Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 130

A volunteer coordinator with the Sanford Police Department testified Tuesday that murder suspect George Zimmerman was concerned about burglaries in his neighborhood and contacted her about starting a neighborhood watch program.

Wendy Dorival said Zimmerman passed out fliers and helped coordinate a neighborhood watch meeting on Sept. 22, 2011 - several months before Zimmerman shot unarmed teen Trayvon Martin in the community after calling a non-emergency dispatcher to report him as a suspicious person.

Zimmerman is standing trial in the teen's shooting death, charged with second-degree murder. He claims he killed Martin in self-defense.

"The first time [Zimmerman] emailed me was about starting a neighborhood watch," Dorival said. "There were several burglaries that had occurred in the community. He was concerned about them."

Dorival said Zimmerman "seemed like he wanted to make changes in his community and make it better." She asked him to join another program, Citizens on Patrol, a training program for citizens to patrol their neighborhoods, but he declined. She described Zimmerman's role as a neighborhood watch volunteer as someone who would act as a liaison with police about community safety concerns, encourage citizens to act as "eyes and ears" for police and recruit "block captains."

Dorival was questioned repeatedly by attorneys about the advice she gave to citizens about what to do when they saw a suspicious person in their neighborhood. On the evening of the fatal altercation, Zimmerman told a non-emergency dispatcher he was following Trayvon Martin.

VIDEO: Zimmerman trial: Prosecutor opens with profanity

She said neighborhood watch volunteers shouldn't follow suspicious people. She emphasized that citizens shouldn't engage anyone suspicious, but rather, contact police.

Defense attorneys questioned Dorival about when it would be appropriate to call a non-emergency number, asking if she would advise residents to call about a person "doing something that seemed to be inconsistent with what people would be doing in a similar circumstance...like walking around without any particular purpose in the rain."

She replied in the affirmative.

VIDEO: George Zimmerman trial: Self-defense, murder at case's core

The defense team has implied that on the night of the altercation, Zimmerman was attempting to give the dispatcher more information about Martin's location, and stopped following the teen after the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."

Also testifying Tuesday was Donald O'Brien, president of the Retreat at Twin Lakes homeowner's association.

"Since day one with the neighborhood watch, they said at that meeting and every meeting we had after that, 'Do not get close to anyone, stay at a safe distance, call 911 and let the police handle it,'" O'Brien said.

Still at issue is whether several non-emergency calls Zimmerman placed in the months leading up to the fatal altercation will be allowed to be played for the jury.

Prosecutor Richard Mantei told a Florida judge Tuesday that the half-dozen calls are central to the prosecution's argument that Zimmerman committed second-degree murder since it shows his state of mind. Mantei said the calls demonstrate Zimmerman's prior "profiling," and will give jurors context on a "building level of frustration this defendant had" that the suspicious people he reported in his neighborhood were getting away, the Orlando Sentinel reports.

The defense said the calls are irrelevant and shouldn't be introduced.

Attorneys and Circuit Judge Debra Nelson listened to the calls in court Tuesday morning before the jury was called into the courtroom. "We've had a lot of break-ins in our neighborhood recently, I'm on the neighborhood watch," Zimmerman said in one of the calls. "There are two suspicious characters at the gate of my neighborhood. I've never seen them before - I have no idea what they're doing. They're just hanging out, loitering."

On June 26 2013 04:56 dAPhREAk wrote:

agreed. defense didnt ask any follow up questions either. curious.

On June 26 2013 04:57 farvacola wrote:

really big missed opportunity there

On June 26 2013 04:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:
If there's no blood on the sidewalk or on Martin... where the hell did the blood come go?

On June 26 2013 05:25 Oleo wrote:




But its just the crime scene tech woman who simply witnessed which injuries were present, wouldn't follow up questions about the injuries be directed to someone determining the extent and cause of the injuries?

On June 26 2013 05:30 Diavlo wrote:


There is Zimmerman's blood on Trayvon's shirt and on Zimmerman.


And am I drunk, how do they know the witness change her testimony? She doesn't remember speaking about the direction of movement in the prior testimony (was the question even asked?), and that constitue a change in testimony?

And what the fuck are they talking about regarding her giving attitude to the defense attorney?

There is Zimmerman's blood on Trayvon's shirt and on Zimmerman.

On June 26 2013 05:34 Oleo wrote:
They asked a little bit, she told them: she looked with a flashlight and didnt see anything, neither was she notified by any colleagues of any blood on the sidewalk, what would the follow up question be?

On June 26 2013 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:

injuries would be for medical professionals. i am more curious about why they didnt ask about the fact that she didnt find blood on the concrete. if his head was slammed against the concrete, there should be blood.


so far she seems really defensive. as for prior inconsistent statements, i am waiting for the defense attorney to drop a bomb, but so far he is just creating anticipation. if she didn't make a prior inconsistent statement and nobody asked her about it then it seems weird. he is trying to make her look like she is making up stuff for the trial.

On June 26 2013 05:38 Diavlo wrote:
...

On June 26 2013 05:32 dAPhREAk wrote:

injuries would be for medical professionals. i am more curious about why they didnt ask about the fact that she didnt find blood on the concrete. if his head was slammed against the concrete, there should be blood.


so far she seems really defensive. as for prior inconsistent statements, i am waiting for the defense attorney to drop a bomb, but so far he is just creating anticipation. if she didn't make a prior inconsistent statement and nobody asked her about it then it seems weird. he is trying to make her look like she is making up stuff for the trial.

On June 26 2013 05:44 BigFan wrote:

what previous inconsistent statement did she make or rather, did she say something she shouldn't? I missed some of the trial. Also, what was going on for 45 minutes?

On June 26 2013 05:45 dAPhREAk wrote:

he has yet to show a prior inconsistent statement. it appears he is just trying to show that she has never said "left to right" before the trial, and he is implying she made it up for the trial. its rather weak so far.

On June 26 2013 05:44 BigFan wrote:
I missed some of the trial. Also, what was going on for 45 minutes?

On June 26 2013 05:46 BigFan wrote:

sorry but what's this "left to right" business? hard to hear them sometimes ><

On June 26 2013 05:46 BigFan wrote:

sorry but what's this "left to right" business? hard to hear them sometimes ><

On June 26 2013 05:44 BigFan wrote:

what previous inconsistent statement did she make or rather, did she say something she shouldn't? I missed some of the trial. Also, what was going on for 45 minutes?

On June 26 2013 05:46 Kaitlin wrote:


The 45 minutes was the length of time she met with the investigator in anticipation of her testimony today.

On June 26 2013 05:48 dAPhREAk wrote:

she says she heard people running behind her fence from left to right. i am not entirely sure of the significance of that direction, but i assume its important because they are spending an inordinate amount of time on the issue.

jesus christ...why is he having her read transcripts on the stand....

On June 26 2013 06:03 Diavlo wrote:
So he spends half an hour on the fucking direction of running but when she actually kinda contradict herself saying that she couldn't tell if one of the individuals was crouching over the other when she previously told the prosecutor they were standing up arms flailing he doesn't say anything ?

WTF?