Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4

Again, watching this. It takes 35 seconds to get to the T. It takes a full minute before he can even describe Trayvon coming back onto the street. In reality, how long would it take George to drive from the clubhouse, then Trayvon to come and circle around him?

George starts to say "he's coming toward me" at 40 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

He doesn't say "he ran" until after George was out running after him.

1:51 "the back entrance" - out of breath.
1:57 quick "yeh".
2:08 "George". - out of breath.

So first, he's totally out of breath. Second, he has suddenly stopped talking and there are 10 second gaps in his speech. His answers are staccato. I don't know how anyone can start at the 1:45 mark and not conclude the guy is running after Trayvon, and not simply looking for a street sign.

ETA:


Last thing: after the 2:08 mark, when he says "he ran" and then gives his name, he seems to have stopped running. You no longer hear the wind in the phone. In his interview he denied running at all and claimed it was just a windy night. Funny how at the point where he no longer was chasing him the wind died down.

 

[Rare Truth]

Here's a perfect example of how Zimmerman lies on the fly.

Bond hearing. Z had just delivered his non-apology apology on the stand, under oath.

First question, right off, from the prosecution:

PROSECUTION: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you've done or their loss?

ZIMMERMAN: No sir.

PROSECUTION: You never stated that, did you?

ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember what I said. I believe I did say that.

PROSECUTION: You told that to the police?

ZIMMERMAN: In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.

PROSECUTION: You did?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

He goes from no, to I don't remember, to yes. Straight shot.

Side note Georgie: You should have stuck with your first answer. That was the correct one.

 

[marplots]

And I posted this earlier, but received no response:

February 26th NEN call:

Dispatcher: Are you following him.

Zimmerman: Yeah.

February 29th interview with Investigator Serino:

Zimmerman: I wasn't following him. I was just going in the same direction he was.

What rationalization can you offer for that "inconsistency"?

Your wish is my command.

follow
verb (used with object)
1. to come after in sequence, order of time, etc.: The speech follows the dinner.
2. to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.

The discrepancy is explained by using the first definition when he's talking to the dispatcher and a meaning closer to "pursue" in the second instance, which clarifies the first. One is happenstance and the other is intentional. So the first mention is heard as a kind of pursuit, but is then clarified later by GZ.

I hope this resolves any cognitive dissonance. If that doesn't, I'll give another example.

"I followed right behind Sun Myung Moon when getting on the plane."
"Oh, so you were a follower of Reverend Moon then?"
"No, I'm a Muslim."

 

[sgtbaker]

Ok, but later on he denies getting out to follow him. That's not credible, right?

Again, the most reliable testimony is the first. He said he got out to see what direction Trayvon ran, that is not the same as following. That is what I am talking about, slightly rearranging his words to confuse him.

Actually no, you hear the door opening before the dispatcher asks the question, so you have that reversed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

Listen again, 2:11 "**** he's running."
2:12, "He's running, which way is he running?"
2:13 you hear the click of the door and then the dinging

Really? He's out of breath and you hear the wind. They ask him about it and he says "it was windy". Again, I think you've just decided to accept everything he says for some reason.

You hear wind because it's windy. I've accepted nothing he says. I didn't say he's not running because he said he's not running. I said it doesn't sound like the voice of someone running.

So he gets out of breath from walking, looking for a street sign? He doesn't seem out of breath during his walkthrough.

If that is his breath, instead of wind, damn that guy has some lung capacity.

He only mentions "checking him out once" which starts around 30 seconds into the call. If he's at the clubhouse at the start of the call, how can this happen at the T? It can't. Especially since he claims he parked at the clubhouse, which would make him have to back out, drive down to the T, and then after parking at the T he saw Trayvon, walk off the grass, then around the corner, then back again, then out onto the street. How long would that take? At least 30 more seconds. It's physically impossible.

Another correction. at :51 seconds "Now he's just staring at me."
1:26 He's coming to check me out.

You shouldn't rely on memory so much

That's the problem with lying. It makes people doubt your word?

It's a strange choice of words considering what makes these interrogation tactics questionable is that they can make an innocent person confess to a crime they didn't commit. You should check it out, sometime. It's pretty interesting psychology.

No, this is impossible.

So do I just accept that based on your word or are you going to actually challenge it?

Again, you have this reversed.

Listen to the 911 call I posted above. I do not have it reversed and I've given you the exact time where you can hear it.

The problem is that the version he ends up with is physically impossible and he resisted all opportunities to clear things up

Impossible as in defying all laws of physics or impossible as in it goes against what you've decided to be true?

 

[sgtbaker]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4

Again, watching this. It takes 35 seconds to get to the T. It takes a full minute before he can even describe Trayvon coming back onto the street. In reality, how long would it take George to drive from the clubhouse, then Trayvon to come and circle around him?

George starts to say "he's coming toward me" at 40 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

He doesn't say "he ran" until after George was out running after him.

1:51 "the back entrance" - out of breath.
1:57 quick "yeh".
2:08 "George". - out of breath.

So first, he's totally out of breath. Second, he has suddenly stopped talking and there are 10 second gaps in his speech. His answers are staccato. I don't know how anyone can start at the 1:45 mark and not conclude the guy is running after Trayvon, and not simply looking for a street sign.

ETA:


Last thing: after the 2:08 mark, when he says "he ran" and then gives his name, he seems to have stopped running. You no longer hear the wind in the phone. In his interview he denied running at all and claimed it was just a windy night. Funny how at the point where he no longer was chasing him the wind died down.

Dude! Seriously, you are listening to the edited version of the call. I posted the unedited version. I want to take that out and keep it civil. The reason why you are having trouble believing in the time is because you are listening to the version that cuts out over two minutes of the conversation.

 

[johnny karate]

Your wish is my command.

follow
verb (used with object)
1. to come after in sequence, order of time, etc.: The speech follows the dinner.
2. to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.

The discrepancy is explained by using the first definition when he's talking to the dispatcher and a meaning closer to "pursue" in the second instance, which clarifies the first. One is happenstance and the other is intentional. So the first mention is heard as a kind of pursuit, but is then clarified later by GZ.

I hope this resolves any cognitive dissonance. If that doesn't, I'll give another example.

"I followed right behind Sun Myung Moon when getting on the plane."
"Oh, so you were a follower of Reverend Moon then?"
"No, I'm a Muslim."

Uh... what?

Neither example of the alternate definitions of "follow" make any damn sense in this context.

A person doesn't follow another person in "order of time". Only events follow each other in order of time.

And Zimmerman certainly wasn't claiming to be an adherent or devotee of Martin's, so the second example is even more ludicrous.

Seriously, that is some really twisted logic.

It's really quite simple. First, it's:

Dispatcher: Are you following him.
Zimmerman: Yeah.

And then it becomes:

Zimmerman: I wasn't following him.

He contradicts himself by denying he did something he already admitted to doing.

That's called lying.

 

[marplots]

Uh... what?

Neither example of the alternate definitions of "follow" make any damn sense in this context.

A person doesn't follow another person in "order of time". Only events follow each other in order of time.

And Zimmerman certainly wasn't claiming to be an adherent or devotee of Martin's, so the second example is even more ludicrous.

Seriously, that is some really twisted logic.

It's really quite simple. First, it's:

Quote:
Dispatcher: Are you following him.
Zimmerman: Yeah.
And then it becomes:
Quote:
Zimmerman: I wasn't following him.

He contradicts himself by denying he did something he already admitted to doing.

That's called lying.

OK, I'm starting to think this is a rhetorical question and you don't really want me to answer it. But, just in case it's not, I'll try again.

"Are you following him?" [in the sense of traveling behind to see where he's going] -- yes
"Were you following him?" [in the sense of pursuit, but he lost sight of TM] -- no

Perhaps if the cop had asked, "Did you try to follow him?" in the second case, GZ would have said, "Yeah."

Let me know if you really didn't want anyone to respond to your query. It's just that when someone asks for an explanation of how things could be viewed alternately, I assume they really are curious about it.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I will address this point because it's so silly.

Why would you choose a silly point to address?

My question is why you haven't changed your mind about anything

So you can not only read GZ's mind, and the polices mind, you can read my mind too. How precisely do you know I haven't changed my mind about anything? Or perhaps you're also just seeing what you want to see on that front too. I've continually adjusted my views as this thread has progressed, though admittedly the one thing I am still sure of is that I'm not sure of what precisely transpired here.

 

[sgtbaker]

Why would you choose a silly point to address?

So you can not only read GZ's mind, and the polices mind, you can read my mind too. How precisely do you know I haven't changed my mind about anything? Or perhaps you're also just seeing what you want to see on that front too. I've continually adjusted my views as this thread has progressed, though admittedly the one thing I am still sure of is that I'm not sure of what precisely transpired here.

I've actually seen you change your position. A few pages back, in the other thread, you went from not enough evidence to you would probably vote guilty on manslaughter, right?

 

[marplots]

Just curious, and this might have already been addressed, but is GZ expected to testify? I had the impression that SYG was a kind of affirmative (is that the right word?) defense where the accused has to testify to make the assertion.

On the other hand, it seems weird that someone would have to testify.

Can someone fix my misunderstanding here as well as guess about whether GZ will testify or not?

 

[johnny karate]

OK, I'm starting to think this is a rhetorical question and you don't really want me to answer it. But, just in case it's not, I'll try again.

"Are you following him?" [in the sense of traveling behind to see where he's going] -- yes
"Were you following him?" [in the sense of pursuit, but he lost sight of TM] -- no

Perhaps if the cop had asked, "Did you try to follow him?" in the second case, GZ would have said, "Yeah."

Let me know if you really didn't want anyone to respond to your query. It's just that when someone asks for an explanation of how things could be viewed alternately, I assume they really are curious about it.

Yeah, I asked for what rationalization could be offered to explain the inconsistency, and you certainly delivered. Your laughable semantic hair-splitting did not disappoint.

Just out curiosity (and this is not a rhetorical question) what would it take for you to acknowledge Zimmerman lied if a denial of something he previously admitted to doesn't quite cut it?

If he denied the sky was blue or water was wet, would you find ways to make those truthful statements as well?

And as a follow up question, why the investment in offering contortions to rationalize everything this guy says? Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge the obvious fact that he's being dishonest?

 

[johnny karate]

I've actually seen you change your position. A few pages back, in the other thread, you went from not enough evidence to you would probably vote guilty on manslaughter, right?

Which is exactly what Unabogie said he did in regard to his opinion of the police.

And yet he was mocked for doing that here:

Its also humorous that suddenly serino is your hero whereas previously the police were incompetent.

... until it was decided that doing so was actually a good thing:

I've continually adjusted my views as this thread has progressed...

So it seems that some people are simply more interested in taking potshots than they are in offering consistent or rational arguments. And those people have the yellow cards to prove it.

 

[Cylinder]

Just curious, and this might have already been addressed, but is GZ expected to testify? I had the impression that SYG was a kind of affirmative (is that the right word?) defense where the accused has to testify to make the assertion.

On the other hand, it seems weird that someone would have to testify.

No - obviously he cannot be required to testify because the US Constitution provides that protection. To assert a self defense claim in Florida, Zimmerman only needs to provide a claim that fits the statute and some evidence to support the claim.

Gregory v. State

A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his or her theory of defense where there is any evidence to support it, no matter how weak or flimsy.

Villa v State

According to Vila's testimony, the victim attacked him first, and he responded in order to defend himself against that attack. The State contends that Vila was not entitled to the instruction because the evidence that he presented was minimal and self-serving. This argument lacks merit as a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support his defense. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that defendant is entitled to jury instruction on his theory of case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be); Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358, 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding defendant entitled to requested self-defense instruction no matter "how weak or improbable his testimony may have been with respect to the circumstances" leading to commission of offense).

Zimmerman's claims - taken by themself in the form of statements to police - would be enough to satisfy this threshold. Once the instruction is given, it is the burden of the state to prove that his use of force was unlawful.

Can someone fix my misunderstanding here as well as guess about whether GZ will testify or not?

IANAL, but that will be decided at trial. It may turn out that the state's theory of the crime can be impeached through other testimony and evidence. If that's the case - and it seems that Zimmerman has that sort of evidence here - then there's no need for Zimmerman to testify at trial. OTOH, Zimmerman's team may decide at some point that Zimmerman doesn't have much exposure against a cross-examination and rebuttal evidence and recommend that he testify. Zimmerman himself may think it important to tell his story. There's a ton of possibilities there. It's important to note that the mere fact that Zimmerman testifies allows the state to present new rebuttal evidence concerning what amounts to Zimmerman's character.

 

[marplots]

Yeah, I asked for what rationalization could be offered to explain the inconsistency, and you certainly delivered. Your laughable semantic hair-splitting did not disappoint.

Just out curiosity (and this is not a rhetorical question) what would it take for you to acknowledge Zimmerman lied if a denial of something he previously admitted to doesn't quite cut it?

"I did not shoot Trayvon Martin" would be a good one.

If he denied the sky was blue or water was wet, would you find ways to make those truthful statements as well?

You mean frozen water or liquid water?

And as a follow up question, why the investment in offering contortions to rationalize everything this guy says? Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge the obvious fact that he's being dishonest?

It's hard to know. I appreciate that dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder sometimes, but it's hard to distinguish it from simply making a mistake when you are talking about nuances in testimony. To say that someone who is caught in a lie always lies or "is a liar" seems silly. Will you now stipulate, that because GZ is a liar, that his claim to have been at the crime scene was also a lie? I lied last week when I told my wife I had checked the mail when I hadn't yet done it. Am I a liar? Did I kill someone even though I say I didn't? Character assassination seems shallow when you are trying to decide if someone should be jailed for murder or not.

If you are keen on liars though, you should check out the police. Apparently, lying about what evidence they have during an interrogation is standard practice. Lying is part of the job. Or is it OK if the good guys lie but not the bad guys?

As to GZ, I expect he got much more careful about shaping things to support his case once he understood the cops weren't his allies. And I expect he is lying about some of the things he said happened to make his story more coherent and believable. But that doesn't tell me just which pieces those are. The only way to do it would be to have another, conflicting, independent statement or forensics. So, for example, if Trayvon had been shot in the back, it would indicate GZ was lying about shooting him from the front. This is what happened with the bond hearing stuff. The wife is caught lying because there is evidence she was lying. Pretty simple, really.

I'll wait and see what lies the prosecution comes up with at trial and how they are explained or not explained.

 

[crimresearch]

Just curious, and this might have already been addressed, but is GZ expected to testify? I had the impression that SYG was a kind of affirmative (is that the right word?) defense where the accused has to testify to make the assertion.

On the other hand, it seems weird that someone would have to testify.

Can someone fix my misunderstanding here as well as guess about whether GZ will testify or not?

Affirmative defense means literally, that the defendant affirms that they did the act (In this case, pulling the trigger), but that they fall into one of the recognized exceptions (In this case, self defense).

And nothing about an affirmative defense requires the defendant to waive any of their rights under the US Constitution

There is a requirement that the defense (not necessarily the defendant) explain how the tests for that exception have been met.

 

[johnny karate]

It's hard to know. I appreciate that dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder sometimes, but it's hard to distinguish it from simply making a mistake when you are talking about nuances in testimony.

He denied following Martin immediately after listening to a recording in which he admitted to following Martin.

There are no nuances or mistakes to discuss. It's a simple case of Zimmerman claiming one thing, and then claiming the opposite.

To say that someone who is caught in a lie always lies or "is a liar" seems silly.

Of course it is. And no one is doing that in this case. I'm just pointing out an actual lie that he told.

Will you now stipulate, that because GZ is a liar, that his claim to have been at the crime scene was also a lie?

Speaking of silly...

If a claim can be independently corroborated then of course it isn't a lie, no matter how untrustworthy the person making the claim.

I lied last week when I told my wife I had checked the mail when I hadn't yet done it. Am I a liar? Did I kill someone even though I say I didn't?

Yes, because it's the exact same thing. Zimmerman lied about checking the mail, and now I think he's a murderer. That was my exact thought process.

Let me know when you start colluding with your wife to defraud a court of law, or contradicting yourself regarding material details about the night you shot someone, and I'll tell you how trustworthy I think you are.

But until then, I will at the very least view with suspicion anytime you claim to have checked the mail.

Character assassination seems shallow when you are trying to decide if someone should be jailed for murder or not.

Wait... we get to decide if Zimmerman should be jailed for murder? When did that happen? I thought we were just expressing our opinions.

If you are keen on liars though, you should check out the police. Apparently, lying about what evidence they have during an interrogation is standard practice. Lying is part of the job. Or is it OK if the good guys lie but not the bad guys?

I'm not "keen on liars", I'm keen on determining if the man who killed someone can be believed when he said he did it in self-defense.

As to GZ, I expect he got much more careful about shaping things to support his case once he understood the cops weren't his allies. And I expect he is lying about some of the things he said happened to make his story more coherent and believable.

I doubt that coherence and believability were his motivations. Zimmerman lied to cover his ass. The narrative he's concocted completely exonerates him of any wrongdoing, and makes him out to be the innocent victim of a random and lethal attack by a teenage boy walking home from the store.

Such a narrative is implausible on its face, and that's before we get into the contradictory details and Zimmerman's established dishonesty.

But that doesn't tell me just which pieces those are. The only way to do it would be to have another, conflicting, independent statement or forensics. So, for example, if Trayvon had been shot in the back, it would indicate GZ was lying about shooting him from the front.

Actually, internal consistency is another way to establish veracity of a statement. Zimmerman couldn't have both followed and not followed Martin at the same time. Someone making such glaringly contradictory claims is clearly not telling the truth.

This is what happened with the bond hearing stuff. The wife is caught lying because there is evidence she was lying. Pretty simple, really.

I'm actually surprised that you would acknowledge Zimmerman's wife lied.

Surely, you could devise some semantic wizardry to argue that she wasn't lying as you just did with Zimmerman.

I'll wait and see what lies the prosecution comes up with at trial and how they are explained or not explained.

I'll just take the more direct route of recognizing a lie for a lie since logic dictates that two contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true.

 

[quadraginta]

That's evidence that he walks his dog there. My community is set up like this; there is a main road that is the shape of a circle. Four mini-subdivisions surround the circle, each on a different road. I use that circle road, every single day to drive out of my neighborhood. For a change of scenery, I walk down to the circle to run, because it is exactly a quarter mile. I know the name of one road, the one I live on. I hope I am never in a situation where I would have to recall the names of the other roads because, well, I've never bothered to look at the road signs.

This would be a more persuasive comparison if, in addition to your dog walking ritual you were also the self-appointed captain of your Neighborhood Watch and had made dozens of phone calls to the police from the neighborhood in the past couple of years reporting your concerns about suspicious activities in the area.

<snip>

Yes, I agree that it's plausible he didn't know his streets.

<snip>

I don't.

Three streets. Three!

Hell, as much neighborhood watching as he seems to have been doing he should know the names of all the people on all of the (three) streets ... and all their dogs' names too.

Okay. Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but I still ain't buyin' it.

 

[tsig]

Yeah, I asked for what rationalization could be offered to explain the inconsistency, and you certainly delivered. Your laughable semantic hair-splitting did not disappoint. Just out curiosity (and this is not a rhetorical question) what would it take for you to acknowledge Zimmerman lied if a denial of something he previously admitted to doesn't quite cut it?

If he denied the sky was blue or water was wet, would you find ways to make those truthful statements as well?

And as a follow up question, why the investment in offering contortions to rationalize everything this guy says? Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge the obvious fact that he's being dishonest?

It's like watching an inerrant bible believer pretzel his way around an inconvenient verse in the bible.

It's an article of faith for gun nuts that packing heat makes things safer so their faith forces them to deny that a registered gun toter could do harm.

 

[tsig]

"I did not shoot Trayvon Martin" would be a good one.



You mean frozen water or liquid water?



It's hard to know. I appreciate that dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder sometimes, but it's hard to distinguish it from simply making a mistake when you are talking about nuances in testimony. To say that someone who is caught in a lie always lies or "is a liar" seems silly. Will you now stipulate, that because GZ is a liar, that his claim to have been at the crime scene was also a lie? I lied last week when I told my wife I had checked the mail when I hadn't yet done it. Am I a liar? Did I kill someone even though I say I didn't? Character assassination seems shallow when you are trying to decide if someone should be jailed for murder or not.

If you are keen on liars though, you should check out the police. Apparently, lying about what evidence they have during an interrogation is standard practice. Lying is part of the job. Or is it OK if the good guys lie but not the bad guys?

As to GZ, I expect he got much more careful about shaping things to support his case once he understood the cops weren't his allies. And I expect he is lying about some of the things he said happened to make his story more coherent and believable. But that doesn't tell me just which pieces those are. The only way to do it would be to have another, conflicting, independent statement or forensics. So, for example, if Trayvon had been shot in the back, it would indicate GZ was lying about shooting him from the front. This is what happened with the bond hearing stuff. The wife is caught lying because there is evidence she was lying. Pretty simple, really.

I'll wait and see what lies the prosecution comes up with at trial and how they are explained or not explained.

It's called ice.

Then he's a liar. Why do you believe a liar?

 

[This is The End]

I think you are really asking two different questions. If the question is can a person that is telling the truth experience such a lapse, the incontrovertible answer is yes. As has been explained, that's the way memory works, and we have a mountain of evidence to know that. If you are asking if I think he is telling the truth about all aspects of the encounter, I don't know.

I seriously doubt a change that huge is accountable via normal memory lapse.

That's just not what the memory studies show happening. It's a whole 'nother ballgame of memory problem.