Monthly Archives: March 2013

An Australian perspective on the Zimmerman case


I am writing this from an Australian perspective for the simple reason that I am not coming from a pov that involves any form of racism.  This is a case that should be based entirely upon the facts and the scene of the incident.

The facts are: George Zimmerman shot 17 year old Trayvon Martin. George’s reason for shooting Martin was fear for his life, especially at the point where he thought Martin was attempting to get hold of his gun.

The non-facts (or rather the things that have been made up) include:

1. George was hunting a little boy who was carrying a can and a packet of skittles like a rabid dog.

2. Trayvon Martin was somewhat younger than his real age of 17

3. That George was 50 lbs heavier than Trayvon Martin.

4. That George had his gun on display so it was Trayvon who was defending himself when he laid into George.

5. That George was chasing Trayvon.

This case has been complicated by a media circus that has continued to lie about what really happened.

I want to comment upon the last point first because I believe that George’s medical history prior to the beating that he took indicates that there is very little chance that George was doing any running. Yes, he might have had the ability to walk fast, but running? Do you really believe a person who has been diagnosed with sacroiliitis which leads to have a very sore low back would be capable of running that fast? Just ask people who have been diagnosed with Ankylosing Spondylitits what they think of that kind of statement!!  The other reason for disputing this version of events is the boots. George was wearing boots and they were not made for running!!

This is just a starting point with regard to my perspective of this case, which I actually see as a clear cut case of self-defense. (To be continued)

===================================================

Sorry for the interruption but the car was ready to be picked up after getting its first service.

====================================================

The next aspect to talk about is the weight comparisons. Once again the media circus has been responsible for a variety of false impressions. George at 21 was a lot heavier than the George who was set upon by the tall and also bulky Trayvon Martin. I would estimate that at the time of the incident there was no more than about 10lb difference in weight. Trayvon Martin was a lot taller than George Zimmerman, thus he had the height advantage.

On top of that, alleged weight advantage is misleading. The difference in weight might be an advantage if the pair had been squaring off in a boxing match or a judo match or something like that. However, that was clearly not the case.

I am relying on the statements of the “eye witnesses” to the incident and the eye witnesses had Trayvon Martin on top of George Zimmerman. If there was any weight advantage one might have expected the opposite scenario. Clearly that was not the case.

Rather than weight, it was the element of surprise that was all important. George Zimmerman had stated to the dispatch person that he had lost the person that he had seen. He went looking for an address. He had his car keys in his hand when he was knocked to the ground. The keys were found on the footpath and this fact supports what George stated. George was on his way back to his car when Trayvon Martin had appeared out of nowhere and then took a swing at George, knocking him to the ground. Trayvon Martin then pounded George’s head into the ground. If the pounding had continued George could have sustained fatal injuries (I will cover this point about fatal injuries in another post because there are relevant recent Australian cases to consider).

The eye witnesses heard someone calling for help. I believe that person was George Zimmerman. It was not the deeper voiced Trayvon Martin calling for help. This is an indication that Sybrina Fulton lied when she claimed that the voice crying for help was her son. Her reaction and tears were in fact a stunt that was no doubt the brain child of her lawyers.  Diwataman has done a great deal on the voice analysis. My own analysis is simpler because what I heard was a distinct cadence and that cadence belongs to George Zimmerman.

One scenario that gained traction in the media circus was the claim that George Zimmerman had his gun drawn and that it was Trayvon Martin who was standing his ground. Well, I happen to think that particular scenario is mushroom fodder or if you prefer “bulltish”. It was never the case. No gun drawn at all. That particular scenario requires that Trayvon Martin was shot from a distance. It was clearly not the case. Trayvon Martin was not gunned down like a rabid dog, but that does not mean that Trayvon was not a rabid dog.

Perhaps it is the purchases made at the store that tells some of the story. The claim that Trayvon Martin purchased Arizona Iced Tea has proved to be bulltish. The pictures from the site of the incident clearly show that the purchase was Arizona Watermelon Juice. The other item was Skittles, but I do not believe that this item was purchased for the son of the woman who was living in the property where he was staying.

What possible reason could there be for Trayvon to have purchased these particular items? The clue to answering this question is taken directly from Trayvon Martin’s Facebook page. This male was into using “Lean” when he was not using “pot”. He had been in trouble for using and dealing marijuana but he continued to desire those drugs. He moved on to using Lean. Two of the possible ingredients for Lean are Watermelon Juice or something like Mountain Dew plus Skittles to give it a kick. The missing ingredient was the cough syrup that had the magic ingredient that turned the whole into a drug. I note here that Trayvon Martin does not appear to have consumed Lean prior to the incident. However, within the previous 24 hours he had consumed marijuhana because there was a trace of THC found in his blood sample.

The point about Lean is that the combination of Lean and marijuhana is one that can lead a person to paranoia. It has to be remembered here that Trayvon Martin had made some noises about this subject and not wanting to be caught again. What if, when he spotted George Zimmerman, he thought that he had been sprung in some way? This question opens up some possibilities as to why Trayvon Martin starting running but it does not explain why he doubled back to the T-intersection and then lay in wait to deck George Zimmerman.

Note: I have dealt with a young male (not my son) who explained to me about his feelings of paranoia when he heard a police siren. This person had used some drugs which probably had some kind of effect upon his thinking at the time. The paranoia itself was due to a guilt complex caused by something that he had done in the past. When I discuss the possibility of paranoia I actually recall what this person said to me about his reactions when he heard sirens. Therefore, the paranoia is a possibility but it is by no means probable that this is what influenced Trayvon Martin that night.

Basically the eye witnesses to the assault on George Zimmerman backed up his story about what happened. They saw Trayvon Martin attacking George Zimmerman. They heard the cries for help yet none of them came out to help George.

As far as the ear witness is concerned I have yet to see any real evidence that the story is real. It seems to be concocted.

The day after St Patrick’s Day – Open Thread


Please post your thoughts here.  You are welcome to talk about more than Trayvon Martin – George Zimmerman case.

Michael Smith vs The Prime Minister of Australia


Who is Michael Smith? This is is a long story that involves a scandal that goes back to the 1990s and Michael Smith is only one player in the whole story. He has been many things including an army officer, a police officer and an executive working with a telco, as well as being a talk back radio host.

It was in the capacity of talk back radio that Michael was alerted to the story being told by an ex-union official by the name of Bob Kernohan. You see Bob Kernohan was an official in the Australian Workers Union and he has been fighting corruption for a very long time. Bob could not be bribed with an offer of a seat in the Parliament and so he was bashed for his trouble. Bob had given an affidavit to the police and he had spoken to Michael Smith, but Michael relied upon more than Bob Kernohan to tell the story.

I should also mention Glenn Milne, a journalist who was sacked because he dared to write about the story of the AWU scandal that involves the present Prime Minister of Australia – Julia(r) Gillard of Pinnochio nose fame. Glenn was sacked by Michael chose to resign in a dispute over editorial opinion. He chose the better path, rather than buckle under over this matter.

In November the Prime Minister stood up in the Parliament and asked the question who is Michael Smith and then she proceeded to malign him by a series of mistruths. In other words she lied and misled the Parliament which is a very serious offence. By claiming that Michael Smith was sacked, the Prime Minister of Australia dented this man’s personal integrity.

Michael Smith has really good investigative skills. To gather his information he relied upon the diary of a lawyer by the name of Ian Cambridge who at one time was also involved with the AWU. Ian Cambridge is now a justice in the NSW industrial relations court as well as for Fair Work Australia. Ian Cambridge was also one of the people calling for a Royal Commission into the whole of the affair because of the extent of the corruption within the AWU at the time (and afterwards). Another player is Mr. Bill Shorten who fancies himself to be Prime Minister (I hope this man who cannot keep his trousers up will never be PM).

The material relating to this whole affair, especially as it relates to the role played by Juliar Gillard is compelling. She claims that she was young and naive but since she was over 30 at the time, and a partner in the law firm that is caught up in this scandal, I cannot accept this “young and naive” excuse.

The scandal itself has a few strands. First there is the incorporation of illegal entity known as the Australian Workers Union – Workplace Reform Association. The first comment to make here is that the union officials involved never had permission from the executive to form this Association. The second comment to make is that the whole thing was done in secrecy. It is the secrecy that points the finger at the person who helped the union officials set up this entity and get it passed by the Corporate Affairs Commission in West Australia. There is a lot more to the story to be told with regard to the how and why this entity was set up. What you need to know is that it was used as the means to siphon off funds from the AWU that were close to $500k.

The second strand of the scandal took place in Victoria, where Bruce Wilson purchased a property in Fitzroy using the name of his colleague in WA, Ralph Blewitt. The property was purchased at auction, and the papers were signed as if Ralph Blewitt was the person making the purchase per a power of attorney that was not produced on auction day.  It was the drawing up of this Power of Attorney and its alleged witnessing that brought about the complaint to the Victorian police that has caused an investigation to be opened and is now ongoing. Julia Gillard was at the auction. Julia Gillard drew up the Power of Attorney and Julia Gillard claims that she witnessed the signature…. but Ralph Blewitt states that he signed the document only in the presence of the donee, Bruce Wilson.  This is only the bare bones of the matter, it is more complicated than I am representing here.

I have seen a legal opinion from a leading elderly Australian jurist that points to the most likely outcome if criminal charges are laid. The opinion more or less states that a crime was committed, and the reserved judgement of that jurist is… well… I would say guilty as charged.

The third strand also involves Victoria because Bruce Wilson started to do the same as he had done in West Australia only he went a little bit too far. This part of the scandal is quite horrifying because the man had no regard for the workers at all. It also involved getting money from large firms with the money being siphoned away from the AWU.

The fourth strand is the renovation of an Abbotsford property belonging to Juliar Gillard. Her double negative comment when asked about the matter in her exit interview is sufficient to know the real truth. That is she cannot say for certain that she paid for any of the renovations 🙂  or at least that is my interpretation of her response to the questions put to her.  Bob Kernohan comes into the story in this strand because the contractor who did a job at Abbotsford came to the offices of the AWU looking for payment but this occurred after Bruce Wilson had been caught and exposed over his Melbourne dealings and had been sacked. Bob Kernohan saw this person come into the union offices looking for the money.

I have left out the real juicy bits of the story because from the professional point of view Juliar Gillard had breached her lawyer ethics by having an affair with the married union official Bruce Wilson. The AWU was her client. By having that affair there was a clear conflict of interest. She did not put her client first when she became involved in aiding and abetting Bruce Wilson and Ralph Blewitt to commit a crime by helping to set up the AWU-WRA. She tries to cover herself by stating she offered advice only, yet her handwriting is on the application form, plus she drew up the articles of association, plus she wrote to the West Australian Commissioner of Corporate Affairs when the application for incorporation of an Association was knocked back (in WA unions are not allowed to become incorporated entities).  I am also leaving out the full details of he scheme and how the money was siphoned off. All of that information will be revealed at some future date. I do know who was involved and I know who had the idea for he scam in the first place. I can only add “two degrees of separation”

Should Juliar Gillard be charged with a crime? YES.

An open thread


I am introducing an open thread for people who might come here and who want to bring up matters relating to the Zimmerman case.

As you should be aware I am a supporter of Zimmerman, believing that it was self defence and that he should not have been charged with a crime.

A little bit of my own background will not go astray because there are two stories you need to know. The first is that my first cousin Dorn was kidnapped raped and murdered by being shot in the head. Please note the first two parts of the crime because the murder was the likely outcome. I am against gun control. Over time I will explore the subject because here in Australia the majority of domestic murder occurs with a knife, not a gun!! The second story involves the boy who was once my next door neighbour and who was kidnapped raped and murdered… I am still waiting to hear that his attacker is behind bars and it is more than 10 years since the crime took place.

George was the real victim in this case. Martin was the aggressor as far as I understand the situation. That is my position and for George I want justice seen to be done.

I would welcome any newcomers here with the proposition that some might like to write their own posts regarding the Zimmerman case. I know some have given the subject a lot of time. I recommend Diwataman and TalkLeft as good sources of information. Michael Daniels is another excellent source of good quality analysis.

This thread is available to those who have something to pass on about the case. Call it an alert, especially for me, since I have been caught up with Australian stuff 🙂

Australia – Update: Freedom of Speech threat


Australia has a very real threat to its freedom of speech. There is turmoil at the present time because of the introduction of legislation that is not in the inerests of the country.

It is possible that the government will not get the numbers to pass this totalitarian effort.

If you want to know more please refer to both Andrew Bolt and MichaelSmithNews.

A new Pope has been elected


As a Catholic I was stunned when Pope Benedict decided to resign from his role as Bishop of Rome.

For those who are not Catholic, I will try to explain a few things to help make sense of Catholic tradition. The Apostles were the first Bishops of the Church founded by Jesus Christ. When Judas committed suicide, a new person was appointed to take his place. That person was Matthias. St. Paul earned his spot as an Apostle because he was appointed directly by Jesus – and if you do not believe me, then go read the Acts of the Apostles because it is all spelled out in the Acts of the Apostles. The authority of St. Peter was confirmed when the Apostles met to discuss the issue of the necessity of circumcision for entry into the Church. It was held by that gathering to be unnecessary. The statement of St. Peter in this matter could be seen as the first every Papal statement considered to be infallible. There is a succession of Bishops and there is a succession relating to the Bishop of Rome, which was the Bishopric of St. Peter. This is why the Bishop of Rome, speaks from the Chair of St. Peter.

Not everything stated by a Pope is infallible. It is only in certain circumstances when certain language has been adopted that will identify what has been said as coming from the Chair of St. Peter. This is perhaps one of the hardest concepts to explain to a non-Catholic.

Issues such as priestly celibacy are matters of discipline. The Bishops have continually affirmed the requirement of priestly celibacy, but even I would like to see the Church once again accept married men into the priesthood. Please note I said married men, not that men can marry after they have become priests. There is a very big difference!! However, the issue of women priests is one that remains not up for negotiation – check your Bible because Jesus did not appoint any women as priests.

Just like St. Peter the current Bishop of Rome is the first among equals. His role is pastoral as well as management. The new Pope has a very big job ahead of him. There are many issues to be tackled.

I am pleased to know that Angelo Scola was not elected, and for that matter I am pleased that no Italian was elected to the role. They are all too close to any known corruption in the Vatican. The man who has been chosen is one who had eschewed coming to the Vatican if it was not necessary. He has not been involved in the petty politics, and for that matter he did not do any of the politicking that was obviously done by Angelo Scola (a fact that makes Scola totally unsuitable for such a position). One of the first tasks will be to tackle the Vatican bank, as well as the scandal behind Vatileaks. I hope that he is ready to apply the broom to those responsible for such bad behaviour.

It is not the first time that the Catholic Church has been riven by corruption. If one looks back in history, there was a time, somewhere around when Martin Luther caused the big split that the Church was also riven with scandal. Some of the scandal was pretty hot, but thankfully the Pope who was so seriously bad never had the opportunity to make statements considered to be infallible, and in one case a very sudden death prevented the acceptance of a Scripture translation that was considered inaccurate.That period of time also included the period when the Borgia family had a lot of influence in Europe.

I am still learning things about the man who has been chosen to be Francis I after St. Francis of Assissi. You might find that there will be some who will mention some of what took place in Argentina during the junta of the 1970s. This man, as head of the Jesuits did the right thing when he banished the two priests who were teaching Liberation Theology. He had to toe the line, yet I know that these priests were also brave in how they handled the situation. They would constantly ask questions about those who had become the disappeared.

When I was living in Canberra, I had the privilege of hearing a very elderly priest by the name of Fr. Kevin, a man who won my admiration over his concern regarding myself one Sunday morning (it is an odd story and in the circumstances of the story I have the greatest of respect for Fr. Kevin). Well Fr. Kevin spent some time in Argentina during the period of the junta and he told us about the risks taken. Think about that… because what they did was very brave.