Replies

I posted this on another thread but it fits the facts better.<<
A better theory is:

GZ saw TM doing suspicious activity, walking next to houses rather than on sidewalk because of the rain. GZ called this in to Police and they were en route. He continued to watch the suspicious activity by following TM at some kind of distance, but not much. Rachel was on phone and TM was giving locations. She was also giving stupid commentary. TM made it home and GZ lost him and went back to his truck. For some reason, TM went to confront GZ a fight ensued and GZ shot TM. TM died on the scene.

Why would TM go back to confront GZ if he was home free? And I believe Rachel even if her presentation was awful. She told enough of the truth to see the scene. I don’t think ten years of coaching would have given her enough practice to lie effectively, not ignorance though...ego. Rachel told TM that she though that guy following TM was a sexual predator. The implication would be that he wanted TM for that purpose. That could make a young man with a violence problem go back and try to beat on the “sexual predator”.

This also does not sell well in the media as you would have a hate crime...the beating of GZ because of perceived sexual orientation, vs. the death of a black youth to gun violence by someone not favored by media status.

This theory fits the facts of all the witnesses I’m aware of, and answers the stupid questions. It is also consistent with young behavior.

I cannot get inside TM’s head, so this will only be a theory and I think it fits the facts better and with more explanation of all the parties behaviors better than the ones I’ve heard.

What do you think?

TM was a known thief and burglar, a marijuana user and neophyte dealer, and a budding thug. Arriving in an area new to him, he solicited an excuse to go on the prowl by offering his younger brother a snack from the nearby convenience store. The flimsiness of this excuse is clear from the drizzling rain, that it was after dark, and that his father was intending to take his girlfriend and two boys out to dinner.

Notably, TM went out without informing his father or getting permission, a flouting of his father's authority and a potential delay to dinner plans. TM's father cannot have been pleased and, instead of waiting for TM to return, he took his party to dinner.

This would impose on TM the punishment of missing a substantial sit down dinner and leaving him to whatever his father and his girlfriend might then contrive for him. Had TM arrived back to the townhouse safely, he would have found it empty, with a talking to from his father impending.

As it was, looking for mischief, TM found it in the form of an opportunity to attack an overweight, older white guy shorter than himself and for whom he saw an excuse to attack. With Rachel Jeantel as an audience of sorts, a successful beat down of an adult white male would enhance TM's reputation among his peers and with Jeantel as a potential romantic partner.

Oddly, few have pointed out GM's error in not identifying himself as with the neighborhood watch, introducing himself by name, and explaining his interest in TM. That would likely have blown TM's sense of confidence and might have defused the encounter. As one veteran NYPD street cop explained to me, he and his colleagues were taught to talk strangers up because it helped gather information, avoid confrontations, and put villains off their game.

After TM's death, Jeantel found herself in unusual and exhilarating circumstances: people who mattered were paying favorable attention to her and eager to hear what she had to tell. Under continued questioning, her story evolved as she elaborated on her brief telephone contact with TM.

Gradually, TM's family and lawyers solicited a racially charged account that cast TM as the victim. Their rewards so far include a favorable national media attention and a million dollar liability settlement from the insurer for the neighborhood association. Lucrative book and media deals are no doubt in the offing if the prosecution wins.

Did Jeantel first suggest to TM that GM was a sexual predator? Maybe, but her story is so changeable that it is hard to have confidence in its truthfulness. By now, Jeantel does not easily recall the truth and dare not offer it up undiluted by lies.

The timeline Rachel established (he was already near home after the next to last call) is an excellent point, and establishes the likelihood that TM made a conscious decision to not go home and to confront Zimmerman, which is likely exactly what happened

Regarding your other point, also a good one, the defense would need to be careful about how they referred to his possible motivations for not going home, since once they start planting the suggestion that TM wanted to beat up on this creepy, cracker, gay rapist because of his sexual orientation, then I'm sure the judge would sustain an objection of this being highly speculative or something like that. But whatever they can get in before the objection is made may be worthwhile for the jury to hear. Sure, they're supposed to ignore it now, but we all know how that goes.