The Beat Goes On
Wednesday, May 1, 2013 at 10:36PM When I wrote about the Casey Anthony case — All Those Years Ago, to paraphrase the late, great George Harrison — I said I thought she was a good looking girl. Of course, this was early into it, when it was all the rage to call her the ugliest woman on the planet. I said that, had I met her in a bar, prior to her daughter dying and, of course, me being in my late twenties, which I was not; I probably would have hit on her. All hypothetical. Some of my readers left me in disgust. Sometimes, honesty is not the best policy, but only in the sense that I never should have mentioned it. I was simply trying to say that you can’t judge a book by its cover. Backfire! Heck, they all knew I was in my fifties!
A television cameraman I have gotten to be friends with recently told me that his son did, in fact, meet Casey in a bar a year before anything took place, and he did hit on her. How can one look into another’s eyes and see the future? You can’t, but upon talking to her, he ultimately found her to be quite strange and chose to move on. There were plenty of other good looking girls hanging around that night and he was on the prowl. While you may think I am trying to make a point about good looking girls and book covers, I am not. It’s all about putting too much weight on how someone looks. Weight is the common thread between Casey and George Zimmerman. While she was cute and petite, he is not. He keeps growing, and I hope that is not a detriment during the trial. While texting my closest connection yesterday, I made the observation that he looked like a big ol’ toad sitting on a log.
I didn’t mean it as a direct insult; let me assure you of that. But he does seem dazed, like he’s on tranquilizers or something, and I wonder if he will snap out of it by the time the trial starts. I don’t care if he weighs 300 pounds, so let me make that clear; however, is he content or overwhelmed by it all? Whatever, he seems indifferent and complacent, and that’s not a good thing for the defense in my humble opinion.
§
I had to be outside the courtroom door by 8:00 am in order to pick a seat. We were selected by lottery and I came up number 14 out of 24 media organizations. I chose my place and that’s where I’ll be for the duration; meaning all future hearings and the entire trial, sitting in the same spot. After the selection process ended, I saw Robert Zimmerman and we exchanged greetings. Just before the hearing began, I had a chance to talk to Frank Taaffe, too. We have gotten to be friends. Let me just say that I’ve dated women who were more liberal than me, and I’ve dated women who were more conservative than me. That’s very true of my friends, too. What difference does it make when it comes to friends and lovers? That’s something I hold close to the vest. Fairness to all. Everyone has an opinion, and all are welcome in my mind.
Judge Nelson likes to get right down to business. There had been a lot of sniping going on between the prosecution and defense the past month or so, and she made it quite clear that she wouldn’t tolerate it. At 8:58 am. She didn’t wait until 9:00, in other words. Both sides were getting nasty and acting like school children; like siblings fighting for attention from their parents. Over a toy. WAH! WAH! To those who think the prosecution is right, and to those who think O’Mara is a saint, the judge doesn’t share your opinions, and that’s what counts in this case. Her job is to maintain peace and to interpret law as both sides present it, and that’s the way it went in the courtroom on April 30, 2013, Common Era or Anno Domini, depending on your beliefs.
Over a half-dozen motions were heard. While some may view the hearing as a victory for the State, I didn’t see it that way. In other words, it wasn’t that clear-cut. Defense Attorney Don West wanted assurances that the State would turn over all cell phone records it has in its possession. The judge agreed and ordered it done. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda did say it had nothing new to add; that everything was turned over. The defense also wanted any 911 tapes that may have been enhanced by Benjamin Crump, one of the attorneys for Trayvon’s parents. Initially, Trayvon’s father, Tracy Martin, told Sanford police detectives that the screams for help were not his son’s. Later, he changed his mind. The judge had already ruled that Crump cannot be deposed because of his status as the family attorney. “Your Honor,” de la Rionda stated, “I am not Ben Crump.” The judge ruled that any enhanced tapes must be turned over to the Defense in 24 hours, but only if they are in the State’s possession.
April 17 was the Court’s deadline for adding any witnesses, but Nelson granted the Defense request to add five new ones, only named A, B, C, D & E. The State did not object, as long as it is given the same opportunity.
Turning the wheel, Judge Nelson ordered the redaction of personal information mistakenly released by the Defense, and closed the door on publicly announcing the amount of the lawsuit settlement between the Martin family and the Retreat at Twin Lakes, where Trayvon was shot and killed. It will remain under seal unless it becomes an issue at trial. I will delve more into this subject in a later article, but suffice it to say the Defense argued that it could potentially show prejudice from the Martin family in trial testimony and the State disagreed. What relevance would it have after the fact? Trayvon was dead long before his family sued.
§
Two other issues arose that were quite newsworthy. One, of course, was Zimmerman’s swearing in by the judge in order to question his understanding of O’Mara’s decision to not seek an immunity hearing before the trial. The judge had set aside the final two weeks of April (4/22 and 4/29) to hold an immunity hearing. O’Mara told the judge at the last hearing on March 5 that it would not be necessary; that it could take place during the trial, not outside of it. Judge Nelson needed to hear it from his client because a motion was filed by de la Rionda requesting that Zimmerman make it clear himself. [See: STATE’S MOTION REQUESTING COURT INQUIRY OF DEFENDANT REGARDING DEFENSE COUNSEL’S WAIVER OF ANY PROCEEDING TO INVOKE IMMUNITY (SELF-DEFENSE/STAND YOUR GROUND HEARING) UNDER F.S. 776.032]
In the State’s motion, de la Rionda noted that the defendant was not present at the March 5 hearing when his attorney waived the immunity hearing.
Failing to ensure that the Defendant has knowingly waived this statutory right has the potential to result in Defendant after being found guilty attempting to invoke such an issue in any post conviction proceeding.
The State formally requested that the Court conduct a full inquiry of the defendant. Ask him if he is aware of this. The judge obliged over concerted protests from O’Mara, who wanted it to be in the form of an affidavit. George personally waived his right, but it can still be brought up during the trial, as O’Mara has said for some time. Significantly, it could potentially mean that the Defense can move to drop the charge after the State rests, if it feels it’s a proper time to invoke immunity. More than likely, it would happen after both sides rest, but, if, and/or, when it does, it would be up to the judge to render a decision. If the judge denies it, the jury would decide on a verdict; however, the Defense also risks one important thing — that the judge turned down the immunity request for some reason. Would that impact or influence the panel of six jurors?
O’Mara did make one thing clear about that, though, regarding the judge. “We’d much rather have the jury address the issue of criminal liability or lack thereof,” so it may never go to the judge.
§
O’Mara brought up the blistering attack by de la Rionda in his response to sanctions requested by the Defense against the State for discovery violations, particularly from Witness 8, who lied about her age and a trip to the hospital she didn’t take. She used the excuse as an explanation for not attending Trayvon’s funeral; that she was too sick. The Defense contends it spent over $4,000 investigating and finding the truth — something the State was well aware of since last August and withheld.
O’Mara told the judge that de la Rionda’s response was unethical, inappropriate and scurrilous. He said it was a horrific personal attack that should be stricken from the record. Judge Nelson gave O’Mara five days to come up with a list of what he wants redacted. While not coming out and agreeing to do that, she did say she found things the court wishes were not in the State’s response.
While pleading his case, O’Mara put West on the stand. He reiterated the claims made by the Defense that Witness 8’s age was first reported by Crump to be 16 when, in reality, she was 18. He also spoke about the the hospital trip she never took.
When de la Rionda cross-examined West, he reminded him that the Defense had plenty of opportunity to interview Witness 8 long before the State did. He also said he could request sanctions against them, too, for violations, because they had caused undue delays. I don’t really see it that way. The defense has not caused any delays that I am aware of, but in the end, the judge did not see any violations from the State, either. “The court does not make a finding that there was a discovery violation.”
The judge did leave the door open. After denying O’Mara’s claim that he spent “hours and hours of work” investigating discovery not disclosed by the State, which de la Rionda vehemently denied and claimed was inadvertent, she said she had no problem holding a hearing after the trial to determine whether the State should have to pay the Defense for some of the costs incurred. In my opinion, the Defense may have a good claim.
§
The hearing lasted about three hours and ended around noon. As I left the courtroom, rode down the elevator, and entered the main lobby, Robert Zimmerman was sitting in a chair. I walked toward him, stopped, and we talked. He is a soft-spoken, gentle man. I asked him if he knew who I was. He did. I didn’t ask for egotistical reasons. I realized he must have known about my position in the case. After all, I still firmly believe his brother would never have exited his vehicle without a gun, and he did so despite it being the job of experienced law enforcement personnel.
While I have maintained an excellent rapport with Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson since the beginning of the case, I haven’t had much of an opportunity to speak with the other side, except for Frank Taaffe, who is really an independent person in all of this. Robert will always defend his family, no matter what. I understand that as surely as I understand Lee Anthony defending his sister. I told Robert that I would be fair in this case from now on. I said I would not take sides in reporting about the trial. I will tell it like I see it, but I will make no remarks about guilt or innocence. Why? This is my last hurrah. After the Anthony trial ended, people left me in droves. There were other trials and scandals to follow. Yes, some people remained and still do, but it’s the cases readers are interested in, wherever they occur. Yes, they like my take on crimes, but in the end, it’s the crime that matters. When this trial is over, what will happen? I am not the late Dominick Dunne. I cannot travel across the country writing about case after case, nor would I want to. After this, I am free to go; free to do whatever I want. My door will open. I will be able to write as I please and hope readers continue spying on me. I can move around. I can write music and kiss crime good bye…
Oh wait! One of my journalist friends just had to remind me that Casey’s civil trial will probably take place before the end of the year; the one filed by Zenaida Gonzalez. I guess that means I’ll have to wait to retire my crime writing laptop. Darn, I hope you don’t mind.
Dave Knechel | in Benjamin Crump, Bernie De la Rionda, Casey Anthony, Crime, Dave Knechel, David B. Knechel, David Knechel, Donald West, Eighteenth Circuit Court, Frank Taaffe, George Zimmerman, Judge Debra S. Nelson, Lee Anthony, Marinade Dave, Marinade Dave Knechel, Natalie Jackson, The Retreat at Twin Lakes, Tracy Martin, Trayvon Martin, 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 (13)
??? What the hell is this for???
Hello Dave. You wrote:
"I told Robert that I would be fair in this case from now on. I said I would not take sides in reporting about the trial. I will tell it like I see it, but I will make no remarks about guilt or innocence."
I so appreciate your taking this position. Thanks also for the recap of the court's decisions yesterday. So, you really think that you can retire your crime writing laptop? (smile) Need I tell you that gifts cannot be retired? You have a gift, Dave. Thanks for allowing me to watch you in action.
AZ? What the hell is this for? For awhile. Until my next article. Until then, try to figure it out. Or don't. IDC.
Hi, Xena - This is the only position I can take. It has nothing to do with how I feel personally, but I've got to report from a fair perspective. The prosecution and defense will have their good and bad days, and I'm not going to fluff up any of my account of the day's events to appease readers. I just can't do that.
Thank you. I know I enjoy writing and I truly appreciate that you think it's a gift. The problem I see down the road is that I must write from a first-hand perspective, which means I must be there in the courtroom and not just cull information from other news organizations, including television broadcasts live from the courtroom. You get a sense of what's really going on when you're inside, and it's something that cannot be duplicated.
Of course, I'll never retire, but if nothing happens in this immediate area, I will be taking a back seat for awhile. Probably not for long, but one never knows... Meanwhile, you can see me in action! Thanks again.
Well Dave, I hope you noticed that I tried to keep your blog on cruise control by posting a few links to info. When I do not get an acknowledgement from you or anyone else, I tend to feel that I am wasting my time. I have been BUSY the past four months keeping up with the other trial-the jurors will continue deliberating Arias' fate on Monday at 9am MST. Hopefully, we will have a verdict and the penalty phase will have been decided by next weekend.
I find the inside of the courthouse in Sanford very dark and the quality of the videos appear dark. Do you think they will brighten it up with some fresh lighter paint before trial? (I was able to see the top of your head, Dave.)
George Zimmerman April 30 2013 Post-Hearing Press Conferences
George Zimmerman Hearing-Today
Now for your post... Alpha and Omega...Casey Anthony! *eeeew
Your title...would that be the beat of a drum, egg or "Ya just can't beat sex?" I hope you will be beating the pavement straight to the courthouse.
I am glad you will be taking an unbiased approach when you report. Maybe that will peak my interest in the Zimmerman case. It is no secret that I lost heart in following the case due to so much controversy.
Dave, I have a feeling that once the Arias case is in the bag, more people will saunter in here and participate.
I may take some time off and learn to play the flute...or juice harp...who knows? I am allowed being over the tender age of 60.
----------------------------------------------------
[Yes, Snoopy, I noticed that, and I appreciate the fact that you did that. Thank you. I know you have been busy, too, with the Arias trial. I, of course, have been quite busy with personal things, including music - my next frontier.
I think the courthouse and courtroom will stay the same. There is a limited amount of equipment that can be brought in. This is not a big courtroom, and there are no windows. I think it's a "what you see is what you get" thing. No changes.
Now for my post... Let me define a beat, as in crime beat. From Rachel Deahl: In newspaper parlance a beat is the subject area that a reporter is assigned to cover. “Beat reporters” can cover everything from local crime to a specific sports team. (Hence the term “working a beat.”)
As for sex, there is nothing sexual about my post except for what someone wants to read into it. I assure you, sex was not on my mind at all. This is a serious criminal trial and that's the way I am looking at it. My point when I mentioned Casey was nothing more than the old adage that you cannot judge a book by its cover. During the Anthony trial, Casey was purposely made to look quite demure. Her chair was lowered to make her look tiny and weak, and Cheney Mason purposely sat next to her, to tower over her. He's tall and stout - and that's not an opinion. He put his arm around her shoulder and patted her, as if to calm her. He put has hand over hers in a comforting manner. Poor, poor innocent girl, in other words, and it helped create an image of her to the jury. This happens in every courtroom, and I feel there may be an image problem with George Zimmerman.
Allow me to address the issue over responding to comments. Yes, I could be more attentive at the moment, but there is going to be a real problem during the trial. Please take into consideration several important things. I am a credentialed journalist now; not simply a blogger. No, I am not bragging. It's simply the truth. As such, I will be reporting the trial from the inside, which is professionally called "gavel-to-gavel" coverage. I will not be watching it on TV and reading about it online from news sources like every other blogger. I am the only credentialed blogger in the courtroom. As such, that gives me a considerable advantage. It also carries a lot of responsibility.
My articles will be my unique take on the events of each day. The big difference between this trial and Anthony's will be that I will be writing for my Website and not a magazine. But just like the magazine back then, I had virtually no time to respond to comments. I will be spending 8 hours each day in the courtroom. I must drive there, park, and find my own way around, including meals. I am NOT going to be compensated and I am asking for nothing in return; NO DONATIONS of any kind. This is something I choose to do for readers and, as I mentioned, I take it very seriously. When I return home, I will take my notes and thoughts of what I saw LIVE AND IN THE COURTROOM, and write about it. By the end of the day, I will be tired and I will go to bed - only to do the same thing the next day. This will be my life for one to two months, and I will get nothing for it in return other than the satisfaction others may get from what I write. It has nothing to do with ego. Keep in mind that, just like a newspaper, reporters do not respond to their articles, but there is usually a place for people to comment. This is the way it will be, whether anyone decides to start a dialog here or elsewhere is not my concern. My job is to write.
Yes, you can compare me to every other blogger, including yourself, and I don't mind. That's where my roots are.
All of this leads me to how I will write. As I said, I will try to be as straightforward and unbiased as possible, but part of writing must include raw emotion at times or it is nothing more than a boring collection of words. If I see something that clicks in my head, you're darn right I'm going to include it; however, this means it will span the defense and prosecution, including the judge and jury. I will write what I want and people are free to read me or move on. But one thing is certain... I will write with the same gusto as I did for nearly three years of covering the Anthony case. I just plan on being more professional because I have grown over the years and my writing should speak for itself. I am solely responsible for what I write. I am solely responsible for where I am today. Being king of the blogging hill does not concern me, obviously, and while you and others may think of me as merely a blogger, I managed to credential myself as a legitimate journalist, and I intend to keep it that way from now on. My door is wide open now.
As I said, whether people comment here or not is not a major concern to me. I hope they do, of course, but I am not a comment counter. I see the numbers of visitors each day, and that's more of a reflection of my work than anything else. This is the way my world works now. What happens after the trial is anyone's guess, including mine, but I hope you find the time to read and comment here. You are welcome, and so is everyone else. Opinions and tempers vary, but this is a matter for the court. That's criminal. Here on my blog, it's all civil, and that's the way I want it to remain. Even if I don't respond, I still have my moderation button, and I intend to use it when necessary. Yes, I can multitask, and I will try to respond, but I don't want anyone to take it personally if I don't. It's all about time, and time will be a huge issue in my life during the trial. Call it logistics.
Finally, I don't want to repeat what was stated in the courtroom; I want to write what was meant when it was said. Anton Chekhov wrote, "Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass."]
Dave- Jeesh, I feel like I've actually read and been engaged by something of real value here. Thank you! You are too good a writer to not write, and you have a subject here that actually means something. Thing is, you are in Florida- how can you not be inundated by criminal subject matter on a fairly frequent basis? You must be familiar with Edna Buchanan's work, and she finds plenty there in Miami....
And, do stay the course and don't concern yourself much with other's opinions- everybody's got one!
----------------------------------------------------
[Thank you very much, Karen. I certainly enjoy writing and I certainly hope it shows. Yes, there's a lot going on in Florida, but it still comes down to logistics. Tampa is about two hours away, for instance, and that's too far to drive every day if a big crime erupts there. Yes, I am familiar with Edna Buchanan, and I can only dream of reaching her stature. She is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and novelist, and that's huge!
If the Orlando area has something to write about, I will be here working. Natalie Jackson has a case coming up and it's worth looking into. Also, there is something that happened in my home state of New Jersey that I want to investigate. It's about a state trooper murdered in 1973.
Trust me, I will stay the course, and I've gotten more immune to other people's opinions. While they still matter and always will, I'm a different person today. I choose to keep on truckin'. Robert Crumb said, "When I come up against the real world, I just vacillate." I guess I could do that, but I'm too straightforward and honest to a fault. But, but, but... I DO have an opinion... yup, just like everyone else; however, this is my forum. That means I'm in charge and I won't concern myself with opposing views like I used to. Too stressful.
Please keep truckin' with me.]
There's pleanty happening in the Tampa area too...What gets me is the kids in middle school making bombs or spraying tear gas...The only bombs I made when I was a kid were H2O bombs...Had heeps of fun with 'em too..The only time I came into contact with "gas" (other than flatulence or belching) was when I went to the dentist....
----------------------------------------------------
[It's funny you mentioned Tampa, Estee. I just responded to Karen about why I can't travel that far. I'd like to, of course, but my car wouldn't like the daily commute and hotels wouldn't appreciate it if I don't pay the bill.
The world of bombs sure has changed over the years. Heck, we liked to set off M80s and cherry bombs when we were kids, but it's a different world now. I liked water balloons, too, but now a SWAT team would be called in by the mere mention of the word bomb. Sadly, that's the way it is today with what's going on out there, where people can go to a fireworks store and purchase enough gunpowder to kill and maim countless people.
You know, I never had laughing gas at the dentist, but I will admit to inhaling a few whipped cream cans when I was in the restaurant business. That's a story for another day...
Thanks for being here. I sure do appreciate you. You've been reading my stuff for a long time, and it fills me with happiness. Glad it's not gas!]
Dave,
This is good news indeed. As you've said, watching a camera feed online is no substitute for being there, watching evening recaps where talking heads babble for effect is merely that IMO, for effect. Without the time to even watch this trial in any detail, I'd wondered where in the world I might get a sense of what was happening in the courtroom. Right here on your blog will suit nicely!
Fascinated by the hard work and forensics I'd made time for the Anthony trial. Unfettered by the opinions of others, I'd thought the prosecution won by a landslide--we all know how that turned out. Opinions on the case, mine in particular, hadn't gone up in value whatsoever. Still worth a dime a dozen, apparently.
Having heard Zimmerman's voice so clearly on that witness call, my opinion on this case is etched in cement. I'd have liked to have heard BDLR's presentation of the evidence in detail, but it's not going to happen for me.
So thanks in advance. I can check in here and get a sense of your perspective from the courtroom. Congrats again on achieving those credentials!
Well wonderful! I am glad you are using your talents to focus on the actual news and not the gossip mean spirited digging that had been "reported" on. That kind of talk is for gossipy types. It takes a big person, no pun intended, to talk with someone who has slandered and let others tear apart his brother, all because his brother had the nerve to protect his life. Did everyone hear about the 17 year old who lost control at his soccer game and punched the ref one time and it killed him? Glad to hear your new stance Dave, that is awesome.
Looking forward to your posts Dave.
@Britta. You mean the kind of " mean spirited gossiping" that the Zimmerman clan has been doing??? I for one have no sympathy for George Zimmerman. His actions caused him to take another person's life. To act like he was a victim, is ridiculous... Innocent people don't feel the need to lie either...
It's Not, Nor Ever Has Been About Taaffe's Political Bent
Dave,
I too have LOTS of friends and past romances with those of opposing/differing political ideologies. But Taaffe's issue is not his political ideology, it's his overt racism. A racism, that very possibly contributed to George's own mindset the night he killed Trayvon. The kind of thinking that likely amped up GZ's own inherent paranoia about and resentments towards "da black youts".
I can see you explaining that Taaffe can be amiable enough when he's on his best behavior. I've always pictured Taaffe as one of those over the hill drunk guys on the prowl for a "lady" at parties and sports bars. Thinks he's pretty suave and intelligent, making more and more "off color" jokes the more drunk he gets. But he probably likes to laugh and have a good time. And as long as you don't get to know him too well, he's tolerable.
But, Dave you should know that there's more to Taaffe than his differing political bent. He's proven himself time and time again a HATEFUL HATEFUL vile racist.
And racism is not just some benign, differing political bent.
I could NEVER, NEVER ... EVER call such a vile racist a friend. EVER. It's exactly the difference between what makes someone a good person or a bad person. Taaffe is a bad person, and that has nothing to do with his political bent.
Now, I understand you may need to 'charm' Taaffe as he may be your "ticket" into the RTL.
But, if you ACTUALLY consider Taaffe a "friend", I now have SERIOUS doubts of your judgment capabilities.
To marginalize his VILE Racism, as nothing more than a benign differing of political opinion, is well... disappointing.
You should know better than that..
Are you saying that you were NOT being straightforward and unbiased before? Are you claiming that you would've argued George was guilty even though the facts had said differently. Or had you formed your "bias" based on the factual information you'd gathered?
Why did you allow Junior to bully you into essentially "conceding" that you were not objective before? Why did you feel you needed to promise him anything? The fact that you did tells me you're already WAY too easily influenced by what's gong on around you.
Here's my problem with your new found ambiguity Dave.
You seem to ALREADY be falling into that trap so many media people fall into > Confusing the formation of an opinion with bias and/or untruthfulness. If you have formed an opinion where you believe George is likely guilty/not guilty... that need not prevent you from reporting FACTS and if/how they are effecting your current beliefs. That need not prevent you from CHANGING your opinion as the facts present themselves. Having an opinion, is not biased. Arguing that opinion despite evidence to the contrary is what bias is.
Feigned lack of bias, does not lead to a fairer truth. It just leads to cowardly reporting. The reporting becomes all about writing things in a way that will prove to others that you're not biased (it's all about you and other's potention perceptions of you) and not going where the facts actually lead. Because if the facts DO lead to a definitive conclusion, the reporters fear they'll be viewed as biased if they say so, so they get mealy mouthed.
I was hoping that you're reporting would be different. But, clearly, if you're going down this path, it will not be. We will all now be stuck with the feigned balance of reporting. Where even though we already have a BOATLOAD of evidence against George --- "unbiased" now means that we're all going to pretend that the evidence isn't definitive even when it is. (as it has proven to be so far)
Read my next post, NoahMan, before casting a stone at me. As far as accusing Taaffe of practically pulling the trigger for Zimmerman, you are way off-base. Zimmerman is a product of himself. He's an adult, just like you. RIGHT??? And Taaffe had nothing to do with the purchase of the gun. NOTHING! Of course, you can also argue that because you see Taaffe as a racist, therefore, Zimmerman must be one. PFFFFT. You can sit in your chair and huff and puff. Meanwhile, I will be sitting in the courtroom listening to "facts" as presented by the defense and prosecution. I will do my best to tell it like it is and not be an advocate for either side. Got it? I plan on being a journalist, not an op-ed writer.
CoffeeLover:
Protect his life from what? Got any evidence George's injuries were caused by Trayvon?