Question about the Zimmerman Trial? What Ever Came of the 'Anonymous Phone Call' to Serino

[TrollBuster9090]

claiming that Zimmerman had 'tried to detain' Martin? Did that turn out to be real, or did Serino claim it was one of his 'bluffs' to try and shake information out of Zimmerman?

Why is this a key point? Because, while there is ample evidence that Zimmerman targeted Martin, followed him around, and got out of his car to follow him on foot when Martin ran to try to get away from what he thought was a 'rapist,' Zimmerman's defense is based on his claim that Martin then doubled back and ATTACKED him. If Zimmerman tried to RESTRAIN Martin so he couldn't get away ('these assholes, they always get away'), and Martin was in fear for his life, he would only have been defending himself. There is ample evidence they were fighting, but none as to who started it. Zimmerman claims Martin started it, and the jury (along with every crackpot racist and jerkoff in the Country) simply chose to believe his story. If there was actually a witness that Zimmerman grabbed and tried to restrain Martin, it would be proof Zimmerman started the confrontation.


If you look at the transcript here, you'll see Detective Serino:

'He tells Zimmerman he has received an anonymous phone call "from somebody who gave a different version of events ... more along the lines that you tried to detain him," and recounting an argument prior to the shooting.'

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/justice/florida-teen-shooting


Or, if you go to RECORDING 4 (about 14 minutes into it) of the Zimmerman interview two days after Martin's murder, you'll hear the same thing. Serino claims he got an anonymous phone call from somebody who claims Zimmerman tried to 'detain' Martin, and Zimmerman doesn't say anything (or try to deny that he tried to detain him).

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmermans-statements-sanford-pd-audio/


So, does anybody know what ever became of this? Was Serino ever asked about it on the witness stand?

The reason I asked about it being a 'bluff' was because, in the same interview Serino claimed that Martin's cameraphone got a video of the confrontation, and asked Zimmerman if he wanted to change his statements prior to looking at it to avoid getting in trouble if he wasn't telling the truth. That was a 'bluff' according to Serino. So, I was wondering if it ever came out that Serino's statement about the phone call was also a bluff. If not, it would be pretty damming, both for Zimmerman, AND the idiot Florida Prosecutor who botched the trial so badly.

[DrDan]

1. uh . . . . . . it's over - the jury spoke

[TrollBuster9090]

2. Well THAT was a useful comment.

Is that what you said after the Emmet Till trial?

[DrDan]

4. as useful as the OP considering the jury has spoken

[TrollBuster9090]

5. You ducked my question. Is any discussion of the Emmet Till trial meaningless because the 'jury has

spoken?

This trial is one of many related to the history of Civil Rights in America, and Civil Rights have been a Democratic Party platform since the 1960s.

[Isoldeblue]

3. A better place to ask that would be

at this site. They are very friendly, too. There isn't anything they don't know about the zit and the trial.

http://frederickleatherman.com/

[TrollBuster9090]

8. Thanks for the link, I'd never seen that site before.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. IMHO,Zimmerman is guilty

But it's likely Detective Serino is posing an alternative scenario in the hope of shaking Zimmerman's testimony.

[TrollBuster9090]

7. It's possible, but I was just asking if anybody knew for sure, one way or the other.

He stated (and we all know by now) that when he told Zimmerman that the incident was captured on Martin's cameraphone it was a bluff to try to shake the truth out of him. But I don't know if his other statement about the anonymous witness saying they saw Zimmerman try to 'detain' Martin was also a bluff.

If it was a bluff, fair enough.
If it was TRUE....that's HUGE.