his statements. What he doesn't realize apparently is that ADD or ADHD does not cause dementia. The prosecution will get an expert witness to point that out to the jury. All I can say is this guy appears to be so used to being able to wiggle himself out of being held accountable for his conduct in the past, he is expecting that he can do it again in this case.
If I am DeLaRonda and Corey. I am making a tape of Omara saying that his client does not trust the system. At closing, I'd say and you are absolutely right. That's why he did not wait for the police ad tried to take Travon down and that's exactly why he lied to the cops that night.
Dave~~it has been established that Zimmerman with the aid of his spouse and sister took it upon themselves to deceive the court by hiding money. Since that has been proven, I think it is immaterial where they stashed said money, be it in a safety deposit box or in an old sock under a mattress. The 'fact' is that Zimmerman and Shellie lied to the court at the first bond hearing. I am sure that Mr Magill analysed every transaction on the bank statements/cancelled cheques etc and reconciled them. That is what I would have done. Therefore any talk about safety deposit boxes is a moot issue. It does not take away or add to the 'fact', the Zimmermans lied. *wink
Dave~~oh my gosh, something just crossed my mind and this is pure speculation. Is it possible that Wit#9 is Zimmerman's ex fiancée and/or owns a pitt bull?
Bonsoir mon ami et merci beaucoup pour aujourd'hui.
It obviously is NOT immaterial to the prosecution where the transferred the funds since it was discussed at length at today's bond hearing. In fact, BDLR made it a point to educate the Court that some of the Paypal monies had been hidden in safe deposit boxes. It is material to the intent of the Defendant to show that not only was he transferring the funds to outside bank accounts, but that he was hiding some funds altogether. It certainly is not "moot" under any circumstance and the fact that MOM conveniently failed to inform his expert witness of that transaction did not look good IMO.
Dave~~it has been established that Zimmerman with the aid of his spouse and sister took it upon themselves to deceive the court by hiding money. Since that has been proven, I think it is immaterial where they stashed said money, be it in a safety deposit box or in an old sock under a mattress.
Let me try this again. The court ( and subsequently the accountant who is reviewing the trail of money) is reviewing the financial position of the Zimmerman's and any attendant funds which they may have access to. As such, any and all cash MUST be accounted for, lest it renders any financial reporting meaningless. Unfortunately, the accountant found this out in open court today.
Very true CN please see my response above. Be mindful also that this accountant likely had to affix his signature to come form of certification that all of the information is true and correct.
Porky - I like this:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not to his own facts. ~ Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Yup!
Dave~~I like this one.
When the fish don't bite, you must try a different kind of bait~~ Snoopysleuth
Fish has to stick to the facts whether it bites or not lol