Why hasn't the Neighborhood Watch shooter been arrested?

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

http://prepaid-phones.t-mobile.com/

You can still get basic phones pre-paid. How did you know it was t-mobile? This is all rather pointless without knowing the model. It could have been a brand new smartphone or a 3 year old piece of crap.

It was mentioned it was t-mobile in multiple places and they actually show part of his bill showing the call from his girl friend. A prepaid account is unlikely based on the number of hours he spend talking to his girl friend that weekend.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_t...20320_main.jpg

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1408421.html

My reaction on reading this, is even if the attorney is working pro bono, he is getting paid too much.

My thought is not that the lawyer is getting paid too much, but that this whole defense strategy is wack and will probably be good for a few laughs as the days creep on.

Why are they playing up the severity of Zimmerman's injuries when that is nonessential to a legitimate self defense claim? Given the underwhelming evidence of injury captured on that video and in the police report (plus his delay in seeking medical care) you would think the defense would now choose to play up Zimmermans fear of serious injury, as opposed to portraying him as actually being a victim of serious injury.

Now that he's making his injuries the centerpiece of his claim, he's making it easier for him to lose. All the prosecution has to do is cast doubt on his claim that Martin inflicted all this egregious harm on him, and he risks losing in court.

[PotLuck]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Ok, so explain exactly what the police should have done to unlock the phone, please. You know, if they had been trying hard.

I have no idea what kind of phone Martin had, but out of curiosity I called my cell provider to ask them what would happen if I forgot the password to my Blackberry Curve. The rep told me that they could have to reset it for me, losing all my internally saved information in the process. When I asked if there was a way to reset the password without losing the info he said that "may be possible" but I'd have to contact Blackberry directly, as their company doesn't take responsibility for that kind of thing and urges customers to write down their passwords.

That led me to wonder about my memory card, so I checked the settings on my phone. Turns out that setting a password only protects usage of the phone; I had to check two boxes to encrypt the memory card and the media saved on it. Up until that point, anyone could have popped out my card and accessed the music, pictures, videos and audio recordings I've saved on it using another Blackberry or a memory card reader. (Not anymore!)

That's what I found out using a telephone and curiosity, and it took less than ten minutes. I would presume that it would occur to a police department investigating a shooting death would make even more of an effort that I just did. I'm just wondering: did they?

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Yes, don't you hate it when people do that?

This is old. Please get new material already.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by you with the face

My thought is not that the lawyer is getting paid too much, but that this whole defense strategy is wack and will probably be good for a few laughs as the days creep on.

Why are they playing up the severity of Zimmerman's injuries when that is nonessential to a legitimate self defense claim? Given the underwhelming evidence of injury captured on that video and in the police report (plus his delay in seeking medical care) you would think the defense would now choose to play up Zimmermans fear of serious injury, as opposed to portraying him as actually being a victim of serious injury.

Now that he's making his injuries the centerpiece of his claim, he's making it easier for him to lose. All the prosecution has to do is cast doubt on his claim that Martin inflicted all this egregious harm on him, and he risks losing in court.

You keep thinking all this is a court proceeding. It isn't. The attorney's remarks to the press have no relevance in court. In fact, they cannot even be brought up in court. So who cares what he says?

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by you with the face

My thought is not that the lawyer is getting paid too much, but that this whole defense strategy is wack and will probably be good for a few laughs as the days creep on.

Why are they playing up the severity of Zimmerman's injuries when that is nonessential to a legitimate self defense claim? Given the underwhelming evidence of injury captured on that video and in the police report (plus his delay in seeking medical care) you would think the defense would now choose to play up Zimmermans fear of serious injury, as opposed to portraying him as actually being a victim of serious injury.

Now that he's making his injuries the centerpiece of his claim, he's making it easier for him to lose. All the prosecution has to do is cast doubt on his claim that Martin inflicted all this egregious harm on him, and he risks losing in court.

This is PR and has no relevance to whatever they claim in court. Their best strategy is not to be charged by the DA, but I doubt she is listening to Zimmerman's attorneys. If she decides she doesn't have enough evidence to convict Zimmerman, in theory she could plea bargain or decide not to prosecute, but I doubt that is politically possible in this case.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Terr

You keep thinking all this is a court proceeding. It isn't. The attorney's remarks to the press have no relevance in court. In fact, they cannot even be brought up in court. So who cares what he says?

Fair enough. But I fail to see how the Shaken Baby angle helps Zimmerman even if we limit this to the court of public opinion. It just makes him look even more like someone who is willing to stretch the truth to justify the death of an unarmed person. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Zimmerman likes hearing people crucify his name in the press. Shit like this only encourages that.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Fair enough. But I fail to see how the Shaken Baby angle helps Zimmerman even if we limit this to the court of public opinion. It just makes him look even more like someone who is willing to stretch the truth to justify the death of an unarmed person. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Zimmerman likes hearing people crucify his name in the press. Shit like this only encourages that.

This goes back to my original point that Zimmerman's lawyers are idiots.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Fair enough. But I fail to see how the Shaken Baby angle helps Zimmerman even if we limit this to the court of public opinion. It just makes him look even more like someone who is willing to stretch the truth to justify the death of an unarmed person. If I didn't know any better, I'd think Zimmerman likes hearing people crucify his name in the press. Shit like this only encourages that.

If it was Zimmerman who was bringing it up, you'd be right. Was it?

The "shaken baby syndrome" was not brought up by attorneys to say that Zimmerman got it. They never said it. They brought it as an example of serious injuries that can happen from seemingly non-life-threatening actions. It was stupid of them to say it just because of the word "baby" in it. But then no one said lawyers are geniuses. I bet you it won't be brought up in court.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by RickJay

You don't know for sure what, precisely, Zimmerman claimed his injuries were, or for that matter what they ACTUALLY were. So how do you claim there's consistency between the two?

As it stands NOW. Based on what has been presented so far. We know Zimmerman stated he was attacked and the police report states acknowledgement of injuries. We could guess that Zimmerman described injuries to his knees but logic suggests that he would talk about the injuries to his head.

I'm not making any claims. this is my opinion. You however, seem to have a problem with someone's opinion to the point you've called me names. This is IMHO.

Originally Posted by RickJay

You're just making stuff up.

I'm drawing a conclusion according to everything I've read up to NOW. My conclusion is my opinon at that's what we do in IMHO. I've done it in a rational manner without attacking other posters. You however, seem to have difficulty with this process.

If you want to make the obvious point that we don't know all the facts then make it leave. It's a self-ending statement that requires no other input from you. But some of us can consider both sides of the issue and believe it important to discuss it in an environment where news agencies have deliberately mis-reported facts, celebrities are posting erroneous information, and hate groups are offering rewards for the capture of Zimmerman.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Terr

If it was Zimmerman who was bringing it up, you'd be right. Was it?

.

Poor Zimmy. He can't seem to catch a break. His dad goes around telling people that Martin said things that make him sound like a comic book villain, but we're told not to listen to him because he's not George. His brother also says things, but we're chided if we even act like this is what George is claiming went down. Now it's his lawyers turn to say things that we should not take at face value. Which really should make us wonder what purpose they serve if they don't represent the views of their client, but whatever.

With people always putting words in Zimmerman's mouth without his permission, it's no wonder he flipped out and shot someone dead for no good reason.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by you with the face

With people always putting words in Zimmerman's mouth without his permission, it's no wonder he flipped out and shot someone dead for no good reason.

I am glad you managed to find some hilarity in the situation. I don't.

[Blank Slate]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

It was mentioned it was t-mobile in multiple places and they actually show part of his bill showing the call from his girl friend. A prepaid account is unlikely based on the number of hours he spend talking to his girl friend that weekend.

http://abcnews.go.com/images/US/ht_t...20320_main.jpg

Thanks for the link, I missed all that somehow. You can get unlimited talk and text for $50/month from t-mobile, but I have no idea what he had.

[JoelUpchurch]

I just realized after all this talk about Martin's cell phone that if he had an voice mail greeting it should be on t-mobiles computers.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

This is old. Please get new material already.

Sorry, I know my asking you to substantiate every factual claim you make is not nearly as fun -- or varied -- as your ability to find constant new material by making stuff up, but just as this forum allows you your opinion, so too does it allow me mine, and my opinion is that your opinions (a) are slanted wholly towards the idea that Zimmerman is guilty and (b) are filled with supposition as opposed to being strongly grounded in fact.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by PotLuck

That's what I found out using a telephone and curiosity, and it took less than ten minutes. I would presume that it would occur to a police department investigating a shooting death would make even more of an effort that I just did. I'm just wondering: did they?

I have no idea.

But to claim definitively that they did not make such an effort is impossible.

Unless you know that Martin had a Blackberry with an unencrypted memory card, of course. Or if you know that whatever phone he did have was vulnerable to some hack r exploit.

If you don't know that, how does anyone claim so confidently the police were incompetent on the phone issue?

[Blank Slate]

Those of who don't find Zimmerman's story believable should actually be encouraged by the actions of the lead investigator. The stupid phone be damned. It was, after all, Chief Lee and the original SA who put the kibosh on bringing charges. Going forward, it is going to be lead homicide detective Serinos work that is going to matter most to the special prosecutor's investigation. Hopefully his work has been thorough. Chief Lee is ultimately responsible for any mistakes made early on, and none of that may matter at all.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by SciFiSam

I also just Googled and it took a few seconds to not only find out that 911 can be called without unlocking your phone, but found that all you then need to do is call the service provider and ask for a new PUK code and you can unlock the phone. This is maybe ten minutes' work including being on hold, and it's really not high-tech.

You now understand that "unlock" in your statement does not refer to the kind of unlocking at issue here, yes?

PUK code, again, is a means to unlock the SIM card. Not to unlock the phone apps and data stored therein.

Is everyone reading this clear on the distinction?

[PotLuck]

Originally Posted by PotLuck

That's what I found out using a telephone and curiosity, and it took less than ten minutes. I would presume that it would occur to a police department investigating a shooting death would make even more of an effort that I just did. I'm just wondering: did they?

Originally Posted by Bricker

I have no idea.

But to claim definitively that they did not make such an effort is impossible.

Unless you know that Martin had a Blackberry with an unencrypted memory card, of course. Or if you know that whatever phone he did have was vulnerable to some hack r exploit.

If you don't know that, how does anyone claim so confidently the police were incompetent on the phone issue?

Of course to claim definitively that they did not make such an effort is impossible; that's why I haven't done it. Nor do I know what kind of phone Martin had; I said so in my post. I don't know many ways I have to say that I'm wondering if the Sanford PD attempted to access Martin's phone for evidence. It's rumination, not accusation.

You asked a straight up, if somewhat snide, question: "Ok, so explain exactly what the police should have done to unlock the phone, please. You know, if they had been trying hard." My post was an 'NCIS'-free example of where I would have started.

[monstro]

I'm guessing I'm scratching my head over this because it wasn't a very high-tech solution they came up. They didn't have to bring in a crack team to answer the question "Who's phone is this?!" They fixed the problem by doing something that a lot of non-technical people already know to do.

No, I don't know how much they struggled with it. Maybe they burnt the midnight oil for five straight days. Even so, struggling doesn't necessarily earn you a scoobie snack. If the delay doesn't show laziness, it shows lack of competency to operate basic technology of the 21st century. Neither is good.

[treis]

You're assuming they didn't get the number from Martin's dad when they talked to him.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by PotLuck

Of course to claim definitively that they did not make such an effort is impossible; that's why I haven't done it. Nor do I know what kind of phone Martin had; I said so in my post. I don't know many ways I have to say that I'm wondering if the Sanford PD attempted to access Martin's phone for evidence. It's rumination, not accusation.

oh.

Well, then, me too:

If you don't know that, how does anyone claim so confidently the police were incompetent on the phone issue?

See? Just a question.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by treis

You're assuming they didn't get the number from Martin's dad when they talked to him.

So are we to conclude the call to 911 was to report an emergency in the evidence locker?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by monstro

I'm guessing I'm scratching my head over this because it wasn't a very high-tech solution they came up. They didn't have to bring in a crack team to answer the question "Who's phone is this?!" They fixed the problem by doing something that a lot of non-technical people already know to do.

No, I don't know how much they struggled with it. Maybe they burnt the midnight oil for five straight days. Even so, struggling doesn't necessarily earn you a scoobie snack. If the delay doesn't show laziness, it shows lack of competency to operate basic technology of the 21st century. Neither is good.

But since you can't really point at any specific prejudice the investigation suffered, it seems at least plausible that it wasn't laziness so much as triage... they did not spend time on low-yield work. What would they have gotten if they had quickly gotten the phone number? What did they do instead?

I don't know. I am perfectly prepared to concede that they might have tossed the phone in an evidence bag without a second thought, if I learned it was so, since I don't know otherwise. But I don't declare it without knowing.

And I do the same thing when people make confident assertions about Martin on thin or non-existent grounds, like the so-called "stolen jewelry" with no putative owner, no provenance, and no admission, but somehow "proof" that Martin was a thief-in-training.

You, so far as I can tell, have consistently argued for factual theories that inculpate Zimmerman and the Sanford police, and never for factual theories that inculpate Martin. You have consistently embraced scenarios that exonerate Martin of any wrongdoing.

Why is that?

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So are we to conclude the call to 911 was to report an emergency in the evidence locker?

No, but if they got the number from Martin's dad, then it simply could have been to confirm that Martin didn't have a second phone, and that the number they got was correct. In other words, low-yield investigation, not urgent, just covering all bases.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No, but if they got the number from Martin's dad, then it simply could have been to confirm that Martin didn't have a second phone, and that the number they got was correct. In other words, low-yield investigation, not urgent, just covering all bases.

Couldn't they have just covered this base by calling his cell phone using the number provided by Martins dad? Why would they have needed to dial out on it? And surely if they were interested in covering all bases in a timely matter, they would have done this immediately after connecting with Martins family. Rather than waiting several days. Times is of the essence in any homicide investigation, and talking about how "not urgent" evidence like this is is silly. The point that triggered our current tangent is that a key witness was not contacted until weeks after the shooting. Her statement is now being questioned because it wasn't taken sooner. Maybe if the cops had treated the phone with a bit more urgency, this wouldn't be an issue, ya think?

[treis]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So are we to conclude the call to 911 was to report an emergency in the evidence locker?

I don't know, but it seems like a rather large leap to conclude the Cops didn't do anything with Martin's phone until that 911 call.

[treis]

It could be as simple as:

(1) They got the number from Martin's dad

(2) Assumed it was the same phone

(3) Got the phone call records back, said "Oh shit he was on the phone".

(4) Said, "are we sure it's the same phone?"

(5) Called 911 to check the number on the phone

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by Blank Slate

Those of who don't find Zimmerman's story believable should actually be encouraged by the actions of the lead investigator. The stupid phone be damned. It was, after all, Chief Lee and the original SA who put the kibosh on bringing charges. Going forward, it is going to be lead homicide detective Serinos work that is going to matter most to the special prosecutor's investigation. Hopefully his work has been thorough. Chief Lee is ultimately responsible for any mistakes made early on, and none of that may matter at all.

It appears that the judgement of the original SA was sound considering they still haven't found probable cause for an arrest. This article explains why State Attorney may be reluctant to arrest the suspect if they don't have enough evidence for a conviction. Because of speedy trial rules require them to go to trial in 175 days.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/...andards-arrest

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Couldn't they have just covered this base by calling his cell phone using the number provided by Martins dad? Why would they have needed to dial out on it? And surely if they were interested in covering all bases in a timely matter, they would have done this immediately after connecting with Martins family. Rather than waiting several days. Times is of the essence in any homicide investigation, and talking about how "not urgent" evidence like this is is silly. The point that triggered our current tangent is that a key witness was not contacted until weeks after the shooting. Her statement is now being questioned because it wasn't taken sooner. Maybe if the cops had treated the phone with a bit more urgency, this wouldn't be an issue, ya think?

They did. After getting the phone number from Martin's dad, they immediately requested the phone's records. The delay was the phone company's well-documented delay in responding to these requests, and the delaying getting a court order.

IMHO. Maybe.

Point as always: how are we to know otherwise?

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by treis

It could be as simple as:

(1) They got the number from Martin's dad

(2) Assumed it was the same phone

(3) Got the phone call records back, said "Oh shit he was on the phone".

(4) Said, "are we sure it's the same phone?"

(5) Called 911 to check the number on the phone

And yet the existence of Martin's gf remained a shocker to them weeks after the shooting, even after the investigation was transferred to the state? Your theory doesn't add up.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

And yet the existence of Martin's gf remained a shocker to them weeks after the shooting, even after the investigation was transferred to the state? Your theory doesn't add up.

The fact that she didn't call the police in the weeks after the shooting doesn't add up. If she had information the police didn't have, she had a responsibility to tell them.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Point as always: how are we to know otherwise?

Look, you suggested that they called 911 on Martins phone to confirm he had only one phone. Just admit thats a silly theory, please. We could all dream up explanations that absolve the PD of incompetency, but the number of angels trying to dance on the head of this pin is fast approaching maximum occupancy limits.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Steophan

The fact that she didn't call the police in the weeks after the shooting doesn't add up. If she had information the police didn't have, she had a responsibility to tell them.

And do you know for a fact that she didn't try to reach out to the PD? Maybe she did and was put on hold indefinitely. Or told to leave a message that didn't prompt a return phone call. Or maybe someone spoke with her and they went through the motions of interviewing her but her statement wasn't treated seriously and was forgotten.

I mean, if we're going to play the " we just don't know!" card with the Sanford PD and Zimmerman, you should certainly do the same thing with a witness. Because you know nothing about her. You don't even know her name.

[treis]

Originally Posted by you with the face

And yet the existence of Martin's gf remained a shocker to them weeks after the shooting, even after the investigation was transferred to the state? Your theory doesn't add up.

I haven't been able to find a reliable cite saying when the police first talked to Martin's GF. We didn't find out about her until Martin's attorney made the announcement, but that doesn't mean the police found out about her then, or first attempted to contact her after that.

[PatriotX]

Originally Posted by treis

I haven't been able to find a reliable cite saying when the police first talked to Martin's GF. We didn't find out about her until Martin's attorney made the announcement, but that doesn't mean the police found out about her then, or first attempted to contact her after that.

Iirc, it was Tracy Martin who found her by researching Trayvon's phone records himself.

[monstro]

We can't know anything for sure. I just know that 5 days is a long time for them to figure out how they could confirm a cell phone belonged to a certain person.

If they already knew it belonged to Martin, why would they even need to dial 911? What was the purpose of this little exercise?

Re the girlfriend. I don't know why the police not getting in contact with her should be considered her fault. She's 16. Last time I checked, that's technically a child. Children of that age do not generally like to talk to adults, especially adults that are the police. She was also distraught over her boyfriend being shot. She may have also been waiting for the police to contact her, figuring that if they needed her testimony, they would find her. Being a child, who are generally not known for being very savvy, she may not have thought she had anything to contribute to the investigation.

(If the girlfriend had been an accomplice in a crime, do you really think it would sane to think that the police should wait for her to call them? Or do you think they would do their due diligence in tracking her down every way possible? A witness to a potential capital crime should be treated the same way.)

It is not the girlfriend's job to do the police work. Maybe the police was going to eventually track her down, but you'd think they would have done so after three weeks (or however long it took). Why was the lawyer able to get the phone logs but the police had such trouble? As I said earlier, the police didn't know who Martin had been on the phone with. For all they knew, the boy could have texted someone, leaving a message indicating that he was being stalked, please somebody help me before this crazy man kills me! Are ya'll telling me that that isn't important evidence? The phone could have contained critical evidence like this and more. The fact that the police department was already telling the family they believed Zimmerman (according to Martin's family) before they even cracked the phone's code makes me doubt there was seriousness put into the initial investigation. If we are to believe Martin's family, I don't know any other logical conclusion.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by you with the face

And do you know for a fact that she didn't try to reach out to the PD? Maybe she did and was put on hold indefinitely. Or told to leave a message that didn't prompt a return phone call. Or maybe someone spoke with her and they went through the motions of interviewing her but her statement wasn't treated seriously and was forgotten.

I mean, if we're going to play the " we just don't know!" card with the Sanford PD and Zimmerman, you should certainly do the same thing with a witness. Because you know nothing about her. You don't even know her name.

As I have before, the primary responsibly is with Crump. I don't buy the story that DeeDee had a breakdown. In any case, he had a responsibility to notify the SA of her existence. Instead, he decided to sit on her for weeks and play that card at his convenience.

[treis]

Originally Posted by monstro

We can't know anything for sure. I just know that 5 days is a long time for them to figure out how they could confirm a cell phone belonged to a certain person.

If they already knew it belonged to Martin, why would they even need to dial 911? What was the purpose of this little exercise?

Like I said in my previous post, there is a logical explanation for this. They simply assumed that the phone found with Martin was his, and didn't bother to check until later.

Originally Posted by monstro

(If the girlfriend had been an accomplice in a crime, do you really think it would sane to think that the police should wait for her to call them? Or do you think they would do their due diligence in tracking her down every way possible? A witness to a potential capital crime should be treated the same way.)

Again you, and seemingly everyone else, assume the police didn't talk to her within a reasonable timeframe. What are you basing that on?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by monstro

If they already knew it belonged to Martin, why would they even need to dial 911? What was the purpose of this little exercise?

I take that to mean called the 911 center and ask for phone records, not call 911 from Martin's phone.

[Steophan]

It is of course the girlfriend's responsibility, or that of her parents if she's too young to do so, to call the police with any information she has. It is also the responsibility of the police to follow up on any leads. If the police happened to be negligent by not calling her (which assumes they either knew of her existence and ignored it, or failed to find out about her when they should, neither of which I consider certain), that doesn't excuse her from volunteering the information.

And no, the police didn't just leave her on hold or ignore the call. This isn't a bad thriller.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

As I have before, the primary responsibly is with Crump.

It's obvious that Crump informed the PD about this witness. That's why we're even in a position to talk about it. You're essentially faulting him for notifying the cops sooner than he did, which assumes he was sitting on this evidence for a while. What makes you think he did?

And if Crump was able to track down Martin's GF and get access to his phone logs, then why in blue blazes couldn't the persons tasked with investigating this homicide? The cops had a head start plus Martin's phone. They should have never been in the position of needing Crump to do anything for them.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Look, you suggested that they called 911 on Martins phone to confirm he had only one phone. Just admit thats a silly theory, please. We could all dream up explanations that absolve the PD of incompetency, but the number of angels trying to dance on the head of this pin is fast approaching maximum occupancy limits.

No, I suggested to rebut your claim that the only inference is incompetence. I have no idea why they took that step, what else they knew when they did, and what they needed to still learn.

And neither do you.

The difference is that I admit it, while you call it "dreaming up" when the explanation doesn't help your pet theory, and "obvious" when the dreamed-up theory does lean the way you like.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

It's obvious that Crump informed the PD about this witness. That's why we're even in a position to talk about it. You're essentially faulting him for notifying the cops sooner than he did, which assumes he was sitting on this evidence for a while. What makes you think he did?

And if Crump was able to track down Martin's GF and get access to his phone logs, then why in blue blazes couldn't the persons tasked with investigating this homicide? The cops had a head start plus Martin's phone. They should have never been in the position of needing Crump to do anything for them.

Because Crump deliberately withheld information until he could talk to the girl and steer her story in the right direction.

IMHO. Or maybe not. I don't know.

Neither do you.

[JoelUpchurch]

Originally Posted by you with the face

It's obvious that Crump informed the PD about this witness. That's why we're even in a position to talk about it. You're essentially faulting him for notifying the cops sooner than he did, which assumes he was sitting on this evidence for a while. What makes you think he did?

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...ollowing-death

Trayvon Martin's 17-year-old girlfriend was hospitalized the day after his wake when she learned that she was the last person to talk to him before he was fatally shot by George Zimmerman, RadarOnline.com is exclusively reporting.

"The day after his wake, Trayvon's family attorney, Benjamin Crump, who had been conducting his own extensive investigation because cops had determined the shooting was in self defense, told Trayvon's girlfriend she was the last person to talk to him," a source close to the situation tells RadarOnline.com. "George had reviewed Trayvon's cell phone bill and it was revealed that she was on the phone with him in the moments before Trayvan was shot.

The wake was March 3rd. That means that he knew that DeeDee was talked to Trayvon just before he died on March 4th. He sat on this information until March 20th or for 16 days.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

No, I suggested to rebut your claim that the only inference is incompetence.

Cite? Sounds like you're dreaming up more stuff. Stop with the dreaming, Bricker.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

http://www.radaronline.com/exclusive...ollowing-death




The wake was March 3rd. That means that he knew that DeeDee was talked to Trayvon just before he died on March 4th. He sat on this information until March 20th or for 16 days.

And he told her what to say! And promised her a cut of the lawsuit profits! Which she was all too eager to accept, since SHE was the one that stole the jewelry and gave it to Treyvon to hold. His evasive answers about the jewelry were chivalrously noble.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by JoelUpchurch

[The wake was March 3rd. That means that he knew that DeeDee was talked to Trayvon just before he died on March 4th.

What's your evidence that he waited to tell the cops about this?

[JoelUpchurch]

http://static.globalgrind.com/sites/...y-photos-2.jpg

Is that a cellphone on Trayvon's belt? I don't recognize the model. It sort of looks like a flip phone that is open.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Cite? Sounds like you're dreaming up more stuff. Stop with the dreaming, Bricker.

Cite my purpose?

Sure. I interviewed myself to confirm and during that interview I asked myself, "Did I offer that up to rebut the claim that the only inference was police incompetence?"

"Yes," I answered. "I did."