What's most interesting about that call is that the screams do seem muffled at points, though I hate basing conclusions like that on third (or more) generation recordings.
What's most interesting about that call is that the screams do seem muffled at points, though I hate basing conclusions like that on third (or more) generation recordings.
I'm still not convinced it specifically negates the "what if" from transpiring during the last scream.
And, again, even if this scenario couldn't apply, I am trying to point out that there are scenarios where Z does not have to be a genius to leave out one or two minor details and stick to it.
People were seriously making the claim that after they listened to how dumb Z and his wife sound in the jailhouse calls, that he must have been too dumb to not tell the whole truth about what happened that night when interviewed immediately that night.
And, again, even if this scenario couldn't apply, I am trying to point out that there are scenarios where Z does not have to be a genius to leave out one or two minor details and stick to it.
People were seriously making the claim that after they listened to how dumb Z and his wife sound in the jailhouse calls, that he must have been too dumb to not tell the whole truth about what happened that night when interviewed immediately that night.
I don't consider the hilited portion to be the same as "attacked him from behind". And I am not aware of any quotes of GZ saying he was 'attacked form behind'.
Approached him from behind, then they exchanged words, then TM punched him has always been the gist of the sequence, AFAIK.
In that article, the Herald reported inconsistent descriptions from the police of Zimmerman's account. (The very next sentence contradicts the one I quoted.)
Yes it does. Nothing in that scenario has anything to do with Z screaming.
I sense that you sincerely wish it didn't fit the facts though... Why is that?
ETA: Refresh my memory. Were you one of the few people who, after listening to the jail house phone call stupidity, said that you think that shows Z was too stupid to leave out key details that night?
Zimmerman's version - at least the important part of it - doesn't fit the facts because there are no facts to fit.
Other than Zimmerman, nobody knows for sure what happened between the time he hung up with the police dispatcher and the end of the altercation just prior to Martin being killed.
If the sequence of events is A, B,and C, all we have independent verification for are A and C. At this point, our knowledge of B relies solely on Zimmerman's word.
I'm still not convinced it specifically negates the "what if" from transpiring during the last scream.
And, again, even if this scenario couldn't apply, I am trying to point out that there are scenarios where Z does not have to be a genius to leave out one or two minor details and stick to it.
Upon reading the bolded, I immediately thought of what GZ told his BFF, Frank Taaffe. (He's the guy who went on NW's with GZ and said GZ had "fed up" issues and George was "mad as hell and he wasn't going to take it anymore.") -- anyway, from the first time I heard this interview, months ago now, with FT & Anderson Cooper - one thing stuck out strongly:
Listen at the one minute mark:FT (paraphrase) 'George told me...as I read him the police narrative about that night..."yes, that's how it happened. stick to that story."' You have to hear if for yourself.
"I asked George 'can I go with that?' he said:...stick to that story."Something about that line has stuck with me since. My hinky meter went straight to 10.
Upon reading the bolded, I immediately thought of what GZ told his BFF, Frank Taaffe. (He's the guy who went on NW's with GZ and said GZ had "fed up" issues and George was "mad as hell and he wasn't going to take it anymore.") -- anyway, from the first time I heard this interview, months ago now, with FT & Anderson Cooper - one thing stuck out strongly:
Listen at the one minute mark:FT (paraphrase) 'George told me...as I read him the police narrative about that night..."yes, that's how it happened. stick to that story."' You have to hear if for yourself.
"I asked George 'can I go with that?' he said:...stick to that story."Something about that line has stuck with me since. My hinky meter went straight to 10.
It does require him to not get caught in his lies by any physical evidence or witnesses. A skill he appears to be completely lacking in as demonstrated by his phone calls, etc. I really don't think getting away with pleading self defense in a murder charge is quite as simple as a few lies.
Well, we still have Serino's comments that made GZ look innocent, as well.
We know now that a pretty thorough investigation was done initially.
It's hard to fathom how evidence went from all in GZ's favor to "strong against him".
It's hard to fathom Serino's manslaughter charge after Serino's comments.
I actually think the judge had not seen the evidence at the time of that statement, but was taking the prosecutor's word, like they do most of the time. They expect that a prosecutor will not pursue a weak case.
Most people think that's the case. If a prosecutor moves forward, the case must be good against the defendant.
In that article, the Herald reported inconsistent descriptions from the police of Zimmerman's account. (The very next sentence contradicts the one I quoted.)
Zimmerman told police that Trayvon approached him from behind and attacked him. An unnamed police source told the Orlando Sentinel that Zimmerman said Trayvon decked him with one punch and slammed his head on the concrete.
I don't see a contradiction ?
The omitted 'exchanged words', and it could be interpreted as 'attacked him from behind' - but it also could be interpreted as approached him from behind and then attacked him - which is what the 'source' at the Orlando Sentinel tells us GZ claims.
That Zimmerman shot Martin is a stipulated fact. That makes for a pretty strong manslaughter or 2nd degree murder case all by itself.
Usually, claiming the right of self defense is an affirmative defense, essentially shifting the burden of evidence onto the defendant. The defendant has to prove that he had a reasonable fear for his life. (Because he has admitted the fact that he killed the guy.)
As I read the statutes involved, the defendant does NOT have to prove that there was no opportunity to get away without using lethal force, however if he is the person who initiated the confrontation, he doesn't get that out (and would have to prove that there was no opportunity to get away without using lethal force).
With just the information we have available to us (and the prosecution has stated that we don't have all the evidence in the case), it looks like a pretty strong case. Certainly not a slam dunk, but certainly worth giving to a jury.
If I were the prosecutor, I would take great pains to emphasize that Zimmerman ignore the 911 dispatcher's suggestion that he NOT follow Martin, and that he displayed a strong motivation to make sure Martin doesn't get away. This is consistent with someone who initiated the confrontation.
I think ultimately, it will come down to whether or not the jury believes Zimmerman--unless of course prosecution has something pretty big none of us knows about.
I don't think that 2 second pause was when GZ pulled out his gun and TM 'surrendered' and then screamed again and was shot is what happened. If you think it fits the facts and works for you, ok then.
ETA: Refresh my memory. Were you one of the few people who, after listening to the jail house phone call stupidity, said that you think that shows Z was too stupid to leave out key details that night?
That Zimmerman shot Martin is a stipulated fact. That makes for a pretty strong manslaughter or 2nd degree murder case all by itself.
Usually, claiming the right of self defense is an affirmative defense, essentially shifting the burden of evidence onto the defendant. The defendant has to prove that he had a reasonable fear for his life. (Because he has admitted the fact that he killed the guy.)
As I read the statutes involved, the defendant does NOT have to prove that there was no opportunity to get away without using lethal force, however if he is the person who initiated the confrontation, he doesn't get that out (and would have to prove that there was no opportunity to get away without using lethal force).
With just the information we have available to us (and the prosecution has stated that we don't have all the evidence in the case), it looks like a pretty strong case. Certainly not a slam dunk, but certainly worth giving to a jury.
If I were the prosecutor, I would take great pains to emphasize that Zimmerman ignore the 911 dispatcher's suggestion that he NOT follow Martin, and that he displayed a strong motivation to make sure Martin doesn't get away. This is consistent with someone who initiated the confrontation.
I think ultimately, it will come down to whether or not the jury believes Zimmerman--unless of course prosecution has something pretty big none of us knows about.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
