Tuesday Reads: My Objections to Mainstream Media Reporting on the Trayvon Martin Case

Good Morning!

I’ll warn you up front: I’m going to subject you to another rant about the Trayvon Martin case. If you’re not interested, you can stop reading now and just head for the comments. I promise not to take offense. BTW, it was either this or a rant about Cory Booker and Harold Ford.

I’m still following the Trayvon Martin story very closely, and I’ve been really shocked at the way the mainstream media has covered it. There has been a surprising willingness of reporters and “experts” to accept George Zimmerman’s multiple and conflicting versions of what happened on the night of February 26, 2012, when he shot and killed an unarmed minor child, for example, see here. I can’t help but wonder if some kind of institutionalized racism isn’t involved. Here are a few of the obvious inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s accounts just off the top of my head.

We’ve been told that Martin walked in circles around Zimmerman’s truck, and that Zimmerman was terrified. Yet Zimmerman was on the phone with a police dispatcher at the time and never mentioned this threatening activity.

We also know that Martin was on the phone with a friend at that time. Does it make sense that he would repeatedly circle Zimmerman’s truck while at the same time telling his friend he was frightened because a “crazy and creepy” man was watching and following him? And why would Zimmerman then get out of his truck and begin following Martin (while still on the phone with the dispatcher) if he was so frightened of the boy? We know that he did get out of his car and follow Martin, because Zimmerman told the police dispatcher so, and you can hear him huffing and puffing on the call as he either ran or walked quickly after Martin.

We’ve also been told that after Zimmerman got out of his car, he lost sight of Martin and turned back toward his truck. Then suddenly Martin attacked from behind, knocking Zimmerman to the sidewalk. Then supposedly Martin climbed on top of Zimmerman and banged his head on the pavement again and again and again. Where’s the evidence for that?

We now know that Zimmerman had a superficial cut on the back of his head and a couple of other cuts on his face as well as a bloody nose. We’ve been told that he had two black eyes and a closed fracture of his nose, but no photos of these injuries have been released. There was no sign of black eyes in the videos of Zimmerman at the police station after the shooting.

Certainly getting your head banged on cement should lead to serious damage–including brain damage or internal bleeding–not just a one-inch long cut! Here is an article about a man in Florida who fell and hit his head on the pavement and died from his injuries. Perhaps you could hit your head on pavement and survive, but pounded violently and repeatedly into the pavement? Surely that would turn the back of your head to hamburger.

Furthermore, if the fight took place on the sidewalk, how did Martin’s body end up in the middle of a grassy area? Police also reported that the back of Zimmerman’s jacket was wet and covered with grass stains. Witnesses describe a fight that moved over a distance and was witness successively by neighbors along the way.

Zimmerman also told police that Martin held his hand over his (Zimmerman’s mouth) as they fought, but at the same time that Zimmerman was screaming for help at the top of his lungs.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, even police did not believe the story about the hand over the mouth, because Zimmerman wouldn’t have been able to scream out words if his mouth were covered.

Police also had problems with some of the melodramatic quotes Zimmerman attributed to Martin, such as the claim (through Zimmerman’s father) that Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun and announced “you’re going to die tonight.” You have to wonder how many arms Martin had to be punching Zimmerman, holding his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth, pounding his head on the pavement, and also reaching for the gun. Of course we now know that none of Martin’s DNA was found on any part of the gun, yet Zimmerman told police the two struggled over it.

In Zimmerman’s account, Martin was sitting on top of him, punching him and suddenly Martin saw the gun and reached for it and the two struggled over it. How would Martin have seen the gun if it was in the holster on Zimmerman’s waist. Wouldn’t he have been sitting at or above the waist in order to punch Zimmerman’s face? And how would Zimmerman have pulled his gun out in this position? Another problem with this story is that the autopsy showed that the trajectory bullet went front to back in a straight line. How would Zimmerman have been able to do this with Martin sitting on top of him like this?

How would the man on the bottom manage a straight, front-to-back shot from that angle? Wouldn’t it make more sense if they had been standing at the time of the gunshot?

Zimmerman also told police that after he shot Martin, the boy said the words “Okay you got it” or “you got me.” But from the autopsy results we now know that Martin was shot straight through the left ventricle of the heart with a hollow-point bullet. His lungs collapsed immediately as the bullet split into pieces. How would he have been able to speak? I think he probably died instantly.

So there are all kinds of problems with Zimmerman’s account(s) of the shooting and the events leading up to it. Yet, most mainstream media sources that I’ve read are reporting that Zimmerman’s account(S) are corroborated by the evidence. The assumption is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and therefore somehow deserved to die. I just don’t get it.

Since the release of part of the prosecution evidence, media outlets have focused on the finding that Trayvon Martin had trace levels of THC in his blood and urine at the time of his death, but have paid almost no attention to the much more powerful and dangerous medications that George Zimmerman was taking–Adderall (two forms of amphetamine) and Restoril (a sedative-hypnotic in the benzodiazepine family). Both of these are addictive drugs that are commonly abused, yet media reports have tended to minimize their mood-altering effects.

It seems to me that if Zimmerman’s attorney opts for a hearing on a stand-your-ground claim that all these inconsistencies will be brought up. That will be problematic for Zimmerman, because he will have to take the stand in order to state his case and back it up. He will have to describe the events of the night and explain any discrepancies with his previous statements. He made five different statements to police and participated in a taped recreation of events at the scene.

At Zimmerman’s bond hearing, prosecutor Bernie de la Ronda suggested that there were inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s statements (de la Ronda was referred to as “unidentified male” in the CNN transcript).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE [Prosecutor de la Ronda]: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested — I’m sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?

ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then the following morning. Is that correct?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn’t it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started “I don’t remember”?

O’MARA [Zimmerman's attorney]: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.

JUDGE LESTER: We’ll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn’t it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn’t believe it, that you would say “I don’t remember”?

JUDGE LESTER: I’m going to grant his motion at this time.

O’MARA: Thank you, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?

ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.

Prosecutor de la Ronda also alluded to some e-mails and text messages that were found on Zimmerman’s cell phone after his arrest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Now, sir, you had a phone at some point and you agreed to turn over that phone to the police so they could make a copy of what was in there, right?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in that phone did you receive or send text messages sir.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to a reverend?

O’MARA: Objection, your honor. Outside the scope.

JUDGE LESTER: Sustained.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to Mr. Martin, the father of the victim?

JUDGE LESTER: Sustained. You’re getting a little bit far away.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize your honor. My question is he was asked in terms of apology to the family and I’d like to be able to address that if I could. JUDGE LESTER: I think you can classify that whether or not he asked the apology. I don’t want to get into other areas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

JUDGE LESTER: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question is, Mr. Zimmerman, do you recall sending a message to someone, an e-mail, about referring to the victim’s father?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. I don’t.

The statements that Zimmerman gave to police and the e-mails and text messages from his cell phone have not been released yet. But we have learned from one witness’s statement that Zimmerman has shown himself to be a bully and a bigot toward a Middle Eastern co-worker. I suspect that the comments found on Zimmerman’s cell phone were derogatory and racist references to Trayvon Martin’s family and/or their supporters. The “reverend” might be Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

Zimmerman will also have to deal with the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s friend (referred to in the media as “Dee Dee,” who was talking to Martin during the time leading up to the confrontation and the shooting. In the full interview that she gave to the prosecutor, “Dee Dee” describes hearing a confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin says “Why are you following me for?” and Zimmerman responds by saying “What are you doing around here?” She then hears a bumping sound and Martin’s headphones fall off. But she can still hear him say, “Get off. Get off.” The whole interview is posted at The New York Times (scroll down to sidebar).

One of the biggest questions is who was screaming on one of the 911 tapes called in by a witness. Yesterday, the WaPo had an article about two voice experts, one of whom concluded that the voice is Trayvon Martin’s and that he can be heard saying “I’m begging you,” “Help me,” and “Stop!” right before the gunshot silenced him. A second expert pooh poohs these findings, but give it a read. I found the article quite compelling.

I know I’m largely preaching to the choir here at Sky Dancing, but I wanted to try to pull some of these inconsistencies together to show that–despite the media seeming to favor Zimmerman’s side–he is going to have a lot to answer for, particularly if he and his attorney decide to go the “stand-your-ground” route. In a trial, Zimmerman will have a choice about whether to take the stand; but at a pre-trial hearing to determine whether he is immune from prosecution because he was defending himself, Zimmerman would have to testify and his credibility will be on the line.

I’d love to get your reactions to what I’ve written. I’d especially like to know your opinions about why the mainstream media in general has been giving George Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and demonizing Trayvon Martin.

For example, why the obsessive focus on traces of THC and little attention to the heavy duty prescription drugs Zimmerman was taking? Why was Martin described for so long as very tall, towering over Zimmerman, when he actually was 5’11” and Zimmerman is only a couple of inches shorter. Why has the media portrayed Zimmerman’s injuries as horrifying when they are actually quite superficial? Why have they exaggerated a tiny cut on one of Martin’s fingers into “scraped knuckles?” And so on. Am I wrong to suspect underlying racism as at least part of the explanation for these media attitudes?

As always, please feel free to post your own links in the comments.