Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Trayvon Martin’s last moments

Written By: Bob - May• 29•12

While I differ (sometimes strongly) with Jeralyn Merritt’s politics, I’ve never had anything but respect for her reputation as a skilled and dedicated lawyer.

After reviewing the evidence released by Prosecutor Angela Corey’s office during discovery, including witness statements, Merritt has compiled the most likely sequence of events that I’ve read thus far.

GZ did not have TM in sight when the dispatcher told him they didn’t need him to follow TM. He responded OK. He didn’t follow him after that. He didn’t know where Trayvon was. He continued walking towards the front of the Retreat View Circle, where the first house is 2861, home to W-13 and W-12. He then turned around to walk back to his car. He just passed the T and the pet waste can when Travyon came up on his left. After a few brief vocal exchanges, which even according to Dee Dee were initiated by Trayvon, GZ got punched and fell down. This may have been at the T or in the grass right off the T, in the backyard of W-11 and W-20. After getting his nose broken is most likely when the sounds turned into cries and wails for help — by George Zimmerman.

George Zimmerman was walking back to his truck along this path, right about the T, when Trayvon popped out from somewhere and asked why he was following him. Within a minute, the encounter turned physical. The first sounds heard were scuffles and “arghs.” Not screams or cries for help. GZ was then on the ground with a broken nose. They were off the T, on the grass at the top of the path between the shared backyards. They continued grappling as they moved down the path to the back of John’s house, where they rolled onto the concrete, and GZ started crying out for help even louder, since now it was not just his nose, but the back of his head getting smacked. Trayvon was still on top of him.

As W-6, “John” was dialing 911 because they didn’t stop tussling after he yelled “Cut it out” and told them he was going to call 911, the shot rang out.

After that, W-13 comes out. GZ is standing and he asks if he should call 911. GZ says he already did. GZ says he has a gun and shot him in self-defense.

There is much more in the article and I suggest that you read it all.

Merritt’s timeline and locations seem accurate based upon what I know of the evidence, and her analysis of how poor most of the “eyewitnesses” are is a very revealing look at how useless most of the witnesses will be during trial once O’Mara points out the holes in their remembrances.

The only damning evidence the prosecution seems to have is whatever statements Zimmerman made to police at the station and in subsequent interviews without a lawyer present. It is quite possible–even probable–that a man truly believing himself innocent could make inconsistent statements after hours of rehashing the same events over multiple days. That is why you are advised to clam up as a matter of course in the event you find yourself in a similar situation. I suspect, however, that the prosecution doesn’t really have all that much in Zimmerman’s statements, either, and that an attorney as solid as O’Mara seems to be would have at least some of those statements quashed outright for being leading or suggestive attempts by the prosecution to try to entrap Zimmerman.

Merritt points out that the trial judge will have “outs” and can bail out on the Stand Your Ground defense. Not knowing anything about the judge, and believing her expertise about the tools at his disposal, I have to accept her word for it. But I have a hard time imagining an honorable judge will let such a farcical prosecution proceed.

The more evidence we see, the more innocent George Zimmerman seems as nothing more or less than a decent man trying to reduce crime in his neighborhood who came up against a young tough who decided to become physically violent because he didn’t like being followed or questioned.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

2 Comments

  1. Yancy Smith says:

    “It is quite possible–even probable–that a man truly believing himself innocent could make inconsistent statements after hours of rehashing the same events over multiple days.”

    This is what it comes down to every….single….time. Keep your mouth shut unless your lawyer is present. “Everything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law…” We are informed this for a reason.

  2. SDN says:

    Your lawyer and a video camera under your lawyer’s EXCLUSIVE control. This includes when you are a witness. Call it the “Scooter Libby” doctrine.