In which Stoid (The Prosecutor) Cross-examines Bricker (George Zimmerman)

He could look at them from where he was standing, across the street, when I first saw him.

I’ve seen other street signs that had that information. I didn’t know that there was no street sign there or that it didn’t have address information on it, that’s what I got out to look for.

Because I knew where he started, so I knew what general direction he was running, I just got confused about how far along that direction we were.

No. I didn’t know the address. I told the dispatcher I didn’t know the address. I’m explaining to you that because I didn’t know the address, that’s why I wanted to find a sign, to tell me where I was at exactly.

Look, you have a satellite photo of the whole neighborhood, and everything’s bright and clear and the people on it are about a quarter-inch tall, so everyone can see everything. I was in a truck in the dark, in the rain, with the windshield wipers going, and I wasn’t exactly sure of the address I was at.

Surely it’s time to just flat out ask Brickerman, “Did you order the code red?”

Mr. Zimmerman, you have lived in the Twin Trees development for 3 years. Please look at this map. As you can see, the entire development is made up of three streets. The red line is the distance you had traveled. It’s 300 feet. It is one end of that block to the other. It took you approximately 5 minutes to travel that distance, or rather to not travel, since you had spent most of it stopped.

Tell us, Mr. Zimmerman, do you often find yourself confused about where you are after traveling for a few hundred feet within a block of your own home? Is this a normal state of affairs for you?

Also, Mr. Zimmerman, you have repeatedly told us how dark and rainy it was that night, making it extraordinarily difficult for you to identify the landmarks of your home neighborhood and know where you were.

If that was the case, how was it so easy for you to see Mr. Martin’s clothing, the button on his shirt, the location of his hands, the look in his eyes? Those are very tiny, unfamiliar details and you were viewing him from some distance. You could see all of that, but you couldn’t see that there was no street sign? You could see that he had a button on his shirt, but you couldn’t be sure of where you were? Can you explain that?

Not really, but at stressful times, like when I see a prowler, sure, sometimes I forget details or get a little confused. Doesn’t everyone?

I didn’t say I saw that it was a button. I just said I could see something on his shirt. And I could because I drove right by him, I passed him close enough to see those things, plus I think the clubhouse area was a bit more lighted.

And I never said I saw the look in his eyes, either.

“No, I didn’t. And stop calling me Red.”

Not when they see a young man openly walking along the street like anyone else, no, they don’t.

Please answer this question, Mr. Zimmerman, it was not rhetorical:

Regarding your encounter with Martin after you’d gone looking for him. Your original testimony was:

But we now know that you had gone looking for him and you’d actually gone through the cut through and halfway down the center walkway between the houses on Retreat and the houses on Twin Trees in your pursuit of him, and in fact that is where you found him.

Searching for Trayvon and then finding him is very different than accidently catching sight of him while you are doing something else, Mr. Zimmerman, why have you been avoiding being completely frank about this?

Also, please tell the court at exactly which point you stopped beating your wife.

When do we get to hear Trayvon’s side of the story?

Objection - counsel is attempting to testify.

Asked and answered. Move on.

Regards,
Shodan

You’re out of order!

You’re* out of order! The whole thread is out of order!

If the court reporter would read back from the phone call…

That’s true. However, you have indicated that in the dark and the rain, you were able to discern the following things:

These are things you have described noticing and seeing throughout the time you were observing him, not merely the one moment you drove past him. So you are telling us that you were able to discern his gaze, his intention to “check you out”, his pretense that he was looking elsewhere while actually looking at you, his “staring” at you and peering into people’s homes… all of those things require a clear view of Trayvon’s dark skinned face inside a hoodie on a night so dark and rainy that you could not recognize where you were in your home neghborhood.

So, can you explain for the court how you were so eagle-eyed as to discern so much detail in Trayvon’s face while still being unable to determine that lack of a street sign? Isn’t it true that you didn’t really see all that in Trayvon’s face at all, you merely assumed all those things about him simply because he was a young black man? Or is the truth that you exited your vehicle only to chase after Trayvon and you’ve told us about the need to look at a street sign to make it seem less like you were hunting him down?
You have testified that you saw Trayvon when you were returning to your truck. You said

But earlier you said:

So the truth is actually that you confronted him, isn’t it, Mr. Zimmerman?

Asked and answered:

The word is not ‘button.’ It’s “something.” My slight accent makes the word come out as somethin’. And if it were a button, I would have said A button, not “He’s got button on his shirt.” there’s no article in that sentence.

here is [url=“Zimmerman 911 Call Transcript – Trayvon Martin | Phoebe's Detention Room”]a transcript with that version.

No. All I needed to see was which way his body was oriented and his head was pointing. I assumed he didn’t have his eyes tightly shut. I assumed he wasn’t rolling his eyes all the way to the sides while keeping his head straight. Sure, he could have been doing something like that. Like you say, I didn’t have an up-close view. But my impression was he was looking where I said he was looking. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe his eyes were closed the whole time. I sure didn’t think so, but yeah, I couldn’t see his eyes.

No, absolutely not. There was no eagle eyeness.

He put himself in front of me. So he physically conFRONTed me first. But I spoke to him first, yes.

*here is a transcript with that version. * (something vs. button )

*(liar liar pants on fire. Just cuz other people are deaf doesn’t mean I am… ) *

Will the court direct the witness to answer the questions:

So merely from the direction someone is facing you can tell that they are pretending to be looking at one thing while looking at another? That’s a remarkable talent, Mr. Zimmerman…

*(objection…!)
*
Withdrawn.

Mr. Zimmerman

But you told us that he was facing away from you. How could he “put himself in front of” you when he wasn’t even facing in your direction?

Those two statements describe the same thing. My first testimony was just a summary. I didn’t try to include each and every detail. I did get out of he car,I did see movement, and then I saw Treyvon. Yes, one reason I got out of the car was to look for him. I never said that I accidentally saw him, that’s your word.

The front of his body was facing me. When he first saw me, he looked away, like he was pretending he didn’t notice me. As I approached him, he turned his head to face me. That’s when I asked him what he was doing there.