I wouldn’t be surprised if he was on the phone to his father or someone else for guidance. I also wouldn’t be surprised if he was calling the police.
If the latter I can see him not mentioning and the police not questioning. If the former I find it a bit suspicious that he didn’t mention it.
Being on the phone immediately I don’t find suspicious at all. If I found myself responsible for the death of another, call number one or number two would be to the lawyer in the family.
It’d be more likely that they ended up speaking English. Us Brits are a stubborn breed, y’see. 
No. He was insistent to the first witness that the police were on their way and that he should phone his wife and let her know he’d shot someone, as if that was the only information she needed to know.
How suspicious do you find him being on the phone near the walkway, when he claims he was still atop of TM and desperate for assistance?
Is that the sort of mistake in testimony that should be ignored?
Zim’s own words again.
If witness #13 is to be believed, this NEVER happened. Why would Z say TM was still talking at a moment when according to this witness, Z was either using the phone or trying to? Is he trying to cover for the talking he thought the witness might have heard while approaching, when he was talking to this mystery person who he fails to even mention trying to contact?
ps. re. witness #13 — I wonder if Z is superstitious?
You’ve got to admire that Hannity fellow’s professionalism and dedication to getting to the truth.
Does Hannity have an attention deficit disorder too?
It would explain to her why he wasn’t going to be back from the store for quite a long time. 
Giving the benefit of the doubt I would say he didn’t want to appear callous or waste too much time with her so he could be available to the police. Assuming he wasn’t that thoughtful, perhaps he doesn’t care a lot for his wife to explain further.
Assuming he is deceitful and calculating, perhaps that was all it took to initiate a predetermined response. Such as her calling his father, or others to come to render assistance.
Seems pretty stupid to change anything in the story after the arrival of witnesses. I assume he is either thinks he is being helpful to himself by clearing up what could be a potentially compromising instance (we have all been caught in one that could be seen as something it was not). Or he is downright stupid and thinks he can get away with something by changing his story.
Poor recollection of events might be an excuse, but I have to think several moments of that night must be seared in his memory and the first person arriving on scene (discovery of what he did) has to be one of them.
His phone records have not been released (IIRC), but the prosecution undoubtably knows who he was talking to on the phone.
As to why he would lie about not being on the phone, that isn’t a mystery. Zimmerman is a liar.
Actually, I think there’s another possibility.
Because the then-new Florida SYG law prohibits a police department from arresting or even detaining a person who claims self-defense unless the agency has probable cause not only to believe in general that a crime has been committed – which is the usual standard for arrests – but probable cause specifically to believe the force used was unlawful.
This is a confusing standard, and violation of it exposes the department to potential civil liability. It’s a foolish (in my opinion) elevation of self-defense claims into a rather strong shield against investigation.
Part of the reason the Sanford cops were reluctant to move forward may well have been uncertainty about meetinf the requirements of that law.
This may be some of the evidence that we don’t know of that warranted the charges.
He has denied being on the phone? That would be a lie.
Failing to mention he was on the phone in subsequent recounting could be any number of things up to and including lying.
Unless he was ever asked point blank about being on the phone, he would have not had the opportunity to explicitly lie about this. But the omission of this detail in his account, when he was describing his actions immediately after the shooting, should make you wonder what other truths he’s omitted.
I think you are somewhat overstating the case. It’s a shield against arrest (although I would think the police were familiar with the idea of “probable cause”). It’s not a shield against investigation.
AIUI, the police can proceed with investigation without arrest.
Regards,
Shodan
Exactly correct. With the evidence we know of, I can’t see any way for the prosecution to prove the malice, hate, ill-will element.
But they brought the charges – I assume Corey did so because she knows she CAN prove it. Ergo – there’s evidence we haven’t seen, and it’s relevant to that element.
The police are certainly familiar enough with general probable cause. They are less familiar with “probable cause that the force used was unlawful,” a standard that reduces the scope of the fact-finding to a single key factor.
And because an investigation typically includes a detention – a brief incursion to liberty intended to allow the police to hold a suspect while they confirm, or dissipate, their reasonable, articulable suspicion – taking away that tool absolutely limits investigation.
Looking at it in the most favourable light, it is George failing to mention something he doesn’t feel is important, which only makes you wonder what else he didn’t feel important enough to be bothering the investigators with.
If, as the detective in charge of making the decision to let someone go under such circumstances, you haven’t even been through the initial witness statements to look for inconsistencies to try and shake the self-defence claimant with, how can you in good faith let a person go who you know has killed someone?
ps. On a lighter note, I’ve got thank Serino for the hilarity he provided with his lame “memory recall” attempt on Z. That was sterling detective work. I wonder if he’d been watching The Mentalist before he was called out?
I don’t see why the investigation cannot continue even when no one is arrested. The investigation certainly continued even after Zimmerman was released - that’s why one of the investigators wanted Zimmerman charged - so that the investigation could continue. Not having a suspect in custody doesn’t stop the police from interviewing other witnesses, collecting evidence from the scene, etc.
Zimmerman was fool enough to answer questions, and even to re-enact the incident. I think that was a mistake - he should have kept his mouth shut and lawyered up - but he didn’t do it because they arrested him.
Suppose Zimmerman (as he should have done) said exactly two things to the police - “I was in fear of my life, and I am not answering any questions”. I don’t see how hanging onto him while the police look for probable cause helps the case.
Regards,
Shodan
That’s why he wont be having much of a career in law, either.
Failed relationships, failed as a bouncer, failed as a cop, failed as a neighbourhood watch [del]captain[/del]co-ordinator, failed as a judge, failed at fooling a bond hearing… is there anything Z has been successful at?
Take a close look at that photo. Zimmerman is wearing something red. The alleged phone is being held by a blue arm. How is that possible? One could conclude that there’s someone standing in front of Zimmerman.
Look more closely. You can just see the tiny bit of orange of his jacket sleeve. That isn’t blue, it is the dark patches on Z’s jacket sleeves. Look at the picture above the one of the back of his head and imagine if Z was holding a phone to his ear.
Something else to consider from’s Z’s 2nd interview testimony.
Then, a little further on.
But Z, you just said you DID see him.
You even said you backed away from him, which makes people wonder how he “suddenly” landed a punch on your nose.