Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[johnny karate]

I'll take that pile of fabrications as a 'No, I still have nothing either correct, or useful on topic'.

Argument by assertion. Very convincing. Especially considering how extremely accurate you've been in this thread.

Perhaps you could tell us more about the "burned-out black churches" or that mystery motion the prosecution lost on Friday.

 

[Rare Truth]

The original source was Gilbreath being interviewed by de la Rionda during a CNN commercial break. The purpose was to get into the record the fact that Zimmerman had said TM circled his truck in all of his statements, but hadn't told the non-emergency response operator about it. That was suppose to prove his statements were contradicted by the "911" tape of the conversation, which was, and is, nonsense.

I have the transcript on a different computer. I'll put up the relevant exchange tomorrow.

Your memory is poor. It was I who brought up more than six weeks ago that portion of the hearing *that I personally transcribed* (where no one else on the web had done so.)

There was a tizzie about it, and even if he used the word *circle* or *circling* and we battled it even it's existence for a bit.

You seemed to think it was a fabrication from the Sentinel.

This was from a month ago:

Originally Posted by GWCarver The Sentinel reported its source said TM "circled" Zimmerman's truck. It was the reporter who pulled "circling" out of thin air. (Ten more posts and I can provide the exact source.) So, you need to start over.

The exact source was the STATE PROSECUTOR, or more correctly, from Zimmerman himself.
SA De La Rionda said the word "circling." That term was from the report Zimmerman himself gave to the police that night.

Didn't you even see the Bond hearing?

Originally Posted by GWCarver

Feel free to post your source.

I posted it weeks ago (#8166).

DE LA RIONDA: Did he, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: According to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin? Correct?

GILBREATH: He went after him,Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: And isn't it true, based on the evidence, Mr. Zimmerman had two flashlights with him?
GILBREATH: Yes.
<snip /tactical flashlight description>

DE LA RIONDA: Mr. Zimmerman never claimed that he chased - in terms of 'ran after' - Mr. Martin, is that correct?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But you still have, is it not true, a witness who describes someone chasing another person from the area where they ended up... in other words, from where, near where Mr. Martin lived to the area where the murder happened?

GILBREATH: Yes.
... ...
O'MARA; You had mentioned, the prosecutor had questioned you about Mr. Zimmerman saying that he was having his head hit on the back, correct?

GILBREATH:Yes.

O'MARA; I thought you said the evidence was inconsistent with that?

GILBREATH: No, I don't believe that was his question.

O'MARA; Oh, then let me ask you. Is the evidence inconstant with the suggestion by Mr. Zimmerman that he was his having his head hit or bashed on the ground?

GILBREATH: His injuries are consistent with trauma to the back of his head, yes.

O'MARA;Ok. What are those injuries?

GILBREATH: There's two lacerations to the back of his head

O'MARA; OK. Did you identify what caused those lacerations?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Could it have been having his head bashed on the ground as he testified to?

GILBREATH: He suggested, I don't know about testified to, he mentioned that his head was being physically bashed against the concrete sidewalk, and that he...this was just prior to him firing the shot, and that he managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk, and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found."
​

From the video testimony here: George Zimmerman bond hearing :: WRAL.com - Starts at about 1:46:39 (this portion)

riginally Posted by GWCarver
Rare Earth, the quote does not match the newspaper article. That article first says "circled", then says, "was circling". Now we have the earlier "started circling". Do you see the progression, from "started circling", to "circled", to "was circling"?

DE LA RIONDA: Did he, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

"Started circling"? What does that even mean? My guess is the amount of time Bernie spent on it matches its importance. O'Mara had no way to rebut it because then, like today, he hadn't received discovery.

The point of it all, now, once you have accepted its existence, you are portraying it once again falsely.

The purpose was not because he "hadn't told the non-emergency response operator about it" as you just stated.

It was to show - just as the SA said here, that is was about the fear Zimmerman claimed he had even before he removed himself from the car - you see, a reasonable person, in great fear, does not remove himself from the safety of a vehicle to follow someone on foot that he fears so much.

Did he, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: According to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin? Correct?​

The animation and inflection in De La Riondo's voice do not capture well in print here. It's worth viewing the tape. It was about the fear Zimmerman claimed.

It would be nice if you portrayed events accurately, especially after this was so hashed out earlier.

Oh, and it would be nice if you thanked me for that nice little transcription *I* provided that you 'have on your other computer.'

Just kidding. I wouldn't expect that.

 

[KatieG]

This is a weird thing to say. If he is acquitted it will be because the prosecution can't prove beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty. Unless you think that what has been released so far proves murder beyond a reasonable doubt, then the result, on the facts released so far, must be aquittal, it's that simple. It's not about what you believe happened, it's not about what you think happened, and it's not about what you speculate could have happened, it's about what can be proven to have happened, and I doubt that the most rabid anti-GZ would declare that they can currently prove beyond reasonable doubt that GZ murdered TM.

This is the thing I find funniest about the whole bail thing. It doesn't matter if you believe GZ, it doesn't matter if you think he is the biggest liar out there. The case doesn't rest on his credibility at all. In an immunty trial it would, but not in a criminal one. In a criminal case regardless of how honest or dishonest the defendant is, the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, and unless they have something hidden away that is huge, the evidence doesn't appear to be there to do that. The fact that one person had all the fight related injuries, and the other had nothing up until the gun shot clearly shows that one person in the fight was on the end of a beating and wasn't hitting the other back. You can argue about the seriousness of the injuries until the cows come home, it doesn't matter, everyone is fully aware that being hit in the head is a threat to your life, many people have died from being hit in the head. As such, trying to show that a person being hit in the head was not in genuine fear of their life without witnesses to the event, is going to be extremely hard, if not impossible.

Did you even read my post? I clearly said if he's acquitted, it's because the jury didn't find the state's case provable. Were you bored and needed something to play with cuz none of your post is responsive to what I said?

 

[PhantomWolf]

Did you even read my post? I clearly said if he's acquitted, it's because the jury didn't find the state's case provable. Were you bored and needed something to play with cuz none of your post is responsive to what I said?

No, you clearly said that if he's aquitted it will be because the jury sees something you don't.

If this goes to trial and GZ is acquitted, then so be it. 12 people, or 6, will have seen things I didn't see.

 

[Rare Truth]

Argument by assertion. Very convincing. Especially considering how extremely accurate you've been in this thread.

Perhaps you could tell us more about the "burned-out black churches" or that mystery motion the prosecution lost on Friday.

I saw a pretty good indication of the bloat from the posts when that poster insisted the police report did not say the EMT's had cleared Zimmerman.

This was after a surly back & forth:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8274535&postcount=9604

<snip>

There's no crawfishing back for you from THIS erroneous comment made by you:

Originally Posted by crimresearch
The police report said no such thing. It specifically said that he was given first aid, not that he was cleared. ...

Suck it up and admit you were wrong. No big deal. It happens.

I proved him dead wrong, yet no admittance of error, just more snarl and obfuscation.

Thankfully, I've learned to recognize who the honest brokers are here.

 

[GWCarver]

Your memory is poor. It was I who brought up more than six weeks ago that portion of the hearing *that I personally transcribed* (where no one else on the web had done so.)

There was a tizzie about it, and even if he used the word *circle* or *circling* and we battled it even it's existence for a bit.

You seemed to think it was a fabrication from the Sentinel.

This was from a month ago:





The point of it all, now, once you have accepted its existence, you are portraying it once again falsely.

The purpose was not because he "hadn't told the non-emergency response operator about it" as you just stated.

It was to show - just as the SA said here, that is was about the fear Zimmerman claimed he had even before he removed himself from the car - you see, a reasonable person, in great fear, does not remove himself from the safety of a vehicle to follow someone on foot that he fears so much.

Did he, Mr. Zimmerman, the defendant, at one point claim to the police that he was scared because Mr. Martin started circling his car?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: According to Mr. Zimmerman he was so scared he still got out of the car and chased Mr. Martin? Correct?​

The animation and inflection in De La Riondo's voice do not capture well in print here. It's worth viewing the tape. It was about the fear Zimmerman claimed.

It would be nice if you portrayed events accurately, especially after this was so hashed out earlier.

Oh, and it would be nice if you thanked me for that nice little transcription *I* provided that you 'have on your other computer.'

Just kidding. I wouldn't expect that.

I'm going to have to continue with this tomorrow on another computer, but thanks for posting the transcript and showing de la Rionda did indeed say TM had "started circling his car". I still don't know what that means, but it is good enough to prove that at least it was discussed between Gilbreath and de la Rionda officially. The Orlando Sentinel article I linked to earlier, and you mentioned above, says Zimmerman was consistent in his statements regarding the circling, but didn't mention it in the "911" call, which implies he made it up after the fact, which would be a contradiction. Plus, there are police sources who have stated in general that his statements were consistent, and I will find the source for that too. I'll have to put this all together, and find out when de la Rionda first mentioned inconsistencies and contradictions. Manana.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think "started circling his car" means? My memory isn't that bad, but that little discussion was never resolved. It was clear no one had it nailed down whether TM actually walked all the way around Z's truck, or if he just kept running laps around it. It still hasn't been nailed down.

ETA: I should mention I have a great appreciation for everyone who transcribes tapes for our convenience. It would be nice if we had some sort of a convention for putting a keyword with manual transcriptions to make them easier to find.

 

[LTC8K6]

"Yep, he’s coming to check me out." = started to circle the car?

Checking GZ out might be circling the car?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Have you thought about the amount of time the screaming went on for? That Z would have had to be pointing the gun at TM, who was on top on him and TM would have been screaming that long. While Z knew people would hear him and also knew that someone said they were calling 911? And then he just shot him in cold blood knowing all the attention it attracted?

I don't think GZ necessarily pulled the trigger 'on purpose'. The scenario I find most likely was he negligently followed TM and negligently pulled out his gun because a guy carrying a gun in a waist holster who follows suspicious people and may be a cop wannabe would likely pull the gun out. I think he could have shot without thinking or accidentally because that's what happens when you pull a gun out.

On TM's side it seems most likely to me that he was not only screaming but also struggling to get away. While there was one witness who claimed he saw the guy in the red shirt on the bottom, the other witnesses said it was too dark to clearly see. Colors are harder to see in the dark than shapes, while witnesses are known to create false memories and seeing Zimmerman in the red shirt later is not an unusual event to create a false memory the red shirt was seen earlier.

So let's say there is equivocal evidence of who was on top. GZ outweighed TM, TM may have been in better shape. At some point GZ hit the back of his head. TM may have hit GZ once. The scrape on the knuckle in the autopsy report certainly seems minor and not consistent with repeated blows. Neither is GZ's supposed broken nose and black eyes which are not visible in the photos.

I've seen people who were pummeled. Their face swells up. Their eyes swell shut. GZ's injuries and TM's autopsy are consistent with a single punch or even GZ falling back. Those are not injuries consistent with a pummeling. They just aren't.

And I'm still convinced the evidence shows GZ lied saying he was returning to his vehicle. The location of the body and the girlfriend on the phone's testimony along with the timing of the phone call are not consistent with that scenario.

And now we have more evidence GZ is all about telling self serving lies about this case.

TM was screaming and struggling. If he was on the bottom and GZ had the gun out, you scream and struggle. It's reflexive. TM could have struggled and screamed for a short period before the gun went off.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

....
<snip>I proved him dead wrong, yet no admittance of error, just more snarl and obfuscation.

Thankfully, I've learned to recognize who the honest brokers are here.

It is amazing that sometimes in the face of quotes and lots of evidence people still assert falsehoods.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think GZ necessarily pulled the trigger 'on purpose'. The scenario I find most likely was he negligently followed TM and negligently pulled out his gun because a guy carrying a gun in a waist holster who follows suspicious people and may be a cop wannabe would likely pull the gun out. I think he could have shot without thinking or accidentally because that's what happens when you pull a gun out.

On TM's side it seems most likely to me that he was not only screaming but also struggling to get away. While there was one witness who claimed he saw the guy in the red shirt on the bottom, the other witnesses said it was too dark to clearly see. Colors are harder to see in the dark than shapes, while witnesses are known to create false memories and seeing Zimmerman in the red shirt later is not an unusual event to create a false memory the red shirt was seen earlier.

So let's say there is equivocal evidence of who was on top. GZ outweighed TM, TM may have been in better shape. At some point GZ hit the back of his head. TM may have hit GZ once. The scrape on the knuckle in the autopsy report certainly seems minor and not consistent with repeated blows. Neither is GZ's supposed broken nose and black eyes which are not visible in the photos.

I've seen people who were pummeled. Their face swells up. Their eyes swell shut. GZ's injuries and TM's autopsy are consistent with a single punch or even GZ falling back. Those are not injuries consistent with a pummeling. They just aren't.

And I'm still convinced the evidence shows GZ lied saying he was returning to his vehicle. The location of the body and the girlfriend on the phone's testimony along with the timing of the phone call are not consistent with that scenario.

And now we have more evidence GZ is all about telling self serving lies about this case.

TM was screaming and struggling. If he was on the bottom and GZ had the gun out, you scream and struggle. It's reflexive. TM could have struggled and screamed for a short period before the gun went off.

Wow...

 

[LTC8K6]

On the bond (none / 0) (#12)
by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 05, 2012 at 04:03:26 PM EST
I just saw on the docket that the bond was discharged and "turned in by bondsman" so that bond is history. It looks like he will have to pay another 10% premium if bond is reset and he uses a bondsman again. So this "mistake" just cost the Zimmerman fund $15,000. O'Mara said at the hearing (audio here, around 40 minutes in) that only $5,000 from the fund was used for the bondsman, and they haven't yet paid the bondsman's remaining $10k yet, but expected to from the fund.

I wonder if now GZ's parents and grandparents might not take out those second mortgages on their homes to post the full amount of a new bond with the court. Doesn't it usually take a few weeks to get a second mortgage (appraisals needed, etc)?

O'Mara's fees are and defense expenses are in that defense fund. I wonder if he's still pushing the use of a bondsman instead of the family coming up with cash.

In drug cases, judges tend to believe that a defendant is less likely to flee when their loved one's property is securing a bond, rather than cash, since their cash may just be drug proceeds and no big deal if lost, but most defendants would think long and hard before causing their mother to lose her home (so the argument goes.)

When O'Mara moves for a new bond, he will probably make a proposal for what it should be, and he may not have all those details yet.

http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/6/5/141825/8331/12#12

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305

Dershowitz: Zimmerman Prosecutor Threatening to Sue Harvard for My Criticism

Interesting stuff in there.

 

[This is The End]

There is no evidence to support his. George thought a passport was in a bag. Shelley thought it was in the safety deposit box.

Even if that is true, and he just happened to find the lost one while packing, he knew there was a lost one.

Remember, the first one turned in was the Original, not the Replacement.

So he definitely let his lawyer lie twice in one sentence when the lawyer said ""this is my client's current passport and only passport that he has".

It was neither the current one or the only one.

 

[This is The End]

I proved him dead wrong, yet no admittance of error, just more snarl and obfuscation.

Thankfully, I've learned to recognize who the honest brokers are here.

Or perhaps this gem from 2 days ago that has gone completely ignored:

Johny Karate has repeatedly asked you to back up your claim that motion #1 was denied.

Nobody by that name has asked me anything... as both you and they are well aware.

Sorry, wrong again. Apparently it's just you that wasn't aware of JK asking you to back it up repeatedly.

If you need to believe that O'Mara went to the trouble of deliberately falsifying his computer, and committing perjury in order to get one part of a bond motion dismissed...

You keep saying that. What part of the bond motion was dismissed? What motion did the prosecution lose?

 

[Noztradamus]

"Yep, he’s coming to check me out." = started to circle the car?

Checking GZ out might be circling the car?

Or whole thing might just have been just TM walking around the car that GZ placed in his way.

 

[Dancing David]

Lets see it has now been established GZ

1. Has a record of violent behaviour and a conviction for that.

2. He is a lier he has lied under oath

3. Although no angel possibly jsut a typical teenager there is no evidence that TM was up to no good.


Its not looking good for GZ at the least hes going to get a perjury conviction

4. Some people don't pay attention to the thread and make blanket statements.

 

[LTC8K6]

Or whole thing might just have been just TM walking around the car that GZ placed in his way.

Well, TM would normally be walking that way anyway. So we could say that TM "has" to come towards GZ's car. But we have hindsight.

With that post, I was more interested in the timing, than what actually happened. I already think "something" happened at the vehicle.

If we assume TM "circled" the car in some fashion, when might it have been, and did GZ say anything that might indicate it...

Right around then is when GZ calls TM an ass****, I think.

I'm going to guess that TM did in fact do something that GZ termed "circling the car" in his statements. Further guessing that "coming to check me out" is GZ's term on the phone for it. Third guess...this is what precipitates the "ass*****" comment. (None of which is to be taken as TM doing anything wrong)

I am very curious about TM's apparent running away from GZ sitting in the car, and why that might have happened.

Of course I am assuming again, in that we only have GZ's word that TM ran away at that point.

Anyway, if I don't assume that bit is accurate, I have nothing to talk about.

One possibility is that GZ flashed his pistol. That seems unlikely because TM apparently doesn't mention GZ having a gun, or call 911 about it. As far as I know...

Another possibility is that TM is scared. That also seems unlikely because TM either doesn't go far, or comes back. If we assume he went home scared and came back, he didn't bring any help with him or a weapon.

Third possibility is that he ran simply because DD told him to. Haven't looked into the timing on that.

Does GZ start to exit the car? That might make TM run. Seems like we'd hear that on the phone, and we apparent don't hear that until several seconds after GZ claims TM has run away.

Does TM run away expressly to ambush GZ? How can that be? TM would have to know more than he should about GZ. TM can't know that GZ will follow him. Unless GZ gets out of the car earlier than I think...Plus, I think TM ran all the way home, so I'd be contradicting myself.

Does TM somehow know that GZ is part of the NW? If so, how might TM react to realizing this? Not much there, I think. No idea how TM could recognize GZ. GZ is not pictured on any NW brochures as far as I know.

Well, it's too early in the am to keep this train of thought going.

 

[Cylinder]

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Zimmerman-Trayvon-Angela-Corey/2012/06/05/id/441305

Interesting stuff in there.

That is troubling, but it follows the theme of a prosecutor who is very happy to make these very public extrajudicial statements and improper associations - up to the point that proof is required by the court and by extension to the media and public at large. Of course, this action crosses the line from ommission to action.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's far fetched given GZ was on the phone to 911 until after he got out of his SUV.

It is amazing that sometimes in the face of quotes and lots of evidence people still assert falsehoods.

I know, right ?

 

[crimresearch]

I saw a pretty good indication of the bloat from the posts when that poster insisted the police report did not say the EMT's had cleared Zimmerman.

This was after a surly back & forth:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8274535&postcount=9604

<snip>I proved him dead wrong, yet no admittance of error, just more snarl and obfuscation.

Thankfully, I've learned to recognize who the honest brokers are here.

And how honest is it to run away when you were proven wrong, and then come back with out of context snippets and fabrications weeks later?

You may think that you are scoring points in some online RPG with that memory hole dodge, I think you are simply wasting time.
It has been proven beyond any shred of rationality that the inuries did exist. You were wrong, end of story. No amount of dishonest spin is going to make that disappear, and your fantasy replace it.
It has been proven beyond any shred of reasonable doubt, that the judge dismissed the passport motion, and declared Zimmerman's version credible.

Note the overlap in the claims still defending the magic audio analysis which has been discredited by the FBI experts, defending the 'Zimmerman was on top of the little boy' nonsense, and still in denial over the broken nose, blood, etc.

So unless you have something other than regurgitating stale bile, some of us are going to move on and talk about the topic.