• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Trayvon Martin, Vigilante Justice

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rare Truth said:
Wow.

A witness states with sincerity he can't be sure as he thought about it later, remarked how pitch-black it was, how it was literally a matter of mere seconds he witnessed anything, that he was in fear for his & his fiance's life (who was on crutches), (he thought a rock had been thrown at his condo) and - that (paraphrase) "his logical mind just made the assumption..." -- THAT witness is lying - LYING I say! because the witness reflected on the scenario -- But ...but...but!

The killer's wife who flat out, bald faced, horn-toad swaggled a preposterous conscious deception with a blatant perjury under oath...

eh, can't be sure about that.

I swear sometimes my eyes bleed from the things I read here.
Click to expand...

I never said she didn't lie in court. I said I think she did. What I don't know about is if it can be turned around into something that says she didn't "legally" lie. Why can't you admit there's something shady about witnesses changing their stories?
 
Dcdrac said:
Zimmermans actions to date hardly indicate an innocent.

Runs off and hdies after the intial incident
Click to expand...

This is code for "cooperated with police as requested (without asking that a lawyer be present) during their investigation and presented himself whenever asked to by Police/Prosecutor/Court"?

It sure is hard to look guiltier than that!
 
johnny karate said:
Your unsupported assertion aside, do you honestly think Zimmerman's wife should be give a pass? And if so, why?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Perhaps a lesser/reduced charge, depending on what the story is.

It has been pointed out that their 'conspiracy' to hide their money, etc, appears to be breathtakingly stupid, so I am having a hard time imagining what exactly such a story may entail ... but it's possible it could be a realistic scenario which at least somewhat may mitigate the actions in a reasonable persons mind.

I guess part of my problem is that enforcement appears arbitrary. Like a speeding ticket where you are among dozens exceeding the speed limit, but you are singled out for punishment. You are guilty, but there is some sense of unfairness that all the other parties who were also guilty went unpunished.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
DD is hardly a neutral third party.
She has changed her story to add an additional damaging statement that she had not originally stated ('get off') During her interview with De la rionda, she basically offered up 'do you want me to say that ?' If she was correctly identified ( and I have no reason to believe she wasn't, the picture of her with TM is the same person, etc) then her story about being too distraught to go to the wake, etc. is completely at odds with her tweets. In short, her credibility appears to be no better than GZ, perhaps worse.

Unless DD is credible, I don't beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, we haven't heard GZ story yet, or seen all the evidence. But that's where I am at this point.
Click to expand...

DD is 15 years old? I think a jury may forgive her for being a bad witness on the stand. As long as they don't get the idea she's trying to deliberately lie. And attorneys who browbeat 15 year old witnesses don't fare too well.

BTW, she didn't say she was too distraught. She said she went to the hospital. Was that a lie? If so, then yeah, she loses a lot of credibility. But if you put her word (shaky as it is) against that of a known liar like Zimmerman, who can be shown on a recording to be willing to defraud the court, I think 9 out of 10 people will take her word over his. Unless you start out with some sort of prejudice about why George should be believed above all others.
 
bookworm said:
Why can't you admit there's something shady about witnesses changing their stories?
Click to expand...

Because there's not.

Do you imagine follow-up interviews are an uncommon practice?

Do you imagine witnesses aren't asked to repeat their stories multiple times before taking the stand to prepare for any surprises?

Witnesses recant all the time. It's part of the process.

Both the prosecution and the defense grill their respective witnesses to insure their stories will withstand cross-examination.

If a weakness in the story is found - if the witness admits to being unsure on a particular point - that witness will most likely be taken off the witness list.

No lawyer wants to be caught off-guard during a trial by one of their witnesses suddenly admitting on the stand they can't be sure about something they previously claimed to know.

Witness #6 was given a routine follow-up interview. During the course of that interview, he admitted to being unsure about certain details from his previous statement. End of story.
 
Last edited:
Dcdrac said:
The way it was reported in the UK media was he ran off and hid and who issued those death threats they never meade it over here inot the media here.
Click to expand...

A bounty was put on GZ's head (10,000 dollars IIRC). It was well covered in the USA - perhaps the BBC/Guardian isn't giving you both sides of the story?


Dcdrac said:
The bottom line is for me I see attempts to turn the victim TM into the criminal.
Click to expand...

Depends on what actually happened doesn't it? Possibly TM was the victim... however, it is also possible (IMHO probable) that GZ was the victim and he acted in self-defense, which would mean that certain people are now trying to railroad an innocent man who's been through a terrifying ordeal. (Bet he wont try watching out for his neighbours again!)
 
Originally Posted by johnny karate
That this statement:


... followed this one:


... creates a perfect singularity of irony that threatens to unmake the universe.
Click to expand...


:)

Have I told you lately how much I enjoy reading your posts?
 
Unabogie said:
DD is 15 years old? I think a jury may forgive her for being a bad witness on the stand. As long as they don't get the idea she's trying to deliberately lie. And attorneys who browbeat 15 year old witnesses don't fare too well.

BTW, she didn't say she was too distraught. She said she went to the hospital. Was that a lie? If so, then yeah, she loses a lot of credibility. But if you put her word (shaky as it is) against that of a known liar like Zimmerman, who can be shown on a recording to be willing to defraud the court, I think 9 out of 10 people will take her word over his. Unless you start out with some sort of prejudice about why George should be believed above all others.
Click to expand...

She was so distraught she went to the hospital because she has high blood pressure, or something along those lines.
However, the tweets of the person identified as DD are at odds with going to the hospital, or being distraught at all. So yes, I think the hospital might be a lie that was made up to explain why she did not go to the wake or funeral. Otherwise - why not go ?? She has known TM since kindergarten !
When I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll re-evaluate.


The difference (for me) is I think the evidence we have so far points to DD lying, and does not point to GZ lying.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
I don't know. Perhaps a lesser/reduced charge, depending on what the story is.

It has been pointed out that their 'conspiracy' to hide their money, etc, appears to be breathtakingly stupid, so I am having a hard time imagining what exactly such a story may entail ... but it's possible it could be a realistic scenario which at least somewhat may mitigate the actions in a reasonable persons mind.

I guess part of my problem is that enforcement appears arbitrary. Like a speeding ticket where you are among dozens exceeding the speed limit, but you are singled out for punishment. You are guilty, but there is some sense of unfairness that all the other parties who were also guilty went unpunished.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but "The other kids were doing it, too!" isn't the defense of a reasonable, mature adult.

Zimmerman's got caught breaking the law, and now she has to face the consequences of her actions. That's how things work in the grown-up world.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
She was so distraught she went to the hospital because she has high blood pressure, or something along those lines.
However, the tweets of the person identified as DD are at odds with going to the hospital, or being distraught at all. So yes, I think the hospital might be a lie that was made up to explain why she did not go to the wake or funeral. Otherwise - why not go ?? She has known TM since kindergarten !
When I see some evidence to the contrary, I'll re-evaluate.


The difference (for me) is I think the evidence we have so far points to DD lying, and does not point to GZ lying.
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that she wasn't at the hospital?
 
johnny karate said:
Sorry, but "The other kids were doing it, too!" isn't the defense of a reasonable, mature adult.
Click to expand...
SZ and GZ are reasonable, mature adults now in your estimation ?
johnny karate said:
Zimmerman's got caught breaking the law, and now she has to face the consequences of her actions. That's how things work in the grown-up world.
Click to expand...
Well, sometimes. Unless you are important. Or know someone. Or have political connections, or are rich, or... well, you get the idea.
 
johnny karate said:
Because there's not.

Do you imagine follow-up interviews are an uncommon practice?
Click to expand...
Yes. Evidence ?

johnny karate said:
Do you imagine witnesses aren't asked to repeat their stories multiple times before taking the stand to prepare for any surprises?
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is called practicing, not recanting.
johnny karate said:
Witnesses recant all the time. It's part of the process.
Click to expand...
You should read the links. The ones I read don't support what you intend to be supported - it's all about recanting because they intentionally lied.
johnny karate said:
Both the prosecution and the defense grill their respective witnesses to insure their stories will withstand cross-examination.

If a weakness in the story is found - if the witness admits to being unsure on a particular point - that witness will most likely be taken off the witness list.

No lawyer wants to be caught off-guard during a trial by one of their witnesses suddenly admitting on the stand they can't be sure about something they previously claimed to know.

Witness #6 was given a routine follow-up interview. During the course of that interview, he admitted to being unsure about certain details from his previous statement. End of story.
Click to expand...

What makes you think it was routine ?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
SZ and GZ are reasonable, mature adults now in your estimation ?
Click to expand...

No, and that's my point.

This particular conversation started with a question asking why Zimmerman's wife should be given a pass. The only defense offered in response so far is something akin to "Well, everybody does it".

That's nonsense, and sounds like an excuse a teenage girl would give for missing curfew.

These recent events demonstrate to me that the Zimmermans are stupid, dishonest people. But being stupid - and certainly being dishonest - are not reasonable excuses to break the law.

Shellie Zimmerman broke the law. Now she has to face the consequences.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom