Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

[Cylinder]

None of Trayvon's blood is on George.

Zimmerman had Martin's blood on him.

But Trayvon took a bullet right to the heart and lungs and then got up quickly enough to avoid bleeding on George?

Martin's blood collected in the spaces surrounding his lungs. The ME collected 2.5 liters of blood from this area alone - which is nearly half of his blood volume. At least one statement from SPD that observed the body noted the lack of external bleeding.

 

[Cylinder]

I wonder if he used the butt of his gun to give himself extra marks.

Zimmerman couldn't have been pistol-whipping himself becuase at the time he was on the phone with O'Mara walking him through the process of editing file attributes in his WordPerfect directory.

 

[crimresearch]

Zimmerman couldn't have been pistol-whipping himself becuase at the time he was on the phone with O'Mara walking him through the process of editing file attributes in his WordPerfect directory.

You forgot the time machine again.

In the few seconds between the shot, and arrival of the police, Zimmerman had all the time in the world to move the body, add bullets to his gun, hypnotize witnesses, fly to Miami and threaten DeeDee, change clothes, have dinner, get his father to intimidate the SA, and go to Rio for plastic surgeons to create the injuries...

 

[johnny karate]

I think we've beat this to death enough for now; I'm sure we'll get back to it later.

Yes, I look forward to you telling me what facts I'm the wrong side of.

Some time later.

Just out of curiosity, what facts do you have at your disposal that support 2nd degree murder? I can't think of any.

Who said I had facts at my disposal to support second degree murder? And why would you expect to have access to them at his point?

That's why we have trials.

I'll be able to answer your question just as soon as the prosecution presents their case.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Can you explain the difference between 8 pounds of force necessary to pull the trigger and a life and death struggle over a gun?

Maybe. Is there something in particular that you do not understand and want explained ?

Personally, I think that George's DNA should have been found on the trigger. Forensics tested for it in that specific location because they expect to find it there. I suppose we could look for studies to see in what percentage of cases the shooter leaves DNA on the trigger. Similarly for DNA left in a struggle.

ETA: (here), Trigger ID is successfully in identifying the shooter in 54% of gun cases. This statistic isn't however broken down to the location on the gun where DNA is found.

Just so we don't miss the point:

1) We don't know if GZ claimed TZ saw the gun, tried to grab the gun, did grab the gun.
2) We know GZ pulled the trigger, and his DNA was not recovered from the trigger
3) We don't know what, if anything , GZ claims TM said when he shot him.

 

[johnny karate]

I didn't think "the guy on top was hitting him MMA style," or "the guy in the bottom was yelling at me, help help," were open to interpretation. They seem pretty specific and face value, kind of statements.

So is this: "I can't truly see how close they were to each other; if he was hitting him, or if he was trying to hold him down in that position until cops got there".

Yet you seem quite content to dismiss that outright.

I don't get to decide what is used in court but I can use what I know to be true (time and outside influence does effect memory) to decide for myself, which of the conflicting statements are more reliable. The same way you can look at the wounds and decide for yourself, the severity of the assault. I look at the fact that he was clear about the color of the shirts they were wearing, the night if the incident, and the fact that three weeks later, he can't be sure if Zimmerman is wearing red or white, as supporting evidence that his memory is degraded and less reliable.

The full and complete statement of Witness #6 tells us he doesn't know if Martin was hitting Zimmerman.

That's a fact.

To dismiss that fact - for whatever reason - is being disingenuous.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So is this: "I can't truly see how close they were to each other; if he was hitting him, or if he was trying to hold him down in that position until cops got there".

Yet you seem quite content to dismiss that outright.



The full and complete statement of Witness #6 tells us he doesn't know if Martin was hitting Zimmerman.

That's a fact.

To dismiss that fact - for whatever reason - is being disingenuous.

Below is the full and complete written statement of Witness #6 from the night of the shooting. He clearly tells us who was getting hit, and who was yelling.

That's a fact.

To dismiss that fact - for whatever reason - is being disingenuous.

'" heard yelling out back in grass area of home but not sure at f i rst but after second "help" yell I opened blinds, and saw clothing but everything dark outside. I opened door and saw a guy on the ground getting hi t by another man on top of him in a strattle [sic] posi t ion hitting a guy in red sweatshi r t or on the bottom getting hi t was yelling help (guy getting hi t on ground was wearing red cal l ing out help). I said I was calling the cops and ran upstairs then heard a gunshot. When I got upstairs I saw the guy on top who was hitting the guy In the red laid ( lUt on the grass as I f he had been shot. I also saw the guy in red standing near end of sidewalk Where a guy with f lashl ight probably neighbor was talking to him asking what happened."

 

[Rare Truth]

....

Ah...you're back.

The last post from you before you left was this one.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8354875&postcount=12699

I see no reply to my question.

It appears you, to use your words "punted."

 

[GWCarver]

Yes, I look forward to you telling me what facts I'm the wrong side of.

Some time later.



Who said I had facts at my disposal to support second degree murder? And why would you expect to have access to them at his point?

That's why we have trials.

I'll be able to answer your question just as soon as the prosecution presents their case.

Don't be disappointed if the prosecution doesn't turn out to have a case, at least a case with anything we don't already know. Like I said earlier, if TM's last words were, "Okay, you got it" (maybe twice), I think Corey will build her case around that, even if most of it has to wait for closing arguments. Then she will be allowed to choreograph a fight for the gun in any manner she pleases, and say they fought for the gun, TM conceded he had lost that fight by saying, "Okay, you got it", then Z shot him anyway. It just has to start near where Z's keys were found, and we know where it ended.

I don't know how she is going to explain TM being at the wrong end of the sidewalk from safety.

I think if she puts DeeDee on the stand it will be a disaster, so that probably won't happen at either the SYG hearing or a subsequent trial.

 

[Rare Truth]

Below is the full and complete written statement of Witness #6 from the night of the shooting. He clearly tells us who was getting hit, and who was yelling.

That's a fact.

To dismiss that fact - for whatever reason - is being disingenuous.

When Witness 6 is on the witness stand, under oath, what do you think he's going to say?

How effectively do you think cross-examination will be handled?

 

[johnny karate]

Below is the full and complete written statement of Witness #6 from the night of the shooting. He clearly tells us who was getting hit, and who was yelling.

That's a fact.

To dismiss that fact - for whatever reason - is being disingenuous.

Oh, I see what you did there. You took my words and you turned them around on me! What cleverness!

Of course, the key difference being that I was referring to Witness #6's statements as a whole, and not just the parts that work for my argument.

But hey, whatever you have to do to score debate points.

 

[johnny karate]

Don't be disappointed if the prosecution doesn't turn out to have a case, at least a case with anything we don't already know.

Oh, I won't. I've stated multiple times that I am prepared to be proven wrong. But nothing is settled until this thing goes to trial.

Between the two of us, you seem to be the one with the investment in being proven right. So I'm sure you're the only one who risks being disappointed.

 

[Rare Truth]

Don't be disappointed if the prosecution doesn't turn out to have a case, at least a case with anything we don't already know. Like I said earlier, if TM's last words were, "Okay, you got it" (maybe twice), I think Corey will build her case around that, even if most of it has to wait for closing arguments. Then she will be allowed to choreograph a fight for the gun in any manner she pleases, and say they fought for the gun, TM conceded he had lost that fight by saying, "Okay, you got it", then Z shot him anyway. It just has to start near where Z's keys were found, and we know where it ended.

I don't know how she is going to explain TM being at the wrong end of the sidewalk from safety.

I think if she puts DeeDee on the stand it will be a disaster, so that probably won't happen at either the SYG hearing or a subsequent trial.

DD is part of the Charging Affidavit. She'll be on the witness stand.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Oh, I see what you did there. You took my words and you turned them around on me! What cleverness!

Of course, the key difference being that I was referring to Witness #6's statements as a whole, and not just the parts that work for my argument.

But hey, whatever you have to do to score debate points.

By as a whole, you of course really mean ... **** he said, but changed later. It's not as if we were missing pieces that he filled in later to create a whole

So if GZ changes any of his testimony, can we just look at it as a whole and gloss over any inconsistencies ?

 

[johnny karate]

By as a whole, you of course really mean ... **** he said, but changed later. It's not as if we were missing pieces that he filled in later to create a whole

When I said "as a whole", I meant just that. As a whole.

And as a whole, what we glean from Witness #6's statements is that he cannot tell us if Martin was hitting Zimmerman. No amount of semantic trickery changes that fact.

So if GZ changes any of his testimony, can we just look at it as a whole and gloss over any inconsistencies ?

What makes you think that a witness statement regarding what he saw fleetingly in the darkness should be held to the same standard as that of an accused murderer regarding what he directly experienced?

 

[LTC8K6]

DD is part of the Charging Affidavit. She'll be on the witness stand.

"Yeah. You can say that."

I can't wait to hear that in court.

 

[GWCarver]

DD is part of the Charging Affidavit. She'll be on the witness stand.

Wouldn't that be the mysterious "Information" that we still haven't seen?

 

[Rare Truth]

Wouldn't that be the mysterious "Information" that we still haven't seen?

??

 

[GWCarver]

??

At the first hearing, the judge said Corey had faxed him the "Information" the day before. It is generated by the State Attorney and is equivalent to a "True Bill" from a Grand Jury or an Indictment from a preliminary hearing.

 

[Rare Truth]

At the first hearing, the judge said Corey had faxed him the "Information" the day before. It is generated by the State Attorney and is equivalent to a "True Bill" from a Grand Jury or an Indictment from a preliminary hearing.

No, as I said - the Charging Affidavit. The witness (DD) is part of that Affidavit.

http://haleybehre.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/avidavit.pdf