Hannity Interview

For reference, here is a link to a video of the interview, plus a transcript
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity


Zimmerman damaged his legal case in that interview, but he probably improved his level of support from people predisposed to believe everything he says without subjecting it to real evaluation.
Some analysis of that below, but first:

What was that interview all about?

It was all about the defence case having a platform to
  1. Feed good stuff (misinformation)  to the jury pool
    The high point was a breathtaking lie about the gap between "We don't need you to do that" and the confrontation starting. The lie was an appeal to the stupidity of an unthinking audience as it is trivially revealed.
    Twinned with this lie was a clearly false assertion that he never went more than 100 feet from his truck. This was to build on the lie above.
  2. Get the following sort of response:
    (( OK. It is Fox's own people talking up their own interview, but it does describe the effect that was being sought.))

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/20/did-george-zimmerman-help-or-hurt-his-case


PETER JOHNSON JR., FOX NEWS LEGAL ANALYST: Absolutely. And the e-mail reaction that I got in response to what we were talking about is that it was an overwhelmingly positive interview and congratulations on the interview.
It was a great get. In terms of helping the case of George Zimmerman I think it's a net-net positive because it depicted him as not a racist monster, but as a person of introspection.
And maybe even a person of spirituality and a person who is standing by his actions, but understands the need to apologize to the family. We also came to understand it as a result of this interview. Things we never heard in the mainstream media.

The Fox News Legal Analyst proves to be a PR Analyst

All he sees is the stuff that a certain constituency will respond well to.
What he does not appear to see or want to see is that the spin being put by Zimmerman / O'Mara , when analysed,  is pointing directly at aspects of the story that show Zimmerman guilty of manslaughter at absolute mimimum.
I summarise this at the end of the page, but first go through the interview.


It's all good! See?
I have seen people comment on how impressed they were by George. They said they were impressed by his politeness and by the fact that he said "Yes, Sir" a lot. That sort of thing is well received.
The fact that it would have been rehearsed and controlled as far as possible by O'Mara is neither here nor there. It's the packaging that gets the buyers.
By my quick count, George said "Yes, Sir" 49 times - "Sir" 59 times - and "Yes" 61 times.
This does leave room for some improvement and should be noted if there is another interview.
There were some "Yes"s that did not have a "Sir".
There were a few "No"s - which do at least need a "Sir" to mitigate the negativity.


All that aside, if the interview is taken in isolation from reality, George comes out seeming way closer to Gandhi than he does to Genghis.

We have to be realistic though. It's all very well George being deeply polite and spiritual.
What about the evidence?

He alleges that he was being suffocated and his head was being banged repeatedly and that the victim Trayvon Martin attempted after suffocating him to move his hand down his body to his holstered firearm in order to kill him.
HANNITY: We have -- remember the first eyewitness in the case, this was the night of the shooting, Kimberly, actually said to police that in fact he witnessed it was Trayvon on top of George Zimmerman and described exactly what George said in terms of taking the head and beating and pounding.
This last part was totally misleading.
I think that Hannity and the Fox Legal News Analyst are a bit behind the story here.
I realise that they might lead busy lives, but given their job functions, they might be well-advised to engage the services of some competent researchers or at least watch a decent news channel.
The eyewitness in question now admits that it was too dark for him to see any detail. He says that all he saw were two people prone on the ground, "wrestling". No straddling. He saw no punches. He saw no punching. He saw no hands. He saw no mouths. He just assumed that the person underneath was shouting as it seemed logical to him. He did not see the moment of the shot.
There is no eyewitness support of Zimmerman's account - other than Martin was apparently on top for at least 10 to 20 seconds. Other than that - physical evidence, earwitness accounts and automatically logged timings contradict Zimmerman's story. They were seen shortly before the shot was heard, both prone, on the ground for 10 to 20 seconds
The only evidence of violence are some minor cuts and bruises on Zimmerman that needed no more attention than a wipe down. He refused to be checked out in hospital on the night. He went to his family doctor the following day - but only to get a cert that he was fit for work.
The medical report included:


Martin had an abrasion on one finger.

All of this as a result of a beating plus head-banging that lasted
  • At least 1 minute by the logic of the first 911 call.
    One minute would be based on the 45 seconds of the 911 call up to the shot + 15 seconds for the fight to start, Witness 11 to hear outside what sounded like a loud argument over her TV, mute the TV and react, for her to get to a phone, dial 911 and for the call to be connected and answered.
    15 seconds sounds ridiculously short for all of that.
    Realistically the altercation must have lasted an absolute minimum of 1 minute 15 seconds or so.
  • About 3 minutes by the logic of Zimmerman's claim that he was attacked "less than 30 seconds" after he ended his call.
    And note well: They tried to give the impression that he was attacked less than 30 seconds after "We don't need you to do that" - rather than a time after the NEN ended.


So we're good to go for the trial - right?
KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE, CO-HOST, "THE FIVE": We're getting a real glimpse into what the trial will be and what some of the witness testimony most specifically. You can have thousands of trials that go by where the defendant doesn't take the stand.
But you what you got there was George Zimmerman on the stand with you asking the questions. You brought up everything about what happened that night and you asked the questions about the percipient eyewitness to the crime.
And you confronted him on those details and he gave answers and that's why the prosecutor ran to the courtroom to enter this into discovery into evidence.
No. The prosecution most probably want the interview in evidence because O'Mara will do all he possibly can to make sure that Zimmerman never takes the stand.

Fox is a balanced source, right? Hannity really put Zimmerman on the spot, didn't he?
"You brought up everything about what happened that night .....And you confronted him on those details"
Asking someone to tell their story is not "confronting" them.
The only part of the Hannity interview that approaches a questioning of Zimmerman's story is the strange section :
HANNITY: Weren't there overhangs, though? Was he -- he was walking, he wasn't standing still? And he was walking closer to the house, which is back from the sidewalk?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, Sir.
HANNITY: Am I understanding that right?
ZIMMERMAN: The overhangs are just in front of the front doors.
The thinking here seems to be to suggest an innocent reason for Martin to be walking close to houses - to take advantage of the shelter of the overhangs, and moving from door to door.
Hannity/Fox could point to this and claim that they challenged Zimmerman, despite this being very peripheral.
If Hannity really questioned Zimmerman, then this strange segment is the only part of that to escape the editing out.

"But you what you got there was George Zimmerman on the stand with you asking the questions"
Over all, they very probably succeeded in reaching the particular constituency that they wanted to reach - with their tailored message.

What they had was O'Mara guiding Zimmerman in setting out a bill of goods.
It was fine for the believers, but only works if nobody challenges it.

What we got was probably the final direct testimony from Zimmerman. We are not going to see Zimmerman on the stand - not if O'Mara can stop it.
In a trial, it won't be Hannity doing the cross-examination.




The Bill of Goods

 Zimmerman's claims about the night have been polished and transformed so as to remove as far as possible any suggestion that his actions were unwise - nevermind aggressive.
It also sets out to remove as far as possible any suggestion that even if his actions were less than wonderful, they were not informed by any awareness that he would have protection if he got into trouble.
He also does not want any suggestion that an awareness of having a gun in any way influenced him in his decision to go looking for a street sign in a direction that just happened to take him into a dark area where "the suspect" had disappeared out of sight - and for all he knew could be just around the corner.
There is also to be no exploration of how Martin's phone came to be 50 feet South, and his body 40 feet South,  of an East-West pathway that Zimmerman never, ever went South of.
Zimmerman has realised right from that night that he stepping South of that path would definitely indicate pursuit - as opposed to "going in the same direction" for an address.
He absolutely does not want any suggestion that Martin had any any reason at all to be fearful of him. So all of a sudden, Martin is not running - and certainly not in fear.

Unfortunately, he did himself some damage along the way. This is what he does when he speaks - so no way is he ever going to be put on the stand and exposed to cross-examination.

The gun

ZIMMERMAN: I carried it at all times except for when I went to work.
OK. It's legal. He has a permit - to carry a gun that has no safety catch and has a round in the chamber at all times. The rounds are hollow-point (dum-dum bullets) and cause horrific injury as they break up inside the target.
But .... carrying any weapon at all is counter to Neighbourhood Watch rules. It's a big no-no.

Stand Your Ground

HANNITY: A lot of this case legally -- and we are going to get to Mark in a few minutes here and ask him about a lot of legal aspects, because there are so many of them in this case -- has to do with stand your ground. You have heard a lot about it. And I was just curious, prior to this night, this incident, had you even heard stand your ground?
ZIMMERMAN: No, Sir.
HANNITY: You have never heard about it before?
ZIMMERMAN: No.

This is really incredible.
Zimmerman has just completed a course for an associate's degree in Criminal Justice at Seminole State College. He wanted to be a cop. He had ambitions to be a judge. He had obtained a gun and permit.
He was meant to be a Neighbourhood Watch coordinator.
He says he never even heard of SYG.

I admit that it could be that he missed that class - or that a course in Criminal Justice in Florida does not mention SYG.
I don't have a qualification in Criminal Justice, but I certainly had heard of SYG long before this case came up - just from passive TV and news-reading. How can anyone who is actually interrested in that field not know about SYG? Did his mentor Osterman never mention it?

Why would he say such a thing?
It is because he does not want any suggestion that he went into the dark after Martin - knowing that if things went badly, he could use the gun and call on SYG for protection.
He even says that he had completely forgotten about the gun. (While a guy circles his truck with hand in waistband.)


"He's got his hand in his waistband"

HANNITY: Yes. You said he started from almost the beginning in that 911 call, you said he came towards you, and he seemed to reach for something in his waistband. Did you think that was a gun?
ZIMMERMAN: I thought he was just trying to intimidate me.
HANNITY: To make you think that there is a gun?
ZIMMERMAN: A weapon.
HANNITY: Of some kind?
ZIMMERMAN: Possibly.

 Zimmerman thought the hand in the waistband was significant enough to mention to the dispatcher. In the walk-through the day after the shooting, it is the only item that he retells when describing Martin approaching the truck.
Now he's playing it down. He says that at the time, he considered this to be a bluff - that Martin had no sort of weapon - and certainly not a gun.

Is it not interesting?
Hannity thinks that someone reaching for their wasitband could indicate a gun.
What by his own story did Zimmerman do when he encounteded Martin? He reached for his waistband. Hello? We don't suppose that by any chance, Martin thought that this stranger who had been following him was going for a gun? Hannity would make that assumption apparently.

Why would he say this now?
He has to walk a tightrope here. He needs to portray Martin as a thug - but the more he does that, the more inadvisable would be following ( aka "going in the same direction" ) in the dark towards a place where this dangerous/not-dangerous person had disappeared from view, and might well be in wait.
He needs to portray Martin as a thug, but not the kind of thug that would indicate Zimmerman being reckless if he followed / went-in-the-same-direction-as in the dark,

But then, he adds:
"And his demeanor, his body language, was confrontational".
No, no, no George. Do not say that. "Going in the same direction as" confrontational people in the dark might lead people to infer that you were being reckless. Don't say this again please.
Thank goodness you didn't talk about your truck being circled, as you told investigators (but not the dispatcher, even though he had just asked to "Tell me if he does anything"). That's a bit more threatening than just vanilla confrontational body language.

There is  another factor: The Gun again
Zimmerman claims that he had totally forgotten that he was carrying a gun until he felt Martin's hand move towards it. 
When he reported that "He's got his hand in his waistband", it didn't get him to thinking about guns in waistbands. It only got him to thinking that Martin didn't have a gun or even a weapon. It only got him to thinking about people pretending to have a weapon in their waistband. It didn't get him to thinking about people actually having guns in their waistbands.

He says that he was accosted close up in the dark by this person that
- he was absolutely not following, but going in the same direction as
- did
"No, not particularly" make him feel threatened, despite apparently this person earlier pretending (he knew this how?) to be armed and circling his truck with a confrontational demeanor and body language

What did he do?

He says that he reached for his phone. Just like Dirty Harry. "Go ahead punk. Make my call."
He writes left-handed, but clearly uses his right hand for other things.
In the videos, his right hand goes to his right hip when he talks about his phone.

When he talks about drawing his gun, his right hand goes for his right hip.
In the walk through video, you see him slapping his right hip in search of a phone in his pocket.
So listen up now..... when he went for his right pants pocket for a phone, he in no way discovered something else there under the waistband. Even if he did feel something there, he had no idea that it was a gun. Right?
He had absolutely no idea that he was carrying a gun.
Nothing whatsoever that happened in the minutes leading up to this could possibly have reminded him that he did have a gun.
The gun came as a total surprise to him. He says that he was only reminded of it when he felt Martin's hand headed that way at the very last moment.
Martin, of course would have been reminded of guns the moment the came face to face and he saw Zimmerman's hand going for the waistband. That's assuming that Zimmerman did not already have the gun out.

Had there been a dog in the vicinity, Zimmerman would of course have remembered and gone for his gun. Protection from loose dogs like BigBoi was after all the original given reason for buying a gun. Loose dogs are really threatening. They require people to carry guns at all times - guns with no safety catch, one round in the breech and then a completely full magazune inserted.
However this was not a dog. This was only a real suspicious person, who was pretending to have some sort of weapon and who had a confrontational demeanor and body language - and circled his truck!. Oh. he forgot to mention to Hannity that Martin had circled his truck in a threatening manner. This sort of person in no way indicates a level of threat. A dog, on the other hand, would indicate a level of threat that would get anyone going for their gun.


Don't worry. Be happy.
HANNITY: You said in that tape something's wrong with him, he's checking me out. I don't know what his deal was. So it's almost from the very beginning you felt -- are you saying on that 911 tape that you felt threatened at that moment when you said that to the dispatch?
ZIMMERMAN: No, not particularly.
ZIMMERMAN: The way he was coming back. And I was on the phone, but I was certain I could see him saying something to me. And his demeanor, his body language, was confrontational.
This however, gave Zimmerman no particular cause for alarm.
That high pitch in his voice at that point in the call recording, his cutting across the dispatcher's words was only due to ......... eh ....... wind?.... eh.....inside his truck.

Zimmerman is now saying that he really didn't feel threatened. He needs to convince us that there was no reason for him to have felt any concern in following Martin. If he had any concern, then "going in the same direction" into a dark area without having sight of "the suspect" might be interpreted as being reckless.
Some of his supporters would not see this as reckless though - because he had a gun.

Listen to the recording of his NEN call:
Zimmerman: He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male.
Dispatcher: How old would you say he looks?
Zimmerman: He's got button on his shirt, late teens.
1:21 Martin is still approaching. “Yeah. He’s coming to check me out”. 
1:24 Zimmerman: He's got something in his hands, I don't know what his deal is.
- Martin is still approaching. Probably getting very close. By the “his deal is”, Zimmerman’s voice has changed from a relatively dispassionate recounting to a slightly concerned note.
1:30 Zimmerman sounds very concerned, and cuts across the Dispatcher’s words to ask about “getting an officer over here”. Can we assume that Martin is just at his nearest to the truck at that moment? This is the high point in Zimmerman’s concern as evidenced by his voice.
Although - for some strange reason, he does not report a very alarming circling of his truck in the NEN, in which the the dispatcher had just a few seconds earlier said "Let me know if he does anything else". "HE'S CIRCLING MY FREAKING TRUCK!!" would have been a very appropriate thing to report to the dispatcher in the circumstances.


Nobody runs in Florida

Martin not running
HANNITY: Yeah. You said -- then we get to the issue where you said to -- on the 911 call that he's running. You said that to the dispatch. Is there any chance in retrospect as you look back on that night and what happened, and the nation obviously is paying a lot of attention to this--
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, Sir.
HANNITY: -- trying to maybe get into the mind-set, because we also have learned that Trayvon was speaking with his girlfriend supposedly at the time -- that maybe he was afraid of you, didn't know who you were?
ZIMMERMAN: No.
HANNITY: You don't think -- why do you think that he was running then?
ZIMMERMAN: Maybe I said running, but he was more --
HANNITY: You said he's running.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes. He was like skipping, going away quickly. But he wasn't running out of fear.
HANNITY: You could tell the difference?
ZIMMERMAN: He wasn't running.
HANNITY: So he wasn't actually running?
ZIMMERMAN: No, Sir.
Why does he make a point of changing his description of Martin's action?
If Martin ran, it might imply that something about Zimmerman's behaviour in the lead up had given Martin cause for concern. Martin turns out not to have been a local housebreaker fleeing in guilt. He would have no reason to run - other than being alarmed by Zimmerman.
So...... now he's not running. See?
And even if he was perhaps going faster than a walk .... "But he wasn't running out of fear".

Zimmerman not running
HANNITY: So this moment where someone suggested you were out of breath on that tape, you yourself were not running?
ZIMMERMAN: No, Sir.
HANNITY: And you I think made a statement to the police that it was the wind as you were getting out of the car and moving, and that was the sound we hear, not you out of breath?
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, Sir.
Listen to the recording of his NEN call.
At 2:10, Zimmerman is getting out of the truck

At 2:20 We hear noises combined with his manner of speaking that indicate a fast pace and an amount of breathlessness
At 2:42, these die down, and the remaining 1 minute 34 seconds of the call are conducted without those noises or breathlessness.
That was just the wind - but it only blew for 22 seconds or so. OK?


Why would Zimmerman insist that he did not run/jog?

Anything other than a normal walk might lead people to infer that Zimmerman was anxious to find Martin. "They always get away". "F**cking ****s." Zimmerman had already clearly indicated to the dispatcher that Martin was headed towards the back entrance. Thugs running to / congregating at the back entrance was a feature of earlier calls. There was absolutely no further need to report on Martin's whereabouts.

There must be no suggestion that Zimmerman was following.
He was simply looking for an address. The fact that he got out of his truck to do this a fraction of a second after "He's running" is just coincidence. The two things are not related. OK?

Looking for an address
The truck is parked on Twin Trees.
It's at the back of Retreat View Circle houses. It's parked just at a gap between those houses.

The most obvious way to get a house number on Retreat View Circle is to walk North through that gap.
  1. It's a walk of 100 feet to go North for a RVC house number
  2. It's safe, because  "the suspect" is headed in the opposite direction - South towards the back entrance.
 But no, Zimmerman walks East. 
  1. It's a walk of 250 feet to get to that part of Retreat View Circle. At an easy walk of 4 feet per second, it should have taken him 62 seconds to get from his truck to RVC.
    By some very strange cosmic coincidence, the return journey would have taken the same time.
  2. It's safe, because even though it's "in the same direction" as the now unseen "suspect" - who despite:
    -
    "his demeanor, his body language, was confrontational" and
    - "his hand in his waistband" - but bluffing, so not a weapon or even a gun
    ....has really given Zimmerman no real indication of any need for caution
    - and Zimmerman certainly had given "the suspect" no cause for alarm
  3. So there is absolutely nothing reckless or even a little bit silly in "walking in the same direction" into that dark area
  4. It's a great night for a stroll - despite the wind, which was making those noises for 20 seconds or so.

 

"We don't need you to do that" (following him)

You are "going in the same direction" as someone who 
  • gave you no cause for concern despite having his hand in his waistband and circling your truck with confrontational body language
  • has disappeared from view at a point that you are rapidly approaching
  • has sort of skipped out of view - and not run - and certainly not run in fear
When the police dispatcher says "We don't need you to do that"
You don't have any cause to think "My goodness, this is most unwise - as well as being a flagrant breach of sensible Neighbourhood Watch rules". 
You don't have any cause to think this because you are taking a walk that is 150 feet longer than a walk that would get you a more appropriate house number on Retreat View Circle.


In these circumstances, saying "OK" does not mean. "Yes OK. Following/going-in-the-same-direction-as someone who might be dangerous is very reckless and stupid. I'll go back to my truck and try to do what that nice professional Wendy Dorival lady tells Neighbourhood Watch volunteers to do - "Observe from a safe distance" - which in all the circumstances would be to drive down to near the back entrance."
Nope. In these circumstances, saying "OK" apparently means "Whateverrrrrrr."


And then what happened?

HANNITY: And coming up, just what happened during that fateful missing minute just before the shooting. George Zimmerman, he will tell us coming up next.
-break-
HANNITY: What did you do from that moment forward? Because this is where we get into this minute gap in this case, you know, and what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said "we don't need you to follow him?" What did you do next?

Hannity has got this completely and utterly wrong - for some reason or other.
Anyone listening carelessly might have heard some talk about some "missing minute(s)" and assume that this is now about to be fully accounted for.
This is a complete snow job. It is blatantly dishonest, or at best extremely incompetent.

The best thing to do is to check the call recording.
2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him? Maybe the Dispatcher interprets the background noises and breathlessness as Zimmerman running.
Zimmerman: Yeah.
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
2:28 Zimmerman: Ok.
So one minute on from 2:28 is 3:28
What's happening at 3:28?
Zimmerman is still on the call. He's on the call until 4:06
One and a half minutes after  "we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman is still away from the safety of his truck and out in that dark area. Furthermore, he clearly intends to say there as he changes an agreement to meet at the truck into one of the patrol ringing him to find out where he is.

Hannity should do some research.

There will be a gap, but it does not start until after Zimmerman ends his call, and he ends that call 1 minute and 30 seconds after "We  don't need you to do that".
The gap is 2 minutes and 30 seconds - from the time the call ends to the time the first 911 call connects.

How much of that gap does Zimmerman explain?
HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?
ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds.

Here, Hannity is either being extremely stupid or extemely cynical.
The utterly dishonest spin in this is that Zimmerman was attacked less than 30 seconds after "We don't need you to do that". This is aimed at kidding people who might think "OK. He actually was following, and stopped in his tracks, but Martin attacked him before he could turn around."

The 'gap' that Hannity's question refers to is this non-existent invented "that fateful missing minute just before the shooting." - He asserts that this minute that began at "We don't need you to do that".
If anyone with even the slightest glimmer of intelligence were to think about the logic here, it would mean that Martin attacked Zimmerman 38 seconds before Zimmerman ended his NEN call.

Hannity is either too stupid to work this out, or he has done so but considers that his audience are too stupid to notice.

The answer is a complete and blatant crock, but Hannity swallows it whole.



Maybe Zimmerman misunderstood Hannity's question??
This would not be a reasonable misunderstanding. The questions seemed very clear:
"what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said "we don't need you to follow him?"
HANNITY: How long was it, George, after that, that you saw Trayvon again? Because you said you stopped, that you did not continue pursuing him. When did you next see Trayvon Martin?
ZIMMERMAN: Less than 30 seconds.

Maybe he thought it meant "After you ended your NEN call, when did you see Trayvon next?"
Answer: "Less than 30 seconds"


Hey, in that case, Zimmerman is saying that Martin accosted him a minimum of 2 minutes before the first 911 call connected.
The logic is therefore that the altercation lasted almost 3 minutes up to the shot.



That 911 caller noticed the sounds of a loud argument outside.
Lets say it took a minimum 20 seconds from her noticing that to her 911 call connecting and being answered.

Martin would therefore have accosted Zimmerman at least  1 minute and 40 seconds before the noise of the altercation became noticeable.

So what happened in that
- 1 minute and 40 seconds before the noise was noticed
- 20 seconds between the noise being noticed and the 911 call connecting
- 45 seconds of that 911 call before the shot is heard
-- that's a total of 2 minutes 45 seconds  between Martin accosting Zimmerman and the shot being fired.

What happened?
If we are to accept Zimmerman's "less than 30 seconds":
  • Martin decked Zimmerman and straddled him.
  • Zimmerman moved some 40 feet South from the T-Junction, with Martin straddling ham and all the while raining punches on him and beating his head on the concrete.
  • The first 1 minute and 40 seconds of this was conducted in silence, with neither making enough noise for a woman to hear it through her open back porch door.
  • At some time before the shot, Martin takes some time out to stop beating Zimmerman and to throw his cell phone about 10 feet Southwards.
  • The result of  2 minutes 45 seconds of Martin beating Zimmerman and banging his head on concrete were
    - a small scratch on one of Martin's fingers
    - some minor cuts high on the back of Zimmerman's head, a suspected closed fracture of the nose and some abrasions to his forehead - none of which needed medical attention further than a wipe down.

No wait!
Martins's body ended up 40 feet South of where Zimmerman says he was attacked?
Martin's phone was found  50 feet South of the attack point?

Say it ain't so!

Why it almost sounds as if what really happened was:
  1. Zimmerman ended his call
  2. Went searching for Martin
  3. Eventually found Martin after about 2 minutes
  4. Might have responded to Martin asking "Why are you following me?" by saying "What are you doing around here"
  5. Got involved in some sort of shoving that resulted in Martin dropping his phone (50 feet South of the T-junction)  and the call that he was on being cut off
  6. Had a further two or so loud exchanges of conversation (according to the account of the first 911 caller) with an amount of pushing and shoving that ranged over a distance according to earwitnesses.
    This in an area surrounded by flat solid surfaces, with potential for echoes to confuse location of sound sources.
  7. Ended up 30 seconds or so after that loud exchange flat on his back with Martin on top, both wrestling and only one of them shouting.

How far from the truck?

HANNITY: OK. Where were you? Where exactly were you at that point, and how far away were you from your car at that moment?
ZIMMERMAN: I'd guess about 100 feet or more.
HANNITY: So you never went further than how far approximately from your car?
ZIMMERMAN: I would estimate it to be approximately 100 feet.
HANNITY: So you never went further than that from the car?
ZIMMERMAN: No, sir.

The lie here dovetails with the lie about "within 30 seconds". The spin is that he never went more than  a 'short' distance from his truck and that he was attacked before he had time to turn around after "We don't need you to do that".
This is to reinforce the spin that Zimmerman was not following ever, or that there was any reasonable notice of danger in "going in the same direction" for a 'short/safe' distance - and that in any case he started back for the truck immediately after "We don't need you to do that".
To anybody with the slightest trace of intelligence and who is not blindly prejudiced, these assertions are clearly at odds with the realities of the map, the NEN/911 calls - and with Zimmerman's walk-through and statements.

The distance from the truck to the T-junction is 160 feet. That could be described as 100-ish,  but Zimmerman says that he went beyond that to the end of the path where it meets RVC. That's 250 feet.

Watch the Walk-Through video.
Zimmerman walks that 250 feet to RVC. He finishes the call while standing at RVC.

Watch the Hannity interview

HANNITY: Because they said, you know, can we meet you here at a certain location, and you said have them call me.
ZIMMERMAN: Yes.
HANNITY: Why did you want them at that point to call you?
ZIMMERMAN: I hadn't given them a correct address. I gave them a -- the clubhouse vicinity. However, I was walking through to my street, Retreat View Circle, and I was going to give them the actual street number and name.

In the Walk-Through, he finishes the call while standing on RVC. That call ended 1 minute 52 seconds after he got out of the truck and he says that he walked the 250 feet to RVC.
At a normal easy stroll, that 250 feet would take him  62 seconds to cover. He could have stood like a potted palm for over a minute on the way and still be at RVC at the end of the call, but he clearly describes standing on RVC as he finished.
If his heavier breathing in the NEN call is him going faster than a normal walk, then the time expands even more - but it's major enough even if he just strolled it.


In other words, his story about going for an address is nonsense. If he actually had gone for an address, he was standing looking at one as he suddenly changed from an agreement to meeting at the mailboxes to one of intending to be 'somewhere'.
If he had actually gone to RVC to get an
"actual street number and name", then he was standing at the spot where he would meet the incoming patrol. Why would he then leave? It's the only place that he can direct them to. He went there (he says) because he was unable to direct them to anywhere else.


That sudden change right at the end of the call indicates that some new plan had occured to him.
In Hannity, he's implying that this new plan is to walk to RVC for an address (although he's already arrived there). No wait! That plan was the sole reason for him getting out of the truck 2 minutes earlier.
If he really did get out of the truck just to get an address, why did he not say this to the dispatcher?
Why, when he's out of the truck and on that mission,  did he agree to the dispatcher's suggest that he meet the patrol at the mailboxes?
Why when he changed from the mailbox agreement did he not tell the dispatcher what his intention was?
If we believe his Walk-Through account, he's already looking at a RVC house number at this stage anyway. The logic of his story is that he has to remain on RVC and wait there for the cops.

 

Unless:

On Hannity, Zimmerman is pushing a new story. In this story, he never gets to RVC (Although he very clearly does walk that walk in the Walk-Through video while describing being on the NEN call) .
In the latest new story, he stops short of the T-junction and never goes beyond that point. He just stands there for some time.

How long would he have to stand at that spot before being attacked?
The truck door slams at 2:14 in the NEN call recording.
His walk from the truck would take him no more than 25 seconds.
Note that he said "OK" to "We don't need you to do that" 14 seconds from the truck. He was only half-way there. 60 feet from the truck at a walking pace. He was still in Twin Trees, and only just started along the footpath.

So he's up short of the T-junction at 2:39 in the call.
1 minute after that, at 3:48 in the call,  he has the sudden change of plan from a meet at the mailboxes to the patrol calling him to find out where he will be at.
The call ends at 4:06
The first 911 connects 2 minutes 30 seconds after he ended the call. This is 4 minutes 57 seconds after he had arrived at the 'attack' point that he never (now in Hannity) went beyond.
Obviously there was a delay between the 'attack' and the 911 connectiing. 30 seconds? 57?
It would mean Zimmerman standing still there for over 4 minutes after he arrived, with 2 of those minutes elapsing after the call ended.


Why did Trayvon Martin die?


If Zimmerman really did want a RVC house number, all he had to to was walk 100 feet North through the gap. The walk East from his truck to where he says he did (or didn't) go for a RVC house number is 250 feet. If he had done that, Martin would be alive.

If he had walked to the mailboxes - a known location where he had previously agreed to meet the patrol - it would have taken him 1 minute 30 seconds from the T-Junction. He would have arrived 1 minute after the call ended.
There would never have been a 911 call connecting 2 minutes and 30 seconds after the call ended. Martin would be alive.

If Zimmerman had followed Neighborhood Watch rules, he would never have left his truck. Martin would be alive.
If he had heeded the dispatcher's "We don't need you to do that", he would have turned back to his truck before he even left Twin Trees and got up into the dark near the T-Junction. Martin would be alive.
Even when he got up there in the dark, if he had headed for the mailboxes when he agreed to do so, Martin would be alive.


Zimmerman's stories have more holes than Swiss cheeses.
His problem is that he invents self-serving narratives without having the clue to realise that his new answers conflict with physics time and space, recorded calls and previous self-serving answers.

 

The spin on Hannity is mindblowingly outrageous. It's a clear indication of the contempt O'Mara/Zimmerman must have for the intellignce level of the audience that they are setting out to influence,

The Hannity interview took place in July - nearly 6 months after the event. He's had plenty of time to go through his stories over the ground, the map and the clock. If O'Mara has not taken him through every step over and over, then Zimmerman should sack him. What we are getting on Hanity are premeditated lies tailored to fool a certain uncritical audience.
Only a fool or a villain would claim that "less than 30 seconds" and "not more than 100 feet". The pitch is clearly aimed at people who do not care to analyse the message.

It's nothing to do with the truth. It's all about whipping up uninformed support and poisoning the jury pool. It's pure proaganda. It's grossly dishonest.





There are a lot of elephant's in Zimmerman's room. Hannity didn't see even one of them
 http://zimmermanscall.blogspot.com/p/elephants.html



The Spin on Hannity flags some major weaknesses that the defence is trying to distract attention from

There are three main aspects in this
1) Martin's perception of Zimmerman's actions
2) Reckless behaviour resulting in a death
3) The two minutes 30 seconds between the end of the NEN call and the first 911 connecting

1. Martin's perception of the situation
Martin isn't fleeing the scene of a crime. If he runs it implies that Zimmerman's actions have alarmed him.
So... now he's not running. He's certainly not in fear. Zimmerman can tell this (somehow).
MoM realises that any hint of Martin being alarmed or in fear of Zimmerman moves 'aggression' into Zimmerman's territory.


2. Recklessness and Extreme recklessness
Zimmerman forms the opinion that Martin is one of the local gangs/thugs and is up to no good.
The thug apparently approaches and circles his truck with confrontational body language and his hand in his waistband.
Any normal person would be seriously alarmed by this.

So far so good. We're portraying Martin as a confrontational thug who is probably carrying a weapon. Just the kind of violent thug who would attack someone, beat them up and then shoot them with their own gun.

Getting out of the safety of the truck and following after such a person into a very dark area would be insane.
It would be insane even if we thought he was running. If he's just circled us with confrontational body language and with his hand in his waistband, it's not at all unlikely that he could be waiting just around that dark corner.
But now on Hannity, in a complete change from Zimmerman's recorded voice in the NEN call twice describing running, Martin wasn't running - and certainly not in fear. Now we have a thug with confrontational body language and his hand in his waistband (a weapon) who had disappeared (not running and not in fear) around a dark corner. Following blind into the dark after that sort of individual would be totally insane. Clearly this would be a very dangerous situation.

It gets worse.
Any normal person would realise the danger just out of common sense.
Zimmerman however, had been specifically advised of the dangers as part of the Neighborhood Watch program. Even without native common sense, he had formal notice that getting into the situatation that he got into in that dark footpath area was dangerous and actively discouraged.
Wendy Dorival, the police NW coordinator says that this is something that they can't say enough to NW volunteers. Call from the safety of home or vehicle. Do not approach. Do not carry weapons. She says that she remember emphasising this yet again at a presentation that Zimmerman attended.


However...
Not alone does Zimmerman ignore NW training, he doesn't appear to have the intelligence to realise the danger.
HANNITY: You said in that tape something's wrong with him, he's checking me out. I don't know what his deal was. So it's almost from the very beginning you felt -- are you saying on that 911 tape that you felt threatened at that moment when you said that to the dispatch?
ZIMMERMAN: No, not particularly.

There's the problem. If Zimmerman admits to any feeling of being threatened, then following into that dark area is reckless. At the same time, if he says that there was no level of threat, then all his talk of Martin appearing as threatening is bogus, and the likelyhood of Martin being the aggressor nosedives.
On Hannity, Zimmerman is trying to give two mutually contradictory messages on this.


3. The 2.5 minute gap between the NEN ending and the first 911 connecting.
Any gap at all is a threat to the defence.
On Hannity they try to give the completely false impression that Zimmerman turned around as soon as the dispatcher said "We don't need  you to do that".
Whatever the foolishness/recklessness of leaving the safety of the truck, the impression is to be given that Zimmerman headed back as soon as advised by the dispatcher.
This spin is insane. It would not stand up even to examination by a moderately intelligent child. Zimmerman claims that he next saw Martin less than 30 seconds after that point. A small child might point ou that he was still on the call for over a minute after saying "OK" to "We don't need you to do that"

The only 30 seconds involved is the 30 seconds that it would take for Zimmerman to walk from RVC - where he says he ended the call - to the point beyond the T at which he says he was attacked.
That's just 30 seconds of a 2.5 minute gap, leaving 2 minutes to be explained
Even allowing for the delay in the 911 caller noticing the noise, getting the phone, dialling and being answered, we are looking at well over 1 minute and maybe 2 minutes that have no explanation from Zimmerman's account.

The spin in Hannity is to try head this problem off.
Many people might have heard about some time gap. To completely mislead these people, Hannity is somehow led to ask:
HANNITY: What did you do from that moment forward? Because this is where we get into this minute gap in this case, you know, and what did you do from that minute forward when the dispatch said "we don't need you to follow him?" What did you do next?
 Zimmerman comes back with being attacked less than 30 seconds later. The intention is that the stupid people will take a view that this 30 seconds is practically the famous "one minute gap" (which is actually a 2.5 minute gap) and go "Poor George headed back when told by the dispatcher but Martin viciously attacked him".

It is clear that O'Mara takes the view that any audience must not realise the recklessness of Zimmerman remaining in a danger area when a reasonable person - even if not informed by NW training and then by the dispatcher - would have long departed. A reasonable preson would not even have put themselves in the situation - and certainly not if they had the benefit of formal NW presentation by Dorival.





3 comments:

  1. Will a jury ever get to hear these stories? wondering.....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sling T, you did get one thing wrong, and we WILL have to point that out, because there has been so much FALSE information spread around about good, non-racist, honest, respectful, spiritual George Zimmerman. You said he got a couple of scratches on his head, a suspected injury to his nose "and some bruising" -- but he got NO BRUISES. He was asked by the guy who did the voice-stress test (or by Serino, I can't remember right now) if he had any bruises on his body, and his answer was the very familiar "Nossir." At least he kept it polite.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Yes. Right.
    I had understood some bruising at the back of the head. His medical report from the following morning only mentions cuts there.

    The only bruising mentioned is in the eye area and is taken as an indicator of a likely closed fracture of the nose.
    It's only 'likely' as the nose, unlike Zimmerman's ego, is not bent out of shape.

    I should make that more clear. Thanks

    ReplyDelete