7 years later, little is still understood about the shooting of Trayvon Martin

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/25/19 at 11:50pm

On the anniversary of one of the most dividing news events in recent history, I am dumbfounded by the lack of understanding in this case.  I'm dumbfounded how the media handled this story, ignoring critical evidence.  I'm dumbfounded that otherwise very smart people ignore very real evidence that contradicts their viewpoints.  I want to talk about this very real evidence.

Everyone seems to have an opinion about George Zimmerman's guilt, yet very few understood then - and don't understand now - the evidence in the case.  People claim Zimmerman is a murderer.  They claim Zimmerman stalked Trayvon Martin.  They say Zimmerman chased Trayvon Martin.  They say Zimmerman was told not to follow but followed anyway.  There is no credible evidence that any of this is true.  In fact, the evidence shows that all of these things are untrue.  I'm happy to explain in detail.

There is a mountain of evidence in this case, but I will start with one simple question:  what evidence exists that Zimmerman followed Trayvon after being told "we don't need you to do that"?  Simple question.  Is there any answer that also respects the very real evidence in this case?

The belief that Zimmerman followed Trayvon even after being told not to is a key factor in believing Zimmerman to be guilty.  People like things easy.  A+B=C.  Well, it's not that easy because A, in this case Zimmerman continuing to follow Trayvon until he caught up with him, confronted him, and started a fight with him, is not a part of the real equation.  "A" simply didn't  happen.  Show me the evidence that I may have missed that makes me wrong.  I'm open to being wrong, but in making your case you will have to respect the evidence that actually exists.

 

[John Adams]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 2:13am

Son, have you been drinking?

[kdogg36]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 8:44am

Based on the entirety of what we now know about George Zimmerman, I have no problem saying that I believe he murdered Trayvon Martin. However, if I had been a juror in the case, I'm pretty sure I would have voted "not guilty," because there was plenty of uncertainty about exactly what happened that evening. (I'd have voted "not guilty" for O.J. Simpson, too - I acknowledge I'd be a prosecutor's nightmare if I ever got picked for a jury in a criminal trial.)

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 12:02pm

Our personal opinions of the entirety of what we know about George Zimmerman isn't relevant in determining what occurred the night he shot Trayvon Martin.  There is enough evidence to determine what happened.  So, what is the evidence that leads you to believe Zimmerman was guilty of murder?  I'm not going to hold anyone to the criminal standard of having to prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.  Based on a preponderance of evidence, what leads you to believe Zimmerman was guilty vs not?

[kdogg36]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 2:54pm

Pauly3 said: "Based on a preponderance of evidence, what leads you to believe Zimmerman was guilty vs not?"

He killed Trayvon Martin, Trayvon Martin was unarmed, and there's plenty of evidence that he's prone to violence.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 4:48pm

Your conclusion is seemingly not unreasonable.  But there is so much more evidence than what you have stated.  And Zimmerman's proneness to violence, whether real or perceived, isn't relevant to determining guilt or innocence in this specific case.  It's not relevant any more than Trayvon Martin's prior proneness to violence was, real or perceived.

Trayvon Martin started running while Zimmerman was still in his truck.  He started running at the North end of the complex, less than 100 feet from where he would be shot.  He ran South directly past this spot.  The house he was staying at and presumably running towards was some 300 feet South of this spot.  Approximately 30 seconds after he started running, he told the girl he was on the phone with that he was "in the back by his daddy's fiance's house" and that he "lost him".  Zimmerman, in the meantime, lost sight of Trayvon almost immediately (while he was still in his truck) and did not start running in the same direction until 13 seconds after Trayvon started running.  Most people don't understand this, and worse, they don't care.  210 seconds after Trayvon said he "lost him", the physical altercation started.  There was no interaction, of any kind, between Zimmerman and Trayvon for 4 full minutes.  The physical altercation occurred back in the area 300 feet North of the house Trayvon was running towards, which is less than 100 feet from where he started running.  This time, place and distance evidence should not be ignored.

How and why did Trayvon end up back in the area he started running from?  If it wasn't to specifically confront Zimmerman, then why?  Zimmerman suffered the only wounds consistent with a fight.  An eye-witness saw part of the fight and stated Zimmerman was underneath Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman was the one screaming for help.  These screams for help lasted 45 seconds or more - and we have the advantage of hearing those screams on a recorded 911 call.  Those screams are not inconsistent with someone who believes he is in imminent danger of great bodily harm.  The  evidence shows Zimmerman tried to retreat for 45 seconds or more (by continually screaming for help).  Travyon did not stop fighting to allow Zimmerman to retreat.  Trayvon did not stop fighting even when a voice came from less than 20 feet behind him that said "knock it off, I'm calling 911".  This witness is John Good, and he stepped out onto his back porch in order to witness what he witnessed.  His back porch is less than 20 feet from where Trayvon was shot.

You don't have to believe anything I have stated above, but what if everything I stated is accurate?  Hypothetically, would you still believe Zimmerman was guilty?

Edited to correct the time stated earlier between when Trayvon said he "lost him" to the start of the physical altercation.  The time elapsed was 210 seconds, not 180.

Updated On: 2/27/19 at 04:48 PM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 5:06pm

Pauly3 said: "Your conclusion is seemingly not unreasonable. But there is so much more evidence than what you have stated. And Zimmerman's proneness to violence, whether real or perceived, isn't relevant to determining guilt or innocence in this specific case. It's not relevant any more than Trayvon Martin's prior proneness to violence was, real or perceived.

Trayvon Martin started running while Zimmerman was still in his truck. He started running at the North end of the complex, less than 100 feet from where he would be shot. He ran South directly past this spot. The house he was staying at and presumably running towards was some 300 feet South of this spot. Approximately 30 seconds after he started running, he told the girl he was on the phone with that he was "in the back by his daddy's fiance's house" and that he "lost him". Zimmerman, in the meantime, lost sight of Trayvon almost immediately (while he was still in his truck)and did not start running in the same direction until 13 seconds after Trayvon started running. Most people don't understand this, and worse, they don't care. 180 seconds after Trayvon said he "lost him", the physical altercation started. There was no interaction, of any kind, between Zimmerman and Trayvon for 4 full minutes. The physicalaltercation occurred back in the area 300 feet North of the house Trayvon was running towards, which is less than 100 feet from where he started running. This time, place and distance evidence should not be ignored.

How and why did Trayvon end up back in the area he started running from? If it wasn't to specifically confront Zimmerman, then why? Zimmerman suffered the only wounds consistent with a fight. An eye-witness saw part of the fight and stated Zimmerman was underneath Trayvon Martin and Zimmerman was the one screaming for help. These screams for help lasted 45 seconds or more - and we have the advantage of hearing those screams on a recorded 911 call. Those screams are not inconsistent with someone who believes he is in imminent danger of great bodily harm. The evidence shows Zimmerman tried to retreat for 45 seconds or more (by continually screaming for help). Travyon did not stop fighting to allow Zimmerman to retreat. Trayvon did not stop fighting even when a voice came from less than 20 feet behind him that said "knock it off, I'm calling 911". This witness is John Good, and he stepped out onto his back porch in order to witness what he witnessed. His back porch is less than 20 feet from where Trayvon was shot.

You don't have to believe anything I have stated above, but what if everything I stated is accurate? Hypothetically, would you still believe Zimmerman was guilty?"

LOL

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 5:17pm

ErikJ972 said: "LOL"

You're welcome to elaborate.

 

[LuPita2]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 6:00pm

Your lies are only worthy of a LOL.  This isn't the right board for you.  Go to Maga.com, you will right at home with all the other racists.  

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/26/19 at 6:14pm

LuPita2, you have concluded I have lied, yet you offer nothing in rebuttal?  Which statement have I made that troubles you most?  Are you able to articulate why?

[kdogg36]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 8:13am

Pauly3 said: "You don't have to believe anything I have stated above, but what if everything I stated is accurate? Hypothetically, would you still believe Zimmerman was guilty?"

Yes - again, as an individual making a judgment about an event in the past, not a juror. If I had been a juror, I'd see a lot of information pointing in different directions - Martin's saying he "lost him" indicates he was fleeing Zimmerman rather than setting out to harm him, but Zimmerman did indeed end up with head injuries from a physical altercation. From that, I'd conclude - as a juror - that there was enough doubt to acquit Zimmerman. You're correct that Zimmerman's record would be irrelevant to this kind of judgment.

As a noninvolved citizen, I again see this tangle of facts that don't tell us exactly what happened when the two finally met up, but I also see lots of information (much of it subsequent to Martin's killing) indicating that Zimmerman is a violent sleezeball. And that kind of information is fair game for my personal judgment of a historical event, and that's why I'd conclude, by the preponderance of all the evidence, that Zimmerman wrongfully killed Martin.

I've taken your questions seriously because I find it interesting and important to discuss this, but I hope you'll understand that I've now spent enough time on it and won't be commenting further.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 2:10pm

kdogg36, your comments are appreciated and understood.  You are one of only four people that have responded, but you were the only one that added any substance of any kind.  Thanks for that.

Zimmerman certainly has done nothing in the last seven years that warrants defending him as a human.  I don't defend any of the sleaze he has been involved in.  But when determining guilt or innocence regarding what occurred seven years ago, I think it's important to remove how I feel about Zimmerman - as well as how I might feel about Trayvon Martin.

I have studied this case up one side and down the other, and there is so much evidence that I am near certain a clear story of what happened can be determined.  I don't demand that my interpretation is 100% correct, and I am open to being wrong as well as learning things I didn't previously understand.

It has been frustrating to have never seen a single person, professional or otherwise, layout a timeline of what happened that shows Zimmerman was actually in a position to attack Trayvon - and then did attack Trayvon.  People who believe Zimmerman is guilty simply won't discuss the actual evidence.  Instead, they interject (if saying anything) falsehoods such as "he was told not to follow but ignored that command and followed anyway".  They then call those who believe Zimmerman to be not guilty racists and liars.  Or they only laugh in an attempt to belittle the opposing viewpoint.  What conclusions should be drawn from this behavior?

There are smart forum members here, even some attorney's (who are presumably not only smart but may understand evidence in a criminal case better than the average civilian).  Do none of them have an opposing viewpoint that can be articulated?  I am not unreasonable, and I don't think I have said anything remotely unreasonable here.  If there is disagreement, I am wide open to hearing it.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 2:19pm

Pauly3 said: "ErikJ972 said: "LOL"

You're welcome to elaborate."

Nah. I gave your nonsensical, poorly written, racist drivel more attention than it deserved. 

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 2:36pm

ErikJ972 said: "Nah. I gave your nonsensical, poorly written, racist drivel more attention than it deserved."

Exhibit A

 

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 3:52pm

Pauly3 said: "ErikJ972 said: "Nah. I gave your nonsensical, poorly written, racist drivel more attention than it deserved."

ExhibitA"

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/27/19 at 9:43pm

I am going to do what I have hoped others would be willing to do in such an important case.  I will provide a timeline of evidence that provides the basis for my conclusions.  If this, or at least the intent, is not a demonstration of reasonableness, I don't know what would be.

There are two important perspectives, each of which include critical timeline evidence.  Zimmerman's voice call to police lasts about 4 minutes and was recorded.  We can all listen to this recording (it's easy to find on Youtube - here you go:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L04Vh4do6bY).  The 2nd perspective is derived from Trayvon Martin's phone records as well as what Rachel Jeantel was able to provide as an ear-witness who was on the phone with Trayvon for much of the night.  To begin determining what happened on February 26, 2012, we have to understand both timeline perspectives to a greater degree than has previously been demonstrated.

Zimmerman connected with police at 7:09:34 PM.  The first two minutes are pretty inconsequential in determining how the two would end up in a physical altercation, however I acknowledge there is much that can be discussed regarding these two minutes.  I'm open to delving into those first two minutes at any time.

At 2:06 into the recorded phone call, or 7:11:40 PM, Zimmerman says "sh!t, he's running".  The next 30 seconds are critical in understanding what happened - and what did not happen that night.

Before going further, we have to understand where Zimmerman was at 7:11:40 PM.  All evidence shows he was sitting in his truck while parked on Twin Trees Lane.  He was facing West and was parked a very short distance from where Twin Trees Lane turns South.  The rear left corner of the single building that included 5 townhome addresses along Twin Trees Lane was less than 150 feet from where Zimmerman was parked.  Behind this building is where the shooting occurred.

You can pull up a map using Google Maps or some other source so you can better understand what I am describing.  1211 Twin Trees Lane is the Northern most address of the building that I am referring to above.  Here is the search result on Google Maps:  https://www.google.com/maps/place/1211+Twin+Trees+Ln,+Sanford,+FL+32771/@28.7926612,-81.3300599,315m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x88e71298322d5341:0x8889a084a3cb5093!8m2!3d28.79304!4d-81.329799

The shooting occurred right behind 1211 Twin Trees Lane and the address immediately next door (1221).  The spot Trayvon was shot is less than 30 feet South of the rear corner of the 1211 address.  If these distances are accurate, then Trayvon was shot no more than about 180 feet from where Zimmerman left his vehicle.

In the next post, I will show very real timeline evidence.  Regarding Zimmerman's perspective, all of the timestamps can be verified simply by listening to Zimmerman's 4-minute recorded phone call with police.  Your interpretation of this evidence may differ from mine.  And that's fine.  But if you disagree with me, will you able to articulate why?

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 3:13pm

All of the timestamps that follow are, I believe, accurate to within 1 second.  Listen to the recording of Zimmerman's call to police, and then feel free to challenge any of the timestamps I've come up with.

Starting at 7:11:40 PM, Trayvon starts running.  This is the 00:00 point where the timeline evidence becomes critical.

The dispatcher says "he's running, which way is he running"?

At 7:11:44 PM (00:04 seconds in), Zimmerman's car door opens, indicated by a door chime heard on the recording.

At 7:11:45 PM (00:05), Zimmerman begins saying "Down by the other entrance".

Here's where we need to ask an important question:  How does Zimmerman know Trayvon is running toward the other entrance?  If you look at the map of the Retreat at Twin Lakes, the other entrance is at the South end of the townhome complex.  Zimmerman, still in his truck, is well over 500 feet and North of the South entrance and cannot see the South entrance.  The only logical conclusion we can make is that Trayvon had to have disappeared behind 1211 Twin Trees Lane - or Trayvon was running in such a way that it was obvious he was about to disappear behind 1211 Twin Trees Lane.  Other evidence confirms Trayvon did indeed run behind the row of townhomes, so there should be no dispute regarding the direction he ran.

At 7:11:47 PM (00:07), Zimmerman's car door is shut, indicated by a thump that no one disagrees is a car door closing.  Now we know Zimmerman has exited his vehicle.  If Trayvon has already disappeared behind 1211 Twin Trees Lane, then he has no idea Zimmerman is out of the vehicle.  More importantly, even if Zimmerman was chasing after Trayvon, Trayvon wouldn't know it.  The narrative that Zimmerman chased Trayvon is key in believing Zimmerman to be guilty.  But did he really chase him? Did he even really follow him?  If we pay attention to the evidence, the answers are not very difficult.

At this point (still at 00:07), the 2nd timeline perspective becomes relevant.  According to Trayvon Martin's phone records, his call with Rachel Jeantel disconnected at 7:11:47 PM.  Rachel Jeantel stated she heard wind noise from Trayvon's phone and the phone soon disconnected.  Rachel reconnected to Trayvon 19 seconds later (again according to Trayvon's phone records).  If you think I'm making these times up, search out the trial video where a T-Mobile manager, Raymond MacDonald, testified and confirmed the timestamps shown in State's exhibit 166 (Zimmerman's phone record) and 167 (Trayvon's phone record).  Mr. MacDonald testified the time durations on Trayvon's phone records were shown to the nearest hundredth of a minute.

At 7:11:53 PM (00:13 seconds in), the first wind noise can be heard in Zimmerman's phone.  If the wind noise is what later gave Zimmerman away to the dispatcher, prompting to ask if he was following Trayvon, then we can only reasonably infer the wind noise beginning at 00:13 is when Zimmerman first began following (on foot) in the same direction Trayvon had first run.  That Zimmerman may have lost sight of Trayvon at the 00:05 mark - or possibly even sooner and then waited until 00:13 before he started running, this dilutes the chase theory, if not completely negating it.  What happens further down the timeline will completely negate the chase theory.

At only 12 seconds in (and no wind noise yet in Zimmerman's phone), and if Trayvon was at the rear corner of 1211 Twin Trees Lane at the 00:05 mark, then we can reasonably guess where Trayvon was at the 00:12 mark.  If Trayvon was running relatively slowly, say he was averaging 10ft per second, then he would be 70 feet South of the rear corner of 1211 Twin Trees Lane while Zimmerman had not yet started running.  The distance between the two of them could be as much as 220 feet (150 feet between Zimmerman's truck and the rear corner of the building + the 70 feet South).  Let's not give Zimmerman the benefit of any doubt and say Trayvon did not reach the rear corner of 1211 Twin Trees Lane until the 00:10 mark.  I am being more than reasonable in extending the time this far. In this scenario, and Trayvon still only averaging 10ft per second, he would be 20 feet South of the rear corner of 1211 Twin Trees Lane, and as much as 170 feet away from Zimmerman before Zimmerman started running. You can do the math in either scenario if Trayvon was running closer to full speed, say around 20ft per second.  Again, I am being reasonable and not giving Zimmerman any benefit of doubt by my using the example that Trayvon was running slowly.  The farther away Trayvon was from Zimmerman, the less it looks like a chase, no?

Do you now see how Zimmerman almost positively lost sight of Trayvon before he followed in the same direction?  Do you also see understanding this evidence paints a very different picture than the one most people believe?  Do you also realize Zimmerman, in real time at only 12 seconds in, has no idea he will ever lay eyes on Trayvon again?

What happens over the next 108 seconds also confirms Zimmerman has no idea he will ever lay eyes on Trayvon again. It also completely negates any chase theory, and it completely negates the fabrication that Zimmerman followed Trayvon even after being told "we don't need you to do that".  We get to hear all of it and can replay the recording to our hearts content.  If you disagree with me, are you willing to listen to the recording and then state why you disagree?

Getting back to the critical part of the timeline -
At 7:11:56 PM (00:16), the dispatcher asks "Are you following him?".
At 7:11:59 PM (00:19), Zimmerman says "Yeah".
At 7:12:00 PM (00:20), the dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that".
At 7:12:02 PM (00:22), Zimmerman says "OKay".
At 7:12:11 PM (00:31), Zimmarman says "He ran" as if to say "he ran away" or "he ran off".  There is no indication Zimmerman knows where Trayvon is, and this will not change for the remaining minute and a half of the recorded phone call.

Going back to the 2nd timeline perspective -
At 7:12:06 PM (00:26), Rachel Jeantel reconnects with Trayvon (again, according to Trayvon's phone records).  According to her statements, she says she still heard wind noise in Trayvon's phone, indicating Trayvon was still running.  If Trayvon was running for all of those 26 seconds (and the evidence indicates he was), at 10ft per second, then he would have run 260 feet.  Even when using the example where Trayvon was at the rear corner of 1211 Twin Trees Lane at the 00:10 mark (instead of the 00:05 mark), Trayvon would have to be 160 feet South of the corner of the building at the 00:26 mark.  This would be 130 feet South of the spot of the shooting.  If he was running more like 20ft per second, then he would have run 520 feet and could have literally been at the back door of the house he was staying at (and more than 300 feet South of the spot of the shooting).  Upon reconnecting, Rachel Jeantel asked Trayvon where he was, and Trayvon replied "I'm in the back behind my daddy's fiance's house.  I lost him".  Interesting, is it not?

So, it seems neither Zimmerman or Trayvon knew where the other was.  We know the address Trayvon was staying at was 2631 Retreat View Circle and that the home was three addresses North of the South entrance, some 300 feet from the spot of the shooting.

From just the first 30 seconds or so, starting at 00:00, why do people believe Zimmerman chased anyone?  If we continue down the timeline beyond these 30 seconds, the only thing we will determine is that Zimmerman continued speaking with the dispatcher for another 90 seconds.  And it is clear he has no idea where Trayvon is.  Rachel Jeantel is unable (or unwilling) to describe what happened during those same 90 seconds.  An additional 120 seconds goes by, and neither Rachel Jeantel or Zimmerman is able (or willing) to adequately describe what occurred during all of those 120 seconds.  Rachel Jeantel claims a hard breathing man came up to Trayvon and said "what are you doing around here"?  And then she heard a thump and "wet grass sounds" and then the phone disconnected for the last time.  This disconnect time was 7:15:43 PM or 4 minutes and 3 seconds after Trayvon started running.  Do you see that Zimmerman and Trayvon had no direct interaction for nearly 4 full minutes?

Three different ear witnesses, including Jenna Lauer, described a commotion that began immediately North of 1211 Twin Trees Lane, and 28 seconds after Rachel Jeantel's phone call disconnected, the first 911 call came in, 44 seconds before the gunshot.  That caller was Jenna Lauer, and she lived at 1211 Twin Trees Lane (the very address that is at the Northern most spot of the area we are talking about).  No other call to 911 came in before the gunshot.  There is no physical evidence South of the spot of the shooting.  So I ask again, how and why did Trayvon Martin run South of the spot of the shooting and then 4 minutes later return to the spot of the shooting?  Given all the other evidence, what could Zimmerman possibly have done to force or even partially persuade Trayvon to return to the North end?  If there is nothing to latch on to, then Trayvon had to have voluntarily returned to the North end?  Why?

Finally, the gunshot occurred at 7:16:55 PM.  As Rachel Jeantel's phone call ended at 7:15:43 PM, and we get to hear a man screaming for help for 44 seconds prior to the gunshot, this indicates the physical altercation lasted at least 72 seconds.  What evidence is there the screams for help came from Trayvon?  Given the totality of evidence, the only reasonable conclusion that can be made is that Zimmerman was the one screaming for help.  If I'm wrong, please show me.  I invite opposing viewpoints.

There was a fight that lasted at least 72 seconds, Zimmerman screamed for help for much of this time, an eye-witness saw the fight before the gunshot and saw Trayvon on top of Zimmerman, and Trayvon never acknowledged the witness or stopped fighting (or stopped doing whatever it was that was causing Zimmerman to continue screaming for help), and somehow people have no understanding of this evidence and don't want to.  In fact, they won't even discuss it.  Who is reasonable and who isn't?

[LYLS3637]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 3:37pm

[artscallion]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 3:46pm

Aren't there conspiracy theory forums for this kind of crazy???

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 4:47pm

If you believe what I have written is so obviously false, why would you not challenge any of it?  I have repeatedly invited discussion and have said I don't demand my interpretation of the evidence is 100% correct.  If I am incorrect, regarding any point, I'm more than willing to listen.  How would you have me be more reasonable?

[Kad]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 4:58pm

What about this message board made you think it was the right venue for this? 

[Pauly3]

Posted: 2/28/19 at 5:22pm

Kad said: "What about this message board made you think it was the right venue for this?"

The topic is "off-topic", so it's not in an obviously incorrect venue.  Also, the 7-year anniversary of the shooting was two days ago.  There is also a comparison that can be made to what's going on with Jussie Smollet (the lesson in "The Boy Who Cried Wolf" is where the comparison is relevant).  Also, having read this message board for some time, I believe there are some very smart people here - likely, a lot smarter than me.  I know this case extremely well, and I want to hear opposing viewpoints, especially from people who are smarter than me.  When I saw your name as the last to post, I was optimistic that someone (other than kdogg33) who is reasonable has chimed in.  I'm not hinting that you're not reasonable, however I am a bit disappointed you didn't come to participate in the discussion.

[Pauly3]

Posted: 3/5/19 at 6:24pm

Something that has always been of concern to me is why the prosecution did not layout a timeline so the jury could more clearly visualize exactly what unfolded the night of the shooting.  Guiding the jurors down a clear path to guilt is kind of a standard thing for prosecutors, isn't it?  A timeline, in a case like this, is likely invaluable in this endeavor, isn't it?  The Florida state's attorneys were criticized for their overall performance, and some went so far as to accuse them of throwing the case.  Is not laying out a timeline, when there is a great deal of timeline evidence, consistent with poor performance or even tantamount to incompetence?  Or is there any other conclusion to be made as to why this timeline evidence was not presented?

If the prosecutors in this case were incompetent and/or disinterested, and if laying out the timeline is indeed prosecution 101, then why has no one who believes George Zimmerman to be guilty ever provided a timeline?  Martin family attorney, Benjamin Crump never did this.  Natalie Jackson, another Martin family attorney, never did either.  Sunny Hostin, a former federal prosecutor and television personality, has said repeatedly this case was winnable yet has never discussed a timeline.  Lisa Bloom, another successful attorney and television personality, wrote a book about the case and not only criticized the prosecution for specifically not telling the juror a clear version of the story, claimed the case was indeed winnable.  Yet she didn't provide any timeline either.  Professionals and everyday commentators alike have never provided a timeline.  Literally, no one.  If I am wrong about this, and I genuinely hope that I am, please point me to someone who has.

[sabrelady]

Posted: 3/6/19 at 7:47am

Again so sad that this is agenda is what you are spending your time pursuing . <<edited by BWW staff>> There is so much more to the world  but not to you there is only (poorly disguised as rational argument) RACIAL issues specifically how persons not of color are being denied their rights and privileges, when it is the exact opposite for 98%. <<edited by BWW staff>> May G*d bring you enlightenment and peace to your <<edited by BWW staff>>. G*d's mercies be upon upon you soonest.

Updated On: 3/6/19 at 07:47 AM

[dramamama611]

Posted: 3/6/19 at 10:02am

To the OP: this is why most are not fully engaging with you ----

 

“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”   Mark Twain