MISSING - Lauren Spierer
Sierra LaMar

MISSING - Tiffany Sessions

MISSING - Michelle Parker

MISSING - Tracie Ocasio

MISSING - Jennifer Kesse



Contact Me!
This form does not yet contain any fields.
    Life is short. Words linger.





    ORBBIE Winner


    RSS Feeds


    Powered by Squarespace
    « Lester: No Judge to Rush | Main | ZIMMERMAN: I'M SORRY, BUT IT WAS GOD'S PLAN »

    All About You

    Plurality: the Concept of Quantity

    Lately, I’ve been listening to the beats of distant drums. The boom-ba-boom-ba-boom I’m hearing questions whether the state has a case against Shellie Zimmerman. Was the felony perjury charge against her too far reaching that it really holds little to no merit? Or was the state correct in issuing the arrest warrant?

    Some of what I’ve been reading comes down to a relatively simple, yet complex, statement similar to the one that former President Clinton once uttered. “It depends on what the meaning of the words ‘is’ is.” I think we’re familiar with that one — not that this has anything to do directly with what I’m writing about, but keep in mind that the 42nd president was also an attorney and we are talking about law. Besides, Clinton’s statement segues easily and smoothly into linguistics, which is the study of language. This post will come down to the meaning of you. Not you personally, mind you, but the meaning of the word itself. You.

    In college, I was fascinated with the English language. One of my first English course books was Language in Thought and Action by the late S.I. (Samuel Ichiye) Hayakawa, once a premier linguist, psychologist, semanticist, teacher and writer. Back then, he taught me a lot about word usage. There’s a good and bad way to say things, and depending on how you use words, the outcome could be disastrous. An example of this would be in how you might order something in a restaurant. Would you ask for a chopped up dead cow sandwich when all you really want is a hamburger?

    Another one of my favorite writers was (also the late) William Safire; well versed in lexicology, syntax, pragmatics and etymology, he was once the premier etymologist in the country, and for many, many years, I tried my best to read his column, On Language, every week in the Sunday New York Times Magazine. Between those two men and my (very much alive at 93) uncle, David A. Kyle, they are who inspired me to write. Not that I learned anything. Anyway, back to the matter at hand…

    I’m going to ask you a simple question and I want no answer. I just want you to remember it for now and wait until I tidy it up at the end. By then, you should understand. Suppose you are at the mall without your significant other. You run into a friend with or without their spouse. You chat briefly and then are asked, “Would you like to join us for a double-date Friday night?” Keep that in mind.


    We know what perjury is and we know Shellie Zimmerman was charged with it soon after an official courtroom proceeding. We also know why she was charged.

    “… whoever makes a false statement, which he or she does not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding in regard to any material matter, commits a felony of the third degree…” (F.S. 837.02 - Perjury in official proceedings)

    Do we agree that, in a legal sense, the charge will stand? Can we really make any call like that until after the dust settles, when a verdict is read? One of the most important things we need to keep in mind is that, in a courtroom, the battle between opposing sides comes down to the interpretations of laws and many of the statements made by people directly involved in the case and, most importantly, the defendant. That includes words and actions.

    During Ms. Zimmerman’s telephonic testimony regarding finances at her husband’s bond hearing on April 20th, she was first questioned by his defense attorney, Mark O’Mara. Here is part of the exchange between them:

    Q. Other major assets that you have which you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?
    A. None that I know of.
    Q. I have discussed with you the pending motion to have your husband George declared indigent for cost, have I not?
    A. Yes, you have.
    Q. And is — are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?
    A. Uhm, not — not that I’m aware of.
    Q: I understand that you do have other family members present with you, and I’ll ask some more questions of them, but have you had discussions with them of at least trying to pull together some funds to accomplish a bond?
    A: We have discussed that —
    Q: Okay.
    A:— trying to pull together the members of the family to scrape up anything that we possibly can.

    Assistant State Attorney Bernie de la Rionda had an opportunity to cross examine her:

    Q. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?
    A. To my knowledge, that is correct.
    Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?
    A: I’m aware of that website.
    Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —-
    A: Currently, I do not know. 
    Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
    A: I do not.

    I don’t know if you are getting my drift or not by now, but let me say that there could be a possible problem over that final exchange and the word you. You see, there’s a method to my madness and it comes down to how that simple word is conceptualized. In the English language, there is no plural for this particular second-person pronoun. Singular is the same as plural, so it is open to interpretation. It could go either way.

    In the O’Mara exchange, “other major assets that you have…,” if you is taken as plural, it would include her husband, and it would change the entire meaning. De la Rionda was a bit clearer when he worded it, “‘you all’ had no money,” but the final exchange between them is the real quandary. “Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?” Is that singular or plural? You see, the secret jail house code conversations will show that she was aware of money, and lots of it, but did she have an estimate of the amount at the precise time she was questioned by the prosecutor? That could be a sticking point. She, by herself, denied knowing, but if de la Rionda’s usage was intended to be plural, then, legally, they both had an estimate; just like asking you out on a double-date. Singly, you as a word wouldn’t work for the state. As a couple, it would.

    Personally, I think the state has the goods on her — enough to convict, but you never know these days, as we all understand from the last Orlando debacle. Oh well, what will be will be. It is what it is, you know, and I guess, in the end, it may come down to what the meaning of the word “you” is.

    PrintView Printer Friendly Version

    EmailEmail Article to Friend

    Reader Comments (79)

    You got it! By that I mean the singular 'you', Dave. Otherwise, having spent time in FL, I might say 'we-all' if I meant us'n got it... LOL

    [We do? I is, you are? All kidding aside, y'all would almost fit the bill except it's regional and a contraction of you all. Anyway, my point in all this was to show how important it is to carefully craft words in the courtroom because, no matter what, there's going to be someone on the other side willing to argue over it. Thanks, Sandy.]

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterSandy Banks

    De La Rionda asked the right question at the end when she asked Shelley,

    "Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
    A: I do not."

    Shelley clearly answered for herself (darn the singular/plural you, I almost prefer the Jersey "youse" in this situation). Even if he meant the plural "you" it wouldnt have made a difference since both the Z's are on tape discussing the infamous $235. That was quite accurate at the time of the first bond hearing.

    [What we must also factor in is more than just the word you and what it meant in the question. At the specific time she was asked the question, she might not have had an idea about the money obtained or collected because the amounts kept changing with every deposit, withdrawal and account exchange. At any given moment, how would anyone know? Factor in that accounts aren't immediately credited, and it's a tough thing to answer. Where she made a mistake was when she denied knowing anything. He asked for an estimate, and she most certainly could have given him a reasonable response. She was quite aware that the two of them were rolling in the dough. No more ramen noodle dinners for them! Lobster tails and caviar, thanks to their generous and idiotic donors.

    BTW, I'm from Joisey and I've definitely heard my share of youse guys, but it never came out of my rural farmland country mouth.]

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterritanita

    Oopsie, make that $135. While I'm here, I have a bit more to add.

    I thank goodness every day for all those linguistic classes in college and grad school.

    Your article sent me to thinking about the convoluted ways English speakers have to differentiate the singular and plural "you" and it makes my head spin.

    Singular: "You yourself" "You personally" "You and only you" "Did you, Shellie, personally" "Did you, Shelley Zimmerman"

    Plural: " Each and every one of you" "You and your husband" "All of you" "You all" "Both of you"

    If the witness answers questions with a yes/no answer, it then becomes incumbant on the questioner to go back and clarify.

    Fortunately, Shelley answered "I" and clarified for herself. I've noticed this problem in the many trials I've watched lo these many years. How mcuh simpler questioning would be if we had a plural for you.

    I can't put my finger of one estimable language that has singular, duple, and plural words to represent "you" and I'm sure questioning in those trials go much more smoothly.

    I've seen many a smart attorney preface a series of "you" questions with a strong antecedent such as "In the following questions, I'm asking you to only respond your your own personal knowledge" and then let the questions rip.

    [Mostly, ritanita, I did want to get people to think about the English language and how its usage could dramatically change the outcome of a trial, if only for the nuances, subtle and profound.

    I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned the necessity for a strong antecedent. That's what it can come down to in a courtroom sometimes. Thanks.]

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered Commenterritanita

    Fascinating post, Dave! Great comments, ritanita!

    I love language, too, and precision is important to me. But I am not an expert.

    It is striking how much difficulty the single form of "you" causes, and how many various ways have been devised to remove the ambiguity.

    Off topic, but I came across this youtube performance of an incredibly talented 12-year-old, and I thought you might enjoy it, Dave:

    [I have a sound problem on my laptop, Molly, and I can't hear a thing, so I can't listen to your video link until it's fixed. Too bad, because I have tons of music to play.

    I'm glad you found the post to be fascinating. I knew it was a little off the wall when I wrote it, but I think it's very important to emphasize how language plays an important role in court cases. It's just another one of those technicality things that people are fearful of. God forbid the theater gunman gets off on a technicality. That sort of thing.]

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMollyK

    I'm sorry Dave but this is one story that i cannot see receiving all the news coverage that it has. I am a bit surprised that you have taken it on as much as you have. To me it had been a case of one minority taking the life of another..Not to say that that is Ok, but just not all that news worthy. And as far as Shelley lieing in court; we lived through lie after lie by the Anthony's and they walked away rich from it..Nothing was ever done about any of it and this was about a little child.

    Now we have the Penn State mess where lies were told to cover up the abuse of many young boys, Drew Peterson coming up that has also been years of lies and multiple murders, or the shooting in Colorado.

    Guess what I'm saying is we live in a world that so much goes on that we move from the last tragedy to the next...To me Zimmerman is vey low on my totem pole.

    If you chose not to print this it will be ok with me.

    Just my meager opinion.

    [Your opinion is very important, GLENDA, and if this case doesn't interest you, then that is just fine and dandy. I do think you'll readily agree that it's a huge story and what makes it even more interesting for me is that the incident happened only miles away from my house. Just like the Anthony case, it's in my own backyard. I also think it goes well beyond the realm of race. This is a case of a cop wannabe shooting killing an unarmed teenager and what makes it so fascinating is that there will be no he said/he said. Zimmerman was an accident waiting to happen, and because there is so much interest and I live here, I feel obligated to cover the story. I will be adding my own personal stories once in a while, so please do keep checking on me. Thanks.]

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterGLENDA

    Shellie had taken money from George's Pay Pal account, and after whatever machinations she put it through, a portion of it had ended up in her OWN bank deposit box, not a joint box. She did have some of the donated money that she personally had the means to get to and use.That was the whole point of getting it out of both the Pay Pal account and out of their joint account. If his accounts were subsequently searched or seized,the money would not be found.

    Shellie personally lied about money that she personally had control of at that time. That money directly came from George's website donations, Shellie lied - perjury.

    It's also of interest that George and Shellie spent $36,000 hastily. This was after they'd told O'Mara about $37,000 they had raised. Had he asked them (not knowing about any more donations, because they didn't tell him about any more donations) to quickly use that money so he could go ahead with the indigency claim? George is very sly, he could have intuited this without O'Mara actually coming right out and saying it. And it's remarkable how similar these two figures are.

    [I like the way you think, Marilyn. I really do think the state will prevail in its case against Shellie, but I also think it's safe to say her attorney(s) will try every trick in the book to offset the prosecution and confound the court. It's abundantly clear that she knew what was going on with the money, but once again, it could come down to a battle of words and their meanings. Thanks. George is as sly as they come, and as slippery as an eel.]

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMarilyn

    Dave: This is a wonderful, thought provoking post—for which I thank you.

    To me, a false statement will always be a false statement. No matter how it is spinned.

    You said: ”Do we agree that, in a legal sense, the charge will stand? Can we really make any call like that until after the dust settles, when a verdict is read?”

    Well, no. Of course we can’t. We can’t call it—that is up to the authorities. However, hopefully, we can discuss it, even though our opinions may be worthless.

    Now, you continue in the same paragraph with this: ”One of the most important things we need to keep in mind is that, in a courtroom, the battle between opposing sides comes down to the interpretations of laws and many of the statements made by people directly involved in the case and, most importantly, the defendant. That includes words and actions.”

    Sure, but let us ask the esteemed and mostly wonderful President Clinton how well this line of thinking worked for him. (And I’m a fan, btw.) And, okay--(and off topic)--I know this approach worked a little better for the murderess—but, did it make anyone think she was innocent? Did it really increase anyone's respect for the 'law'?

    I hope you know that I’m trying to keep this short and that I realize we shouldn’t discuss politics or race—but the Trayvon Martin case embroils both those issues.

    Here is a quote from the full probable cause affidavit of Ms. Zimmerman:
    Quote from Page 1: Count 1: {snipped} on April 20, 2012, Shellie N. Zimmerman, did knowingly make a false statement, which she did not believe to be true, under oath in an official proceeding, to wit: the Bond Hearing of George Zimmerman, regarding a material matter, contrary to the provisions of Section 837.02(1), Florida Statutes. End Quote

    And a quickie 'refresher' summary from the Miami Herald:
    Quote: De la Rionda said jailhouse phone calls between Zimmerman and his wife — recorded before the April 20 bond hearing — showed she knew the PayPal account had already raised over $100,000. According to the affidavit, the two engaged in a plot to hide the money.

    From April 16 to 19, Shellie Zimmerman transferred $74,400 from George Zimmerman’s account to her own in small chunks: She transferred just under $10,000 six times and $7,500 twice.

    On the 16th, she twice withdrew $9,000 cash from her own account and later discussed with her husband taking what she “put in the box.”

    George Zimmerman felt safer if his wife used gift cards instead of cash and asked her to pay off their American Express and Sam’s Club cards, according to prosecutors.

    On April 16 and 17, another $47,000 was transferred from Zimmerman’s account to his sister’s bank account.

    Prosecutors said Zimmerman and his wife were careful to speak in code. End Quote

    So, I guess my point is, even though the English language offers ”no plural for the particular second person pronoun—you”; I hope the ”powers that be” will not make too much of it. I hope we just consider the facts. No plurals; no possibles; no probables--just the facts.

    They are not hard to find in this particular charge.

    In the Trayvon Martin shooting, though, I think the lines are much more blurry. Unfortunately.

    (Accept for the quoted statements—moo.)

    [Thank you, Nan, I'm very happy to know you enjoyed this post.

    Absolutely, we can discuss this case and all its aspects, sans race, and I don't think anyone's thoughts are worthless. That's what makes blogs and forums so unique, as long as things don't get out of hand.

    I like Bill Clinton, too, but I won't go into cheating and moral issues with politicians because he is far from alone in that field. I will say that he came out the winner in the end because he left his presidency intact. Today, you almost have to make a porn video in order to get a prime time show on network TV, so times have surely changed. While we, who followed the Anthony case, may find contempt with Jose Baez and his bittersweet success, his star is on the rise. Ultimately, he did this for his own self and his client, not for the public. That's what attorneys are for.

    Ultimately, Shellie knew exactly what she was doing, but this post should be a warning that she and her attorney(s) will be shrewd and cunning.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    When I first saw the title of this post, I was expecting a different topic. My first reaction was to think that, yes, for GZ, this is all about him. He and his relatives are overly concerned with their personal safety, taking sometimes bizarre precautions, when he is really the boogie-man, someone who preys on children (and I am "only" referring here to the murder of Trayvon because W9's accusations are unproven). His scratches the night of the shooting became life-threatening injuries; Shellie helped here with ridiculous and inappropriate bandaging. He showed as much concern for Trayvon's condition as I would for that of an ant I'd stepped on. Now the news is all about GZ's problems, especially his precarious financial situation, which he and MOM are asking the public to solve. I'm sure Trayvon's parents have lost much time from work in their efforts to do the only thing they can now for their dead son, plead for justice. GZ sees himself now as a sort of celebrity, and SZ in the jailhouse conversations encouraged this view.

    [God forbid I would ever write a post all about GZ the narcissist. If I did, I would title it, "It's All About ME! ME! ME!" You got him pegged, though, Molly. I can actually see him telling his wife, as he snickers, that he is a national hero for what he did. Stick with me and I'll give you the world. Spending money lavishly on Beluga caviar and lobster tails. Yeah, he's a celebrity, alright, but so is James Holmes, who, incidentally, also bought his guns legally. Hmm, I wonder what his deep pocket supporters think about that.]

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterMollyK

    I think the point Dave raised regarding the final question from BDLR about whether the You was singular or plural would be much more relevant IF the state did not have jailhouse recordings of the Zimmermans. Those recordings shatter the myth that Shellie didn't understand the questions or had no idea what questions BDLR was asking her. Moreover, if you truly don't know, the correct response UNDER OATH is that I don't know or I am not sure or something similar.

    At the very least, the charge on Shellie is leverage to get George to plead to Manslaughter. Moreover, it can impeach character testimony on George's behalf. Arguing the definition of "you" in front of a jury is a losing proposition.

    [Those recordings make the case more difficult for Shellie, but I still think there's an element of semantics that can fit into play. There almost always is. What determines the truth or falsehood of words within the semiotic theory, in other words. Lawyers play mind and word games all the time.

    I think we have to remember that Shellie's charge is one that stands on its own. Whether it will be a leverage against George is yet to be seen, but in and of itself, a jury (in her case) would merely hear the charge against her, not her husband. Her defense attorney, whoever it is, is free to argue in whatever direction it chooses. Will it incorporate word games? I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me. Thanks, Gov't Mule. I'll readily admit it's a stretch, but it's something to ponder.]

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterGov't Mule

    Dave~~ We have to keep in mind that George and Shellie became united in marriage. They became one. You then refers to both of them. Unless they signed a prenuptial aggreement, whatever belonged to George by way of assets became Shellie's and vice versa.

    Shellie cannot testify against her husband in a court of law. She can however speak on his behalf.

    Shellie was well aware of the balance in the paypal account as well as all the transfers that were made. George gave her his password. Legally, Shellie owned half of everything in all the bank accounts as well as all their assets and even half of Fido, if they had a pooch. Shellie was also responsible for half of their outstanding debts.

    I do not see where anyone can use the word 'you' singular or plural in this case to show that Shellie did not know how much money was in the accounts. You in the questioning would be the same as if George was answering the questions.

    "Whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

    Shellie will enter a plea of guilty, receive a $5000 fine and have to serve probation. The phone calls and bank statements are enough proof to let the perjury charge stick. I do not think it can be disputed by YOU.

    I may be full of poo but this is how my pea brain interprets things.

    Hope you all have a great day. Even YOU, Dave. Thanks for the post. It did make one stop and utilize the old brain matter.

    [Yes, Snoopy, I understand the concept of marriage, but there are limitations. For instance, if I rob a bank and my wife is not aware, is she guilty of a crime? The same with taxes. We may file jointly or separately, and states vary when it comes to splitting property in a divorce. Florida is 50/50 all the way.

    In law, it still comes down to semantics; meaning how the questions are structured. I could easily ask a friend, on the side, if he is cheating on his wife. Are you cheating on her? In this case, YOU would purely be singular. In court, it can be the same way. Certainly, in her trial, Shellie will not be afforded the right to protect her husband because he's not the one on trial. During his trial, she can.

    Ultimately, she was well aware of large sums of money passing through their hands and she will be called on the carpet for it, but keep in mind, stranger things have happened inside of Florida courtrooms. Evidence doesn't always appear as it seems and I was merely trying to point out possible language issues. Thank you for acknowledging that it did give you pause to reflect on the possibilities.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Dave~~ notice the key word, estimate in the following. This is where De La Rionda tripped up Shellie and caught her in a lie. Shellie would not have known how much money was in the account at a given moment as donations were still coming in and the balance in the acct fluctuating. (first question below)
    Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —-
    A: Currently, I do not know.
    Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?
    A: I do not.

    [I understand what you're saying, but consider the second question. How much money had been obtained or collected? An estimate could be a very vague amount. Oh, I don't know, anywhere from X to XX. But you're right in the sense that she offered no amount whatsoever.I'm sure G told her not to worry about any of it. He was way above reproach. WRONG!]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Part 1 of comment.
    This is, at the very least, an interesting read. (You may need to click once on it to make it larger for reading.)

    I do not, and never will, support George Zimmerman; however, I could manage to appreciate some of the sentiments expressed here.

    Personally, though,--if I’m allowed to say—I think the writer has the ‘hero’ confused. In her view, she seems to believe that Georgie rid the world an evil. In reality, Georgie rid the world of a 17-year-old human being who had as much right to be living and breathing as he did.

    IIRC, the author of this piece is a very good ‘friend’ of Shellie and George Zimmerman.
    Quote: George Zimmerman is not on trial because he shot a black teenager during a scuffle. It’s not the facts of the case that brought him here. It’s his name. {Snipped.} End Quote

    Oh, really? Imhoo, I think his last name (and connections) helped him, (or will help him.) No?
    Quote: Robert Zimmerman Sr. was a U.S. Army veteran who served in Vietnam in 1970, and was stationed at Fort Myer in Arlington, Virginia, in 1975 with Gladys Mesa's brother. George. Zimmerman Sr. also served two tours in Korea, and spent the final 10 years of his 22-year military career in the Pentagon, working for the Department of Defense, a family member said.

    In his final years in Virginia before retiring to Florida, Robert Zimmerman served as a magistrate in Fairfax County's 19th Judicial District. End Quote

    Now, back to the first link:
    Quote: This is evil. It is the very essence of evil. It is an evil that Zimmerman could not have seen coming or understood when he was out patrolling his community. It’s an evil that is all around us. We can catch glimpses of it on the evening news, in the sneers of anchormen, the practiced smiles of politicians, it’s there in Angela Corey’s helpless grin, it’s there in the mountains of paperwork, the lines of tiny print, the lines of people waiting at bulletproof windows, the morality mobs forming up digitally for the next skull to crush. End Quote

    Huh? “For the next skull to crush.” Please. Watch this six minute, 10 second video of George in custody, (and handcuffs), being escorted into the police station for an interview. (Scroll down page a little for video.)

    Remember that Trayvon Martin’s remains were still lying on the grass—covered in plastic—at the crime scene.

    To me, and only in my opinion only, Mr. Zimmerman appears to be in pretty good shape—even exhibiting decent balance—for someone who had had his head banged into the sidewalk at least a dozen times--less than half-an-hour ago. ◔_◔

    [Interesting read, but one thing the writer didn't acknowledge was that poor, poor George was protecting his private "village" from a damn bag of Skittles. What an ignoble hero.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    Part 2 of comment.
    If you have read my ‘Part 1’ comment, please read this one, too. It offers an opposing viewpoint, and this author ‘gets’ it, imoo.
    Washington Post: A response to ‘Martin got what he deserved’ by Jonathan Capehart
    Quote: “One of the burdens of being a black male is carrying the heavy weight of other people’s suspicions,” I wrote at the outset of the national furor over Zimmerman not being in jail for killing Trayvon. We already know that Trayvon brings out the worst in people. But Rick’s racist rant — complete with misspellings and poor grammar — gives my statement renewed relevance as he joins far too many others in denigrating the life of a person he didn’t know by using stereotypes to justify his hate.” End Quote

    If you are not bored with reading yet—try these two links. (If you haven’t already read them.)
    Huffington Post – George Zimmerman and God-Sponsored Racism
    Quote: Zimmerman's theological argument for killing Trayvon Martin makes total sense to me in that I actually believe that Zimmerman has convinced himself of what he has verbally stated -- that this is God's plan. While such an argument might seem outrageous to many, the argument itself boasts deep and extensive roots anchored in the blood-stained soil of the Western World's racial history. God has often been implicated as the impetus behind the rape, pillage, mutilation, and death of others. End Quote.

    Orlando Sentinel - Trayvon Martin case reveals undercurrent of racial tension, distrust in Sanford
    Quote | About the series | In the Trayvon Martin case, the shadow of race has stretched from a rainy night in late February to the national uproar that followed the death of the unarmed teenager to continuing revelations about shooter George Zimmerman. It has sparked demonstrations and renewed criticism of a dual standard of justice in the United States. During the next several months, the exclusive Orlando Sentinel series “In the Shadow of Race” will explore the racial backdrop of the Trayvon tragedy, looking at how race has shaped the history of Sanford and how it shapes our attitudes today. End Quote

    [I wonder if Zimmerman had some kind of Master Plan in mind. Doing God's will and all.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    Thank YOU....For the post Dave an thank ..YOU...Nan11 for those links.

    [And thank YOU, ecossie, for just being YOU!]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered Commenterecossie possie

    Dave~~all the time we are going to bring 'racism' into this case, it will continuously overshadow everything that is more pertinent to this case which is a charge of Second Degree Murder filed against one George Zimmerman and to which he has pleaded not guilty.

    The FBI conducted thirty interviews and came up with the conclusion that they could find no evidence that Zimmerman was racist. We have one person, Witness #9 who claims Zimmerman's family were racists. The media, from the getgo, slanted all their output to include racism via editting 911 calls etc. Race is a money maker for the media outlets for the simple reason it sells. It should be left in the rags mags such as the National Enquirer.

    It is almost impossible to discuss the facts in this case in a rational matter without racial issues being brought into it. What does race have to do with a neighborhood watchman who was not following the rules when he pursued a young unarmed teenager? This should be about Zimmerman, while acting in the capacity of a NWatchman, not having the authority to be packing a concealed weapon, taking on the role of a police officer and ending up murdering a minor. It should be about, Stand Your Ground, concealed weapons, Sanford Police Dept being derelict in their duties, Zimmerman's changing his accounts of what happened, Zimmerman and Shellie lying in a court of law re the finances etc etc.... Not to forget Judge Lester being asked to step down...

    There are many things to discuss about this case and to analyze without continuously bringing racial issues into the equation. If and when this goes to trial, I doubt if Z being a racist will even be introduced so what it the point of always having it brought up.

    Because of the above, and with all due respect to those who want to keep racism on the front burner, my interest in this case is waning rapidly. I just don't think that race should be playing a part in the state vs George Zimmerman. JMHO

    [I don't want anything to do with racism here, but the topic is bound to pop up occasionally. I will continue to push it back. I do agree with you 100% that race will not factor in at trial. That's why Bermie de la Rionda is quick to point out that Zimmerman's initial actions were based on criminal, not racial, profiling. If race is brought into the trial, mark my words, Zimmerman will walk.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Dave~~ I am wondering what the charge of perjury covers. Zimmerman did not testify, under oath, at the bond hearing as to his present financial status. He did extend an apology to Trayvon's parents while under oath. If the state decides to charge George Zimmerman with perjury, how will they go about it? Can they charge him with perjury because he did not jump up in court ( he would of been out of order and leave himself open to a charge of contempt) and yell, "Shellie is not telling the truth." How about the code talk in the jail calls which indicates deception? How can this be classed as perjury? Can you lie to the court without opening your mouth so it warrants a charge of perjury?

    I need someone's legal expertise on this one...TIA.

    [I think that his silence alone constituted perjury because it was all about his bond. It was his hearing, and, clearly, the facts showed that he was in on the deception. As a matter of fact, he was the master architect. I don't believe a perjury charge would be based on any one thing, but a culmination of events that led up to Shellie's lies. That's my stab at it, anyway.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Dave is it true Florida only utilises 6 jurours unless its a first degree murder charge and or a death penalty case...An all other cases includeing second degree or assault fraud ect only use 6....Read it somewhere today an have never heard of 6 person jury before ..Some reader of a blog asked this question ..An an alleged legal expert said that yes in Florida 6 jurours is the norm...Have you heard of this Dave?

    [Yes, 6 jurors, ecossie. 12 are only used in capital crimes.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered Commenterecossie possie

    Ecossie~~I covered the trial of John Goodman, Florida. His trial began , March 6, facing charges of DUI manslaughter, vehicular homicide, and leaving the scene of a crash. There were 6 jurors who found him guilty. Another case was Bob Ward, Florida charged with Murder two...Six jurors made up the jury pool. I think anything less than Murder One have only six jurors in most states but I could be wrong.

    [I know that states can vary, but I have no idea to what extent.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Ecossie~~just for the record. In Canada, we have 12 jurors make up the pool for a criminal trial. We follow the British in this regard.

    Also, a jury in a civil case is slightly different. It has, for example, only six jurors, and the decision does not have to be unanimous, as long as five of them agree on the verdict.

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Ecossie - according to Florida code of criminal procedures there are twelve jurors for capital crimes and six for all other criminal matters. 913.10

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSempre Invictus

    Snoopy, I completely understand your concern about bringing race into the discussion about the case against George Zimmerman, but the pink elephant in the room and the reason this case gained national attention is the fact that by all indications, racial profiling was part of the reason this case almost never made it to a courtroom. Not necessarily by George Zimmerman, but for the very reason that in the immediate hours following the death of Trayvon, it was assumed that he was in fact a "thug" who was up to no good in that neighborhood and did not belong there. I have seen nothing that indicates LE made any attempt to assertain whether or not he was a resident or guest. the very fact that the home he was staying in was at the end of the row of town houses, and the possibility that he might have belonged some place near by, should have prompted a door to
    door of that immediate area. That was not done. why is that? An extra patrol car of officers should have been dispatched for that single purpose. Just in case. They investigators were so willing to accept the SYG scenario during those first 12 hours of the investigation that they didn't even obtain blood work to make certain GZ was not impaired during the time of the shooting. They returned his weapon to him prior to transporting him to the police station (or at least it appears they did). It was not until Trayvon's father reported him missing and the inconsistencies of GZ's recreation of the events that transpired that the investigators began to realize a crime might have been committed by GZ.
    I believe the reason for that is there was some form of racial bias that occurred that night. I can't say for certain, but I sincerely believe that had Trayvon been white, the investigation immediately following the shooting would have been handled differently and that the police would have conducted a door to door within hours of the incident, looking for a family.

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSempre Invictus

    Sempre Invictus~~I blame the amended Stand Your Ground law that was in place as the reason Zimmerman was not held and charged when he was taken to the Sanford PDept on Feb 26th.

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Dave~~your response to my second comment above.... thus
    [I understand what you're saying, but consider the second question. How much money had been obtained or collected? An estimate could be a very vague amount. Oh, I don't know, anywhere from X to XX. But you're right in the sense that she offered no amount whatsoever.I'm sure G told her not to worry about any of it. He was way above reproach. WRONG!]

    Since Shellie Zimmeman was of sound mind at the age of 25 years, would she not know how much money she just transferred from a paypay account to her own accounts plus a sister-in-laws and then pay off large debts?
    I think the vaguest she could be is estimating at the very least $100G.

    Let's get real here....George Zimmerman is no Bill Clinton and Shellie, even if she got on her knees and begged, will never be Monica.

    YOU get my drift!! It aint gonna work or is is is is it?

    [You know... come to think of it... she kinda does remind me of Monica, but he ain't no Bill, that's for sure. God forbid I ever have to see her in a blue dress.]

    July 24, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Snoopy, That might very well be a part of the reason GZ was not held and charged, but it does not explain why no effort was made to canvas the nearby townhouses to make sure the young man laying dead in between the rows of townhouses was not a resident of one of those townhouses. I think that has bothered me as much as anything about the police response that night. The incident occurred in the early evening on a Sunday night. Not exactly primetime for burglaries. The victim was unarmed. He had a bag with tea and skittles from the 7-11. It seems that it someone would have entertained the idea that he was on his way home when confronted by GZ. Instead, they took the word of GZ that he was acting suspiciously and was the attacker. And don't forget, in hismlatest version of events, GZ says he did not even know about SYG at the time. If that is the case, then LE took it upon themselves to treat the shooting as a SYG situation.
    I wonder what triggers that defense. Does every person in Florida who shoots someone and then says it was self defense get treated the exact same way? I really do wonder if there is a uniform procedure. It boggles my mind that someone can shoot and kill someone and it is an afterthought to secure the weapon used.

    July 24, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterVicky

    Vicky~~Trayvon did not have any ID on him when he was shot. The PD did canvas the townhouses in the immediate area looking for witnesses. If they did knock on doors, they could not use a pic of a deceased Trayvon. They could inquire if any black youth left their premises to buy skittles and iced tea and did not return. Did the PD even know if the skittles and tea belonged to Trayvon? I expect that Sanford PD have a lot of cases like this so they take the body to the morgue as a John Doe and wait for someone to report them missing. I think they would do this regardless of the race of the deceased.

    I thought for sure that Z's gun was confiscated at the scene of the crime. I am still wondering if the wording in the report that the gun was taken at PD was wrong. I cannot see a PD being that lax as to let Z keep the gun while in the back of the patrol car.

    The amended SYG law is open to interpretation and half of the PD's can't decipher it. JMO

    July 25, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Ok, I see your point now about the "you" vs "you" . I've always assumed that when you were married it was a collective "you" when finances were discussed, but then I'm old fashioned. Technically speaking since Shelly and GZ had separate accounts the point could be made that SHE was talking about HER personal account, not his. After all she didn't have his online password until he gave it to her. I wouldn't be surprised if they said "ooooohhhhh I thought you were talking about my personal account, not Georges". The phone calls are going to do her in.

    [She's in a bit of hot water, for sure, Connie, and to anyone who thinks the state is making scapegoats out of them, think again. They alone are responsible for the messes they made. Not Trayvon. Not the judge.]

    July 25, 2012 | Registered Commenterconniefl

    So bottom line most of us would not be reading and posting here if GZ has been arrested and charged with a crime or something anything on the night of or at the very least next day.
    What drew the ire and out rage was that- simply.
    That is what drew me to it and I discussed it with many people
    LI encountered.
    I even emailed the story links to Vinny Politan. Ironically enough he carried the story that night which was a Friday and then it subsequently blew up from there.
    Now I don't know if it was my email is what did it but I did preface the link with "Here are some parents who can't hug their kid tonite!" As he always signs off stating such.
    So bottom line is one party was dead due to the actions of another due to no discernible rhyme or reason- someone has to accountable for such actions.
    I think the evidence does not support self defense in any way,
    And we ALL KNOW had the roles been reversed there would have been an arrest shameful to say in ANY town, city, or county in this great country of ours.
    And someone pointed out that there are other stories but in those stories they ARRESTED someone or have no idea who did it.

    [Hi, John - I would like to think that, had this unfortunate incident not taken place, I would be writing something else and people would still be reading and commenting. Wishful thinking, perhaps, but not a bad thought.

    I find it quite fascinating that you were on top of this story from the start. I sure wasn't, and I live nearby. I would say you have a nose for the news. I know that, during the Anthony case, I offered up a few leads to a local TV journalist who ended up making stories out of them; sometimes the lead in story, so I know what you mean. Yes, it makes you feel good, not to mention quite useful. Kudos to you for it.

    I agree with you that the evidence, as we see it today, does not support Zimmerman's stories, of which the number grows each time he opens his mouth. Sadly, you're right about the roles being reversed. Had Trayvon killed Zimmerman, he would have been in custody that night. Sorry to say, but it's true. Would Trayvon's attorney be getting away with a donor Website, too? Would Stand Your Ground be a factor? I don't know, but I do know that this Zimmerman character is one shady dude. He chases after an unarmed kid with a loaded gun and he's a hero? I just don't get the logic.

    Thanks for commenting. Please keep in touch. Obviously, you've been a part of it since the beginning. I want to know more of your opinions.]

    July 25, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterJohn

    Part 1 – (I will divide my comment in two, because it contains four links.)
    I saw the below quoted statement in someone’s signature line at another site, so I ‘Googled’ it—sure enough, I found a link. I can’t get the ‘picture’ out of my mind. I wonder if this was really necessary to show to Trayvon’s father? (The article is old and some of the info is outdated.)

    Reuters | Trayvon Martin: Before the world heard the cries
    Quote: It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth. {Snipped.} Martin said. End Quote

    I have been wondering if I should link the following site for a day or two (or three); but after coming across the above article—I decided I would, because it rather makes my point about the deplorable treatment Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton are being subjected to.

    I ask myself—would any news network even consider treating the relatives of any of the victims of the movie theatre massacre in this manner?

    There are two videos here. The headlines and other articles on this website are deeply offensive to me, so I won’t give it any further introduction. (I believe it is meant to poke fun in a ‘satirical’ way; but, honestly, I’m not sure.)

    The top video is an interview that a pouty, blond beauty from ‘Fox News’ did with Trayvon Martin’s parents. Her intrusive questioning of them at this point in their mourning was/is deeply disturbing.

    May God help these people who keep putting themselves out there—taking one blow after another—as they seek justice for their son.

    The second video, I believe is a bit of black humor. It’s well done though—they have even remembered to show quick-draw McGraw twirling his gun. (Even though they insert the twirl at the end, after the shot.)

    John: I agree.

    July 25, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    Part 2
    Here is a link to the actual transcript from CNN. (The discussion referred to in the below link actually begins a good two-thirds of the way down.)

    This is an interesting exchange to consider because it reveals the two warring factions that the Trayvon Martin case has become—the ‘truth’ does not seem to matter. (I know I sound naive--but what have we, if we don't have truth?)
    NewsBusters | Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias | Michael Moore: ‘Doesn’t Trayvon Martin Have the Right to Kill Zimmerman If Zimmerman Is Stalking Him?’
    Quote: Really? The firearm led to Martin being shot and NOT actions that Martin might have taken to provoke the shooting? Isn't that yet to be determined in a court of law?
    So Moore and Morgan in their zeal to convict Zimmerman actually believe it's against the law to follow someone and that the person being pursued can kill his pursuer.
    End Quote

    When, and if, this case gets to trial—I think we will most definitely see ’shrewd and cunning’. I am sure that it will be interesting and perhaps even ‘exciting’—however, I do realize the outcome could be another bittersweet affair.

    Really what concerns me the most is that the initial investigation seems to have been a bit casual. (I’m trying to be nice.) If that is indeed correct, Mr. de la Rionda will have a very, very difficult time selling the’ prosecution’ side to any jury from anywhere.

    Just this morning, I was reading that some of the people posting YouTube videos are having some ‘copyright’ issues; and, also, that we are not seeing all the discovery. The news media are holding some of what they receive back for as long as they possibly can—so depending on what ‘side’ they are on is probably what we are seeing. (Oops—a media bias? Imagine that. But if both sides are doing it—where is the beef? Iykwim.)

    Just saying, (as I sip my coffee.) ; - )

    (Minus the quotes—all my opinion only.)
    {Sorry, Dave, if you find this comment - (or any comment of mine) - too off-topic or offensive in any way. If so, please just remove it.

    There is not that much out there about Shellie right now—no one even seems to know who will represent her, yet.

    Thank you for letting me take up space on your blog. And, please know my sincerest prayers are with you in that your tests went well.}

    July 25, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    Boy, nan11, all I can say is that you are a great one for keeping on top of things. Thank you for everything. You provide excellent links and commentary and it's all very much appreciated.

    July 25, 2012 | Registered CommenterDave Knechel

    It looks like Shellie has a lawyer who will attend the arraignment on her behalf and enter a plea. This could end up being a long drawn out affair if she enters a not guilty plea.

    State attorneys have released an official notice regarding the perjury arraignment for George Zimmerman's wife, Shellie. The arraignment will take place on July 31st.

    Shellie is not expected to attend.

    Her Day In Court! Shellie Zimmerman's Perjury Arraignment Set (DETAILS)

    [Thanks for the update, Snoops.]

    July 25, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Re Shellie....

    Her brother-in-law, Robert Zimmerman, said three weeks ago that she has an attorney, but he would not name that person, and as of noon-time Tuesday, court records showed that no one has formally filed notice that he or she is serving as Shellie Zimmerman's lawyer.

    [I would imagine that her attorney wanted to keep things quiet for as long as possible. No need to have the media banging down his/her door.]

    July 25, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Dave~~O'Mara started out by working pro bono but is now putting in his bills @ $400 per hour. It looks like Zimmerman will be declaring indigency very soon. My question is, if this happens, will O'Mara go back to working pro bono or will the state pay for a high profile attorney? Will the state pay for Z's round the clock security plus all the rest of the legal fees that this case will incur? What about Z's living expenses since he is in hiding and does not have gainful employ?

    WFTV learned that the $211,000 that Zimmerman had in his defense fund last week was wiped out by miscellaneous expenses, security and the second bond he paid to get out of jail.

    Zimmerman has only raised a few thousand dollars since the Hannity interview, but O'Mara said that's because Hannity did not keep his promise to promote the new website.


    [I don't know how much money is rolling in, but I doubt it will be enough to pay all the legal bills in the long term. Let's assume, though, that he's eventually declared indigent.

    The judge has several options, but first there's the issue over what O'Mara told the media. He said he was in this for the long haul. The judge can take that at face value and order him to stay on the case, a la Jose Baez and Cheney Mason. If he does, then O'Mara is stuck defending Zimmerman and it won't be @$400/hour, I assure you. F.S. 27.52 states: "In determining the reasonableness of the fees, the court shall consider the amount that a private court-appointed attorney paid by the state would receive for providing representation for that type of case."

    Of course, if the judge doesn't order O'Mara to stay on, Z could end up with a public defender, although that would most likely put an undue strain on that office. If you recall, the whole mess would be turned over to the JAC for processing. O'Mara could stay on, but at a rate determined by the JAC.

    If the judge decides he's indigent, he won't be getting expensive bouncers to protect him like he has now. If anything, my guess is that it would be Seminole County sheriff's deputies. He won't have an entourage, either. They would be there to protect him, not his oversized ego.]

    July 25, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    In Scotland we have 15 jurours whom are allowed to deliver 3 verdicts ...Not Guilty...Guilty..Or Not Proven....Not Proven is a kind of limbo verdict,,In wich the jury is unsure of the defendants innocence but not enough evidence was presented to prove guilt beyond resonable doubt...So if any new evidence comes to light re there guilt .Then they must stand trial again..Got to be new evidence or wittneses though...Thats why when England an Wales recently scrapped the double jeapordy Law.Allowing defendants to be retried on the same offfence despite being found not guilty at first trial.Scotland always had this option with the not proven verdict.....So if an when GZ goes to trial he willl have six jurours.....Much easyer for a couple of strong personalitys to bully coerse the other 4 to fall into there line of thinkig

    [That's an interesting system, ecossie. So, Scotland is still under the old 3 verdict system, and England and Wales aren't?]

    July 25, 2012 | Registered Commenterecossie possie

    Interesting Snoopy. I would think if MOM was willing to work pro bono before, he just might again. We'll just have to wait and see.

    As far as security around the clock, I have a feeling the state of Fl won't consider it necessary. After all, you don' t see people crowding around him like they did Casey Anthony, and no one has mentioned anyone harrassing his parents or her so far. I think all of this security stuff goes back to when it first blew up. It seems to have calmed down quite a bit.

    Absolutely no way will the state pay for any living expenses. I imagine one of the reasons the Zimmermans were wanting to keep the amount in the PP account quiet is because they thought they would need it to live on for the next year or so, and just a little like the 15000 would be needed for bail. They could pay all that and live in comfort until the trial was over. That's just my opinion - they don't seem to be real responsible people where money is concerned. I imagine they had no idea how much the defense would cost. His father might, but I doubt they did.

    I put this in the other post about people donating money to his website. Poor poor lil ole George. I'd love to be able to go in there and post this on that site "GZ doesn't need your money as much as these people do" and put the link to the Colorado shooting victim's website. Giving I for one hope he doesn't get even one more dime. He got himself into this mess, he can get himself out.

    July 26, 2012 | Registered Commenterconniefl

    GM Connie ITA with you.

    I thought I'd come and post exactly the same thing. Most of those people are real victims not want-a-be celebs.

    July 26, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterTommy's Mom

    GM Tommy's mom. To give credit where it is not due, I think GZ wanted to be a cop and a hero more than he wanted the fame this has brought him. He obviously didn't listen to the power point demonstration on what a block watch is, what it does, and what's expected of him. He wanted that "take down" you see on tv. He was going to follow that kid so he wouldn't get away, or find a place to hide.. something straight out of the tv show COPS. TM had every right to turn it around on him and defend himself against someone who was virtually stalking him across the complex.

    But once the money started pouring in ole George saw an opportunity. Just the idea that he already got 200,000 out of people and then went back for more just disgusts me. In this economy people just don't have that kind of money. He has become to me the type that just takes and takes, giving nothing in return. The people in Colorado are getting donations, three hospitals have decided to charge nothing or a minimum because most of those injured or killed had no insurance. But each and every one who was in that theater is going to have problems in their later life. Either physical or PTSD, I think they'll need more help than GZ will. After all they were true victims. They didn't follow that guy into a theater to see what he was up to.

    ok. ok. I'm stopping here lol. I just felt a soap box inching its way under my feet lol.

    July 26, 2012 | Registered Commenterconniefl

    The following link will take you to an 'opinion' piece by a person who has, imo, taken the time to really look closely at the released calls and videos. (In this particular write-up, only those which pertain to the events leading up to Zimmerman shooting Trayvon are considered.)

    by Sling Trebuchet
    Quote: The largest elephant for Zimmerman's case is the time-stamped recording of his own non-emergency call. End Quote

    Moo--but it's worth the time.

    July 26, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    Dave et al...

    The judge in the George Zimmerman murder case, Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr., is one of the highest-ranked jurists in Central Florida, according to a recent poll of criminal defense attorneys.

    Lester, a 15-year veteran of the bench who works in Sanford, received uniformly high marks for his legal knowledge, demeanor, impartiality and diligence.

    His overall score was 4.55, closer to "excellent" (5) than "good" (4) on the five-point scale used by the Central Florida Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

    The group annually polls its members, other defense attorneys and prosecutors, asking them to rate area judges who handle criminal cases on their legal knowledge, impartiality, demeanor and freedom from bias.

    This year, they rated 70 judges

    The jurist with the highest rating is retired: O.H. Eaton Jr., a former Seminole circuit judge who earlier this year stepped back onto the bench to handle more than 15 trials at the Orange County Courthouse.

    Read the entire article here....

    George Zimmerman judge wins high marks in judicial poll

    July 26, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Tommy's Mom and conniefl:
    Have you seen this?
    Robert and Gladys | My Personal Website

    I'm sorry for them, really. Their son shot a 17 year old; not them. Even the Anthony's managed to stay in their home.

    I think I read that Mrs. Zimmerman's mother has alzheimer's--so moving from place to place is really hard on her. That part is sad.

    But, they are asking for money? The only thing I can think of is that George might close his website down. That way Zimmerman, Sr. would be in control of the funds. I don't know, though. Just puzzled by this, I guess.

    July 26, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    What do I think of the link Nan? I think it's sad. Really really sad that his parents have to put up with everything GZ's actions have brought upon them. If they can raise enough money to help themselves all the more power to them. They worked for and earned a quiet retirement. I just hope their son doesn't keep his hand out to them and take whatever they can raise for themselves.

    I love my daughters as deeply as any other person can love a child, but I told them long ago that if they ever get into any legal problems, those problems weren't caused by me and it'll be up to them to get themselves out of it. No bail, no get out of jail at my expense. It should be the same for the Zimmermans. They have given that man a loan, they have moved, they put up their home for the bail when he had 200,000 in the bank. They have been put through the mill because of this man's actions and I honestly don't think he shows one iota of guilt from all the problems he's given them. He seems to me to have the immature "parents are obligated to the child" syndrome. That's only true until they hit 18 legally. I can honestly feel for the parents.

    My issues and the reason for the link is that GZ had his shot and people were very generous. Now he wants to go back to a well that seems to be and should be drying up. It's like he thinks "we did it once we can do it again". So many others out there need it so much more - especially those in that shooting in Colorado.

    July 26, 2012 | Registered Commenterconniefl

    I just finished reading GZ's parents personal website. I am sorry to say that it just irritated me. I think it is a polished "piece" from GZ himself. GZ living rent free in their properties (two homes) is glossed over. In one of the paragraphs the writer goofs and says "his" which is not what the parent would write. I'll have to go back to get that goof. The whole thing just reminds me of the Hannity interview. Sorry, all I can say is puke ! Give me a break. It is just another tactic used by the killer to get money in.

    In one of the jail telephone conversations, Shellie and GZ were discussing what had been paid. I noticed that while paying off credit cards they only made a monthly payment to GZ's mom. Why didn't they pay the loan off to his MOM for Gods sake. Pay off credit cards and later make purchase on high priced guns and telphones but don't pay off your loan when your parents are in such dire state. Give me a break.

    GZ and all can put out the words about all his "good" doings just as I can white wash or sugar coat things I have done or my kids have done. Words don't make it so.
    If he was such a good person, why didn't he just sit his butt in jail so his folks could have some of what they worked for.....okay, my rant is over. I don't like spending much time on chit.

    July 27, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNewbie

    "during a trip to visit her brother, a soldier stationed in the Military District of Washington, we were introduced. Immediately, I knew I wanted to spend the rest of his life with this beautiful, intelligent young lady. Gladys was not at all that convinced about me. However, on December 20,"

    Note: the " his life" in the second sentence. GZ wrote this which to me is nothing more than pimping out his parents. Has he no shame? Also noticed the "My Personal Website".....doesn't that come right after the "Robert and Glady's.

    July 27, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterNewbie

    You know Newbie, I didn't even read the part that had to do with GZ on that website. I should have. Then it might have been glaringly obvious to me who wrote it. Talk about making it "all about you" (singular)!.

    July 27, 2012 | Registered Commenterconniefl

    In the following two articles, Trayvon's parents share beautiful, poignant memories of their son. The second link contains a recent picture of Trayvon’s parents, Tracy Martin and Sybrina Fulton—their pain is palpable.

    City Beat (Cincinnati News) - Trayvon Martin’s Parents Speak in Cincinnati
    Sub-Heading: Maya Angelou, other activists encourage justice without hate
    Quote: Tracy Martin, Trayvon’s father, broke down in tears as he told the story of how his son saved his life by dragging him out of their condo and calling 911 after Tracy had been badly burned in a grease fire. End Quote

    USA Today – Trayvon Martin’s parents: Death not in vain
    Quote: "He liked to go to the mall, liked to dress nice, liked to smell nice, liked movies, just like you," Fulton said to more than 1,000 people in a town hall on violence...{snipped}.

    ”Trayvon was emotional and affectionate, even at 17. He loved to hug and kiss on us." End Quote

    Sorry if this appears to be a ‘duplicate’ of information; but it is the only site I have seen containing a link to the ’30 page statements' with the state inserted names.
    WKMG (Click Orlando) – George Zimmerman witness statements released with names
    Sub-Heading: - Prosecutors insert witness names into previously redacted statements
    Quote: The 30-page statements were released after Judge Kenneth Lester ruled witnesses that had voluntarily spoken publicly about the case should not be shielded from public disclosure. The witness names were released on Wednesday.

    In the new copies of the statements, the state inserts the name of the witness into the slot where it was previously redacted. They were previously referred to only by a witness number in the evidence. End Quote

    July 27, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    GM nan11

    Thanks for the link to Elephants,it's really a good description of what went down that night.

    July 27, 2012 | Unregistered CommenterTommy's Mom

    Dave et al

    I was reading at a pro Zimmerman blog. You probably know which one. Donations have dropped off or ceased to the Zimmerman defense fund since O'Mara took over collecting money on George's behalf. The pros do not like or trust Mark. I see that the ones who donated previously are sending their money to Robert and Gladys' site and making it known the money is for George too.

    July 27, 2012 | Registered CommenterSnoopySleuth

    Short little blurb linked below. Looks like Kelly Simms will be her attorney.

    Orlando Sentinel - Shellie Zimmerman's plea: I'm not guilty

    [I now see that Sims is starting up a Website. Under construction. Law Office of Kelly B. Sims, P.A.]

    July 27, 2012 | Registered Commenternan11

    PostPost a New Comment

    Enter your information below to add a new comment.

    My response is on my own website »
    Author Email (optional):
    Author URL (optional):
    Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>