Today's Chicago Tribune editorial on the Zimmerman verdict repeats some of the lies and misrepresentations that have helped create so much of the anger over this case for the past 16 months.  The editorial which urges acceptance of the verdict none the less begins with the following quote:

"Are you following him?"

"Yeah"

"Ok. We don't need for you to do that".

The quote leaves out Zimmerman's reply of ok, an editorial decision that changes the clear meaning of the exchange which is that Zimmerman accepts the advice. More properly, what the transcript of the call reads

"Are you following him?"

"Yeah"

"Ok. We don't need for you to do that".

"Ok"

The first paragraph of the editorial then repeats the lie that Zimmerman was told not to leave his car. In fact what the transcript of the call shows is that just prior to this exchange, the dispatcher tells Zimmerman "just let me know if this guy does anything else. A few seconds later after Zimmerman says that Martin is running the dispatcher asks him "which way is he running."  It is sometime in this period that Zimmerman sounds like he has gotten out of his truck. For the next five or ten seconds there is a sound of wind that is followed by the exchange in which the dispatcher advises him he doesn't need to follow Martin.  At no time anywhere on the call does the dispatcher ever tell him not to leave his car or return to it. These five to ten seconds are the only time in the whole encounter in which there is any evidence of Zimmerman following Martin on foot.  And since there is so much misinformation about what happened it bears repeating.

Zimmerman was never told to stay in his car and was never asked to return to it!

No evidence at all is ever produced that Zimmerman followed Martin after the above exchange with the dispatcher. In fact, towards the end of the call, Zimmerman tells the dispatcher that he has lost sight of Martin. Clearly Zimmerman could not follow Martin if he couldn't see him. Further evidence of this is that Rachel Jaentel's testimony indicates that Martin had likewise lost sight of Zimmerman until shortly before the start of the confrontation.  In other words, after telling the dispatcher "ok", Zimmerman did not follow Martin nor did Martin perceive he was being followed.

The claim that Zimmerman was at fault because he pursued Martin after being told not to has absolutely no basis in fact. It is a made up assumption that has been repeated so many times by the media that people actually believe that is what happened.

The 911 call that was placed by Zimmerman is on the web in both audio  and written transcript form. It was played numerous times at the trial. There is no excuse for continuing to lie about the evidence. The Chicago Tribune should know better than to continue to perpetuate lies that have fueled so much anger over this case.