FBI Files: More Zimmerman Lies?

ric27 · Nov 8, 2012

hawke812 said:
Let me break it down for one such as you.

Break this

The state cannot prove Z was the aggressor. It also cannot disprove Z acted in self-defense or had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm

Where's the state's argument for finding Z guilty? Based on what?

Any questions?

Answer the question

JackFrost · Nov 9, 2012

ric27 said:
Break this

The state cannot prove Z was the aggressor. It also cannot disprove Z acted in self-defense or had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm

Where's the state's argument for finding Z guilty? Based on what?

Answer the question

I find it odd...that you have the same tools to look for the prosecutions evidence...yes I mean a computer...but ask me to provide you the information. This just proves you have not read into any of the evidence. You just read a headline, or agree with someone you know, that Zimmerman is innocent. That explains why you ask so many questions. "Where is this, where is that, etc."

And the state has not provided their argument yet. See, that occurs at trial. How can you ask for it now, that is totally unreasonable. You want me to look into the future?

Okay, first you need to become familiar with the case. Below are some sites with information that can get you started.

AxiomAmnesia.com Presents They Always Get Away: Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Documents, Photos, Videos, Audio, and Articles

Tapes show Sanford Police grew skeptical of Zimmerman's story - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

Excon · Nov 9, 2012

hawke812 said:
AxiomAmnesia.com Presents They Always Get Away: Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Documents, Photos, Videos, Audio, and Articles

This is a fine place to look for the facts surrounding the case.

hawke812 said:
Tapes show Sanford Police grew skeptical of Zimmerman's story - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Oy Vey!~
That isn't a good place to start unless you are purposely trying to mislead someone.

At one point they grew skeptical only to conclude and come away from the case with the following.

Excon said:
iLOL
There is no evidence that casts doubt on Zimmerman's account.

That is insurmountable.

Two weeks ago, during an exclusive interview with the Sentinel, Lee disclosed certain details of the investigation and during that session, attended by Serino and others, Serino said his investigation turned up no reliable evidence that cast doubt on Zimmerman's account – that he had acted in self-defense.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event," Serino told the Sentinel March 16. “Everything I have is adding up to what he says.”

Trayvon Martin George Zimmerman: Trayvon Martin's family asks for Department of Justice review of State Attorney and police chief - Orlando Sentinel

hawke812 said:
Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

And another attempt to mislead someone. What a shame.
Leatherman's blog is only a place to start if you are already prejudiced against Zimmerman and just want conformation of your belief from another person with convoluted thoughts.

The guy isn't at all accurate on this case.

Excon · Nov 9, 2012

hawke812 said:
Let me break it down for one such as you.

4. "go through"
go through - definition of go through by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
To pursue a certain course; To examine carefully; To experience; To perform

Any questions?

And let me break down your dishonesty for all to see.

There are only three definitions at your source for "go through".

go through

1. To examine carefully: went through the students' papers.
2. To experience: We went through hell while working on this project.
3. To perform: I went through the sonata in 30 minutes.

"To pursue a certain course" is not one of them.
You lifted that portion from definition "3a" of the word "go", which can be found on the same page at the very top.

It it is obvious why you continually choose to be dishonest, your bias against Zimmerman.
And in this incident, because it contained the word pursue.

You have no credibility.
Time to go and reinvent yourself again.

spanky · Nov 9, 2012

ric27 said:
Break this

The state cannot prove Z was the aggressor. It also cannot disprove Z acted in self-defense or had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm

Where's the state's argument for finding Z guilty? Based on what?

Answer the question

Due to Z's evolving statements the pross will try to get the jury to distrust Z's version of events. If they are successful with that, they don't have to disprove Z acted in self defense, that version may collapse on it's own.

Again, Z's written and oral statements to police, "He walked up to me hit me in the nose, I fell backward and onto my back." If that were true then the point of the shooting should have been somewhere north of the E-W walkway. How did it get 40 feet or so down the N-S walkway?

Z is hiding a struggle they had before getting knocked to the ground, I also believe he is hiding a longer verbal confrontation. Why?

spanky · Nov 9, 2012

hawke812 said:
Yes, I think some people support Zimmerman for X reason.

I think some people support Zimmerman for Y reason.

I think some people support Zimmerman for Z reason....

Ah, where the hell is this going? People support Zimmerman for many reasons. Do you want to start a thread about the reasons?

I was hoping to have a deeper discussion into the psychology of Z support but if you don't want to play, okay.

JackFrost · Nov 9, 2012

Excon said:
And let me break down your dishonesty for all to see.

There are only three definitions at your source for "go through".

go through

1. To examine carefully: went through the students' papers.
2. To experience: We went through hell while working on this project.
3. To perform: I went through the sonata in 30 minutes.

"To pursue a certain course" is not one of them.
You lifted that portion from definition "3a" of the word "go", which can be found on the same page at the very top.

It it is obvious why you continually choose to be dishonest, your bias against Zimmerman.
And in this incident, because it contained the word pursue.

You have no credibility.
Time to go and reinvent yourself again.

The lengths you people go through to attack anyone not drinking the Zimmerman kool-aid:lol:

ric asked what it means. I , hawke812 wrote it. That is what I meant. Are YOU trying to tell ME what I meant in my own post:lol:

See kids, this is what you call a personal attack. I write a few words, am requested to explain the meaning of what I wrote, explain what I wrote, then have a dude I don't even know attack my credibility by telling me what I meant:lamo

JackFrost · Nov 9, 2012

spanky said:
Due to Z's evolving statements the pross will try to get the jury to distrust Z's version of events. If they are successful with that, they don't have to disprove Z acted in self defense, that version may collapse on it's own.

Again, Z's written and oral statements to police, "He walked up to me hit me in the nose, I fell backward and onto my back." If that were true then the point of the shooting should have been somewhere north of the E-W walkway. How did it get 40 feet or so down the N-S walkway?

Z is hiding a struggle they had before getting knocked to the ground, I also believe he is hiding a longer verbal confrontation. Why?

It is no use man. These people can not be reasoned with. I even have them telling ME what I mean in my own posts. They will go that far:lol:

JackFrost · Nov 9, 2012

spanky said:
I was hoping to have a deeper discussion into the psychology of Z support but if you don't want to play, okay.

You have come to the right place. In addition to being an Internet Lawyer, I am also an Internet Detective, Medical Professional (doctor is too lame), and just received an Internet Psychologist License.

Not sure if this is the right thread to discuss it, but here is my observations on Zimmerman Supporters. There are obviously more categories, but these are the one's I have seen the most. Let us call them the big 3.

First, it is the "He look's guilty/innocent" crowd. There are supporters who took one look at Zimmerman/Martin and concluded one is innocent/guilty. Once they identify themselves with either side, they are attached and will not budge for any reason. It is not necessarily racism, but they are obviously included in this category. I have not seen any of these supporters here on the forums, but I do have some of those at my workplace.

Then you have the LawMen. These folk are usually the ones screaming "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY". They take that phrase to the literal extreme of extremes. If the prosecution forgets to dot an "i" or cross a "t", hell hath no fury like a LawMan. Their support is more of the law than the man.

Finally we have the John Rambo. If someone has a CC permit, they can do no wrong. They do not support Zimmerman per se, but since he has a gun, he is one of them and will defend one of their own to the grave.

Donahue · Nov 9, 2012

hawke812 said:
The reaching you people go through for your boy Zimmerman:lol:

My "boy" Zimmerman?

I'm just looking at the evidence and coming to the reasonable conclusion that the entire country would come to if Trayvon Martin wasn't black.

That you're actually making the argument that the "jewel" in the prosecutions case is an extremely minor discrepancy in the recollections of a man who was no where near the scene of the crime, a discrepancy that has nothing to do with the crime anyway, says it all. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Trayvon Martin was John Smith, a white man who could be Mitt Romney's son. This is the same sort of nonsense this country went through only a few years ago when a black woman accused three white college students of rape despite the mountain of evidence supporting them; which itself followed only a few years behind the nonsense of the OJ Simpson case and the mountain of evidence against him.

JackFrost · Nov 9, 2012

Donahue said:
My "boy" Zimmerman?

I'm just looking at the evidence and coming to the reasonable conclusion that the entire country would come to if Trayvon Martin wasn't black.

That you're actually making the argument that the "jewel" in the prosecutions case is an extremely minor discrepancy in the recollections of a man who was no where near the scene of the crime, a discrepancy that has nothing to do with the crime anyway, says it all. We wouldn't be having this conversation if Trayvon Martin was John Smith, a white man who could be Mitt Romney's son. This is the same sort of nonsense this country went through only a few years ago when a black woman accused three white college students of rape despite the mountain of evidence supporting them; which itself followed only a few years behind the nonsense of the OJ Simpson case and the mountain of evidence against him.

Your conclusion was that my post/opinion/joke = how "weak" the prosecutions case against GZ is. Are you backpedaling now?

Donahue said:
It just goes to show how flimsy the case against Zimmerman is that something like this is actually considered "jewels".

I am not involved in this case at all. I said that as a tongue-in-cheek kind of joke. You are now changing the subject by bringing in the race card. There is nothing reasonable in what you stated initially. You got exposed:lol:

Excon · Nov 9, 2012

hawke812 said:
The lengths you people go through to attack anyone not drinking the Zimmerman kool-aid:lol:

ric asked what it means. I , hawke812 wrote it. That is what I meant. Are YOU trying to tell ME what I meant in my own post:lol:

See kids, this is what you call a personal attack. I write a few words, am requested to explain the meaning of what I wrote, explain what I wrote, then have a dude I don't even know attack my credibility by telling me what I meant:lamo

Said the koolaid drinker himself in trying to deflect away from his dishonesty. :doh
Which of course is not an attack.

And it doesn't matter what you meant by what you said to the point I made about your dishonesty.
You purposely added to a definition that which does not exist for it.

You were being dishonest, and were caught.

JackFrost · Nov 9, 2012

Excon said:
Said the koolaid drinker himself in trying to deflect away from his dishonesty. :doh
Which of course is not an attack.

And it doesn't matter what you meant by what you said to the point I made about your dishonesty.
You purposely added to a definition that which does not exist for it.

You were being dishonest, and were caught.

1.He asked what I meant
2. I explained what I meant

Are you claiming I do not know what I meant, and you know what I meant? He did not ask a definition, he asked what I meant. I provided information on what I meant and the definition of the word/phrase "go through". "Go" came up on that page, as you can see, and through did not.

Could I have worded my phrase better to be clearer? Probably, yes. Does it change what I meant? Nope.

Excon · Nov 9, 2012

hawke812 said:
1.He asked what I meant
2. I explained what I meant

Are you claiming I do not know what I meant, and you know what I meant? He did not ask a definition, he asked what I meant. I provided information on what I meant and the definition of the word/phrase "go through". "Go" came up on that page, as you can see, and through did not.

Could I have worded my phrase better to be clearer? Probably, yes. Does it change what I meant? Nope.

Are you purposely being obtuse? Deflecting? Or simply being deceitful?

You clearly included wording that is not part of the definition.
You were dishonest and were caught.

You "broke down" each and provided a definition and link for them.
Except you were caught being dishonest in your presentation of the term "go through".

hawke812 said:
1. "The Reaching"
reaching - definition of reaching by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
To arrive at; attain (reached a conclusion)

2. "you"
you - definition of you by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed

3. "people"
people - definition of people by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers

4. "go through"
go through - definition of go through by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
[highlight]To pursue a certain course;[/highlight] To examine carefully; To experience; To perform

5. "for"
FOR - definition of FOR by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Used to indicate the object, aim, or purpose of an action or activity

6. "your"
your - definition of your by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Used as a modifier before a noun

7. "boy"
What does boy mean? boy Definition. Meaning of boy. OnlineSlangDictionary.com
a close friend; "home boy"; a male of any age

The emboldened and highlighted portion is what you added.
It is not part of the definition that you included a link to.

spanky · Nov 9, 2012

ric27 said:
Still with, the *hopes* of a trial...lol

Don't put all your eggs in one basket

SYG is just around the corner

I don't think Z will win his self defense hearing. It will be interesting since both the def and pross have to present their evidence but IMO the only thing the def will present is Z's statements and the medical and forensic results. They will use it as a fishing expedition and hope the pross tips their hand on how they are going to frame their arguments in the trial.

But the judge will deny if only because all the evidence they have is Z's stuff and the pross will show he has been inconsistent and this necessity of a full blown trial to get at the truth.

spanky · Nov 9, 2012

ric27 said:
Still with, the *hopes* of a trial...lol

Don't put all your eggs in one basket

SYG is just around the corner

I don't think Z will win his self defense hearing. It will be interesting since both the def and pross have to present their evidence but IMO the only thing the def will present is Z's statements and the medical and forensic results. They will use it as a fishing expedition and hope the pross tips their hand on how they are going to frame their arguments in the trial.

But the judge will deny if only because all the evidence they have is Z's stuff and the pross will show he has been inconsistent and this necessity of a full blown trial to get at the truth.

spanky · Nov 9, 2012

ric27 said:
Break this

The state cannot prove Z was the aggressor. It also cannot disprove Z acted in self-defense or had a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm

Where's the state's argument for finding Z guilty? Based on what?

Answer the question

That he is a liar.

spanky · Nov 9, 2012

hawke812 said:
You have come to the right place. In addition to being an Internet Lawyer, I am also an Internet Detective, Medical Professional (doctor is too lame), and just received an Internet Psychologist License.

Not sure if this is the right thread to discuss it, but here is my observations on Zimmerman Supporters. There are obviously more categories, but these are the one's I have seen the most. Let us call them the big 3.

First, it is the "He look's guilty/innocent" crowd. There are supporters who took one look at Zimmerman/Martin and concluded one is innocent/guilty. Once they identify themselves with either side, they are attached and will not budge for any reason. It is not necessarily racism, but they are obviously included in this category. I have not seen any of these supporters here on the forums, but I do have some of those at my workplace.

Then you have the LawMen. These folk are usually the ones screaming "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY". They take that phrase to the literal extreme of extremes. If the prosecution forgets to dot an "i" or cross a "t", hell hath no fury like a LawMan. Their support is more of the law than the man.

Finally we have the John Rambo. If someone has a CC permit, they can do no wrong. They do not support Zimmerman per se, but since he has a gun, he is one of them and will defend one of their own to the grave.

Look deeper.

JackFrost · Nov 9, 2012

Excon said:
Are you purposely being obtuse? Deflecting? Or simply being deceitful?

You clearly included wording that is not part of the definition.
You were dishonest and were caught.

You "broke down" each and provided a definition and link for them.
Except you were caught being dishonest in your presentation of the term "go through".

The emboldened and highlighted portion is what you added.
It is not part of the definition that you included a link to.

1. You don't seem to understand that I was asked what I meant, and explained what I meant. I was not asked to provide a definition. You are taking it out of context to falsely accuse me of being deceitful.

2. I added it because it followed more closely to what I meant, as that is what was asked of me. I was not asked to define a word or phrase. But that is what you are falsely accusing me of.

Excon · Nov 10, 2012

hawke812 said:
1. You don't seem to understand that I was asked what I meant, and explained what I meant. I was not asked to provide a definition. You are taking it out of context to falsely accuse me of being deceitful.

2. I added it because it followed more closely to what I meant, as that is what was asked of me. I was not asked to define a word or phrase. But that is what you are falsely accusing me of.

iLOL
I don't think you understand. Not at all.
AS already stated, what you were asked does not matter.
You misrepresented a definition by adding to it as shown.
That is deceitful and dishonest.

JackFrost · Nov 10, 2012

Excon said:
iLOL
I don't think you understand. Not at all.
AS already stated, what you were asked does not matter.
You misrepresented a definition by adding to it as shown.
That is deceitful and dishonest.

1. WTF

:lol:
2. I did not misrepresent a definition, as I was not providing a definition
3. If I did what you are accusing me of, yes it would be

Excon · Nov 10, 2012

hawke812 said:
1. WTF:lol:
2. I did not misrepresent a definition, as I was not providing a definition
3. If I did what you are accusing me of, yes it would be

Holy ****!
Talk about more dishonesty.

You most definitely were providing definitions.
Each and every one of the following are the words used in its definition.
All but the one where you deceitfully chose to add more to it.

hawke812 said:
1. "The Reaching"
reaching - definition of reaching by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
To arrive at; attain (reached a conclusion)

2. "you"
you - definition of you by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Used to refer to the one or ones being addressed

3. "people"
people - definition of people by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers

4. "go through"
go through - definition of go through by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
To pursue a certain course; To examine carefully; To experience; To perform

5. "for"
FOR - definition of FOR by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Used to indicate the object, aim, or purpose of an action or activity

6. "your"
your - definition of your by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
Used as a modifier before a noun

7. "boy"
What does boy mean? boy Definition. Meaning of boy. OnlineSlangDictionary.com
a close friend; "home boy"; a male of any age

ric27 · Nov 10, 2012

spanky said:
That he is a liar.

Very easy to accused someone of lying but without rock solid evidence to back it up...

You have squat/zero

ric27 · Nov 10, 2012

hawke812 said:
I find it odd...that you have the same tools to look for the prosecutions evidence...yes I mean a computer...but ask me to provide you the information. This just proves you have not read into any of the evidence. You just read a headline, or agree with someone you know, that Zimmerman is innocent. That explains why you ask so many questions. "Where is this, where is that, etc."

And the state has not provided their argument yet. See, that occurs at trial. How can you ask for it now, that is totally unreasonable. You want me to look into the future?

Okay, first you need to become familiar with the case. Below are some sites with information that can get you started.

AxiomAmnesia.com Presents They Always Get Away: Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Documents, Photos, Videos, Audio, and Articles

Tapes show Sanford Police grew skeptical of Zimmerman's story - Trayvon Martin - MiamiHerald.com

Frederick Leatherman Law Blog

From the horse's mouth.....

See how many lies you can detect.....form the Affidavit

AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE - SECOND DEGREE MURDER

Before me, personally appeared T.C. O'Steen and K.D. Gilbreath, who after being duly sworn, desposes and says:

Your affiants, Investigators T.C. O'Steen, and Dale Gilbreath are members of the State Attorney Office - Fourth Judicial Circuit, appointed in this case by State Attorney Angela B. Corey, who assigned this case under Executive Order of the Governor 12-72.

Investigator O'Steen was previously employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and has 35 years of law enforcement experience, including 20 years handling homicide investigations. Investigator Gilbreath was previously employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, and has 36 years of lae enforcement experience, including 24 years handling homicide investigations.

Your affiants, along with other law enforcement officials have taken sworn statements from witnesses, spoken with law enforcement who have provided sworn testimony in reports, reviewed other reports, recorded statements, phone records, recorded calls to police, photographs, video, and other documents in detailing the following:

On Sunday2/26/12, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. That evening Martin walked to a nearby 7-11 store where he purchased a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not commiting a crime.

Zimmerman who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher and asked for an officer to respond because Zimmerman perceived that Martin was acting suspicious. The dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.

During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated "these assholes, they always get away" and also said " these ****ing punks".

During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's voice.

Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. When police arrived Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin. Officers recovered a gun from the holster inside Zimmerman's waistband. A fired casing was recovered at the scene was determined to have been fired from the firearm. Assistant Medical Examiner Dr. Bao performed an autopsy and determined that Martin died from the gunshot wound.

The facts mentioned in this Affidavit are not a complete recitation of all the pertinent facts and evidence in this case but only are presented for a determination of Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder.

JackFrost · Nov 10, 2012

ric27 said:
From the horse's mouth.....

See how many lies you can detect.....form the Affidavit

AFFIDAVIT OF PROBABLE CAUSE - SECOND DEGREE MURDER

Before me, personally appeared T.C. O'Steen and K.D. Gilbreath, who after being duly sworn, desposes and says:

Your affiants, Investigators T.C. O'Steen, and Dale Gilbreath are members of the State Attorney Office - Fourth Judicial Circuit, appointed in this case by State Attorney Angela B. Corey, who assigned this case under Executive Order of the Governor 12-72.

Investigator O'Steen was previously employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and has 35 years of law enforcement experience, including 20 years handling homicide investigations. Investigator Gilbreath was previously employed by the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, and has 36 years of lae enforcement experience, including 24 years handling homicide investigations.

Your affiants, along with other law enforcement officials have taken sworn statements from witnesses, spoken with law enforcement who have provided sworn testimony in reports, reviewed other reports, recorded statements, phone records, recorded calls to police, photographs, video, and other documents in detailing the following:

On Sunday2/26/12, Trayvon Martin was temporarily living at the Retreat at Twin Lakes, a gated community in Sanford, Seminole County, Florida. That evening Martin walked to a nearby 7-11 store where he purchased a can of iced tea and a bag of skittles. Martin then walked back to and entered the gated community and was on his way back to the townhouse where he was living when he was profiled by George Zimmerman. Martin was unarmed and was not commiting a crime.

Zimmerman who also lived in the gated community and was driving his vehicle observed Martin and assumed Martin was a criminal. Zimmerman felt Martin did not belong in the gated community and called the police. Zimmerman spoke to the dispatcher and asked for an officer to respond because Zimmerman perceived that Martin was acting suspicious. The dispatcher informed Zimmerman that an officer was on the way and to wait for the officer.

During the recorded call Zimmerman made reference to people he felt had committed and gotten away with break-ins in his neighborhood. Later while talking about Martin, Zimmerman stated "these assholes, they always get away" and also said " these ****ing punks".

During this time, Martin was on the phone with a friend and described to her what was happening. The witness advised Martin was scared because he was being followed through the complex by an unknown male and didn't want the person he falsely assumed was going to commit a crime to get away before the police arrived. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed Martin. When the police dispatcher realized Zimmerman was pursuing Martin, he instructed Zimmerman not to do that and that the responding officer would meet him. Zimmerman disregarded and continued to follow Martin who was trying to return to his home.

Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued. Witnesses heard people arguing and what sounded like a struggle. During this time period witnesses heard numerous calls for help and some were recorded in 911 calls to police. Trayvon Martin's mother has reviewed the 911 calls and identified the voice crying for help as Trayvon Martin's voice.

Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest. When police arrived Zimmerman admitted shooting Martin. Officers recovered a gun from the holster inside Zimmerman's waistband. A fired casing was recovered at the scene was determined to have been fired from the firearm. Assistant Medical Examiner Dr. Bao performed an autopsy and determined that Martin died from the gunshot wound.

The facts mentioned in this Affidavit are not a complete recitation of all the pertinent facts and evidence in this case but only are presented for a determination of Probable Cause for Second Degree Murder.

Zero. None. Nada. Zilch. Nothing.

FBI Files: More Zimmerman Lies?

Active member