Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

I think the guy could be lying, show us the evidence andvthe contradictions.

Did you seriously not read the thread for the last several pages and/or listen to all of the new evidence dump??

 

[This is The End]

Therefor, George was not involved with the specific activity of acting suspicious and wandering about like TM.

How can you seriously say that with a straight face? Perhaps you are typing it without a straight face...

I would love for you to flat out say that Z was not "acting suspicious and wandering about" in the eyes of M.

 

[This is The End]

And that's just it, the posters here decrying the "inconsistencies" in Zimmerman's story are harping on minor details that are well within the range of honest mistakes due to fallible memory. There's nothing there as far as I can tell that shows any material inconsistencies.

Ask anyone to report an experience several times over several days, and you will get different variations with each telling, it's just the way memory works.

I'm going to ask you the same question. Did you listen to the latest document dump?

You can't explain some of this away with normal memory changes.

According to some of you, anything could be attributed to normal memory changes...

That's just not how it works and that is not what memory studies show happen.

You're taking the memory changes ball and running with it.

I can only assume why you would want to do that...

 

[This is The End]

Maybe they were both yelling?

I would say that in the 8 second clip posted recently it is quite possible that the first scream is one person and the person yelling "help" is another person. There's just no way to know for sure right now.

 

[This is The End]

Once again you clearly hear what you want to hear, since it would appear that the police had different opinions on the matter. Its humorous that you've convinced yourself thepolice "saw right through him" because they followed normal investigative techniques. Its also humorous that suddenly serino is your hero whereas previously the police were incompetent.

I will address this point because it's so silly. When this case was first reported, people said that the SPD didn't do a thorough job of investigating, including not taking the gun into custody and only doing a quick interview with George before letting him go. Thankfully, that's not the case. But prior to this week, none of us had any idea of what the investigation was really like. Now, we do. Now, we can hear it for ourselves. Now, after listening to Serino work for almost two hours, yes, I've changed my opinion of him. I took in new information and adjusted my conclusions based on new evidence. Isn't that what a good "skeptic" is supposed to do? My question is why you haven't changed your mind about anything, even after listening to this interrogation. My only conclusion is that you haven't listened to it, which explains why you're spending your time attacking posters instead of defending George's story.

Great post.

A skeptic should look at all available information and try very hard to turn off blinders and reduce bias to nil.

And be as polite as possible in the process.

Attacking the other person and nit-picking their arguments may be how you win in debate club, but a good skeptic should concentrate on finding, proving, and presenting solid evidence.

 

[This is The End]

It was dark and raining... Do people where you live wander around aimlessly like that?

Zimmerman didn't call to report that he saw 'one black teen-ager walking down the street at 7 p.m.'.
Those deliberate fabrications by the media were debunked a long time ago, and your wishful repeating isn't going to change that.

Here's a great example.

If you are saying that what Bob001 says isn't true then back it up with what was really said! Even if it has been posted a thousand times before! That is how you drill the truth into peoples heads. If it is in fact the truth of course.

If you say the highlighted sentence above, then immediately follow it up with what you found the evidence says that Z "really" reported.

 

[This is The End]

Or political accountability.

Exactly. Any time someone makes an "official statement" it is probably more likely that it is the "official company answer" than their own personal opinion.

 

[This is The End]

Either, his story is going to be inconsistant because memory fails or he is a liar. If he is a liar, so is every other witness, who's story has been changed, since the initial interviews.

You are literally taking these things to extremes.

Memory studies are not proof of anything. You can never be sure. Some people have good memories some people have bad ones. Just like with most everything there is a bell curve.

We do know that, according to Z, he is on the lower end of that bell curve when it comes to memory. But then again, we have proof that he is a liar and a conspirator from the jailhouse phone calls.

I say they are a wash.

So, in light of that, and the size of the change in his story, and the clear motive for the change, I am going to have to err on the side of the he is trying to make his story show him in the best light as possible.

That's not to say that someone who truly used self defense wouldn't do the same as well.

There's just no way to know at this point if he is innocent or not.

 

[This is The End]

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.

Yes that is a very weird distinction to make.

Z must have been nervous or improperly felt he was being cornered.

That or Z knows, unlike many people earlier in the thread, that the 2nd definition of "follow" means "pursue with intent to catch".

 

[This is The End]

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.

Much earlier in the thread when everyone was listening to that call (it was about all we had) nearly everyone agreed that it sounded like he was running for at least several seconds.

Some people have backed off that even though the evidence is quite clear in that call. It is one of the many things that is telling of whether or not they have blinders on, even if they know it or not.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Once again you clearly hear what you want to hear, since it would appear that the police had different opinions on the matter. Its humorous that you've convinced yourself thepolice "saw right through him" because they followed normal investigative techniques. Its also humorous that suddenly serino is your hero whereas previously the police were incompetent.

Now, after listening to Serino work for almost two hours, yes, I've changed my opinion of him. I took in new information and adjusted my conclusions based on new evidence. Isn't that what a good "skeptic" is supposed to do?

A skeptic should look at all available information and try very hard to turn off blinders and reduce bias to nil.

And be as polite as possible in the process.

Attacking the other person and nit-picking their arguments may be how you win in debate club, but a good skeptic should concentrate on finding, proving, and presenting solid evidence.

You might want to hone those skeptic skills a little more. Then you'll notice that Unaboogie only "adjusted his conclusions" about Serino once he discovered that Serino said things he liked, because he thinks they now mesh with what he's believed from the beginning. It's rather humorous he believes that's a sign of "being a good skeptic". That would be like me suddenly doing an about face and embracing a new voice expert who confirms my beliefs and claims the screaming voice is GZ, after ranting the first 150 pages that the voice experts claiming it is TM are full of woo. And then making it all the more over the top hilarious by having the audacity to claim that my about face proves I'm "adjusting my position and being a good skeptic". No, it would suggest precisely the opposite.

 

[This is The End]

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.

As I said earlier, that one is arguably understandable. He is nervous and feels like he is being cornered. An innocent person could be expected to act the same way in that situation.

This, and the normal memory lapse, is in sharp contrast to the big changes and the big lies.

Some of us may want all lies to be chalked up to memory lapse and nervous reactions.

Some of us may want all memory lapse and nervous reactions to be chalked up as lies.

We need to remember that nothing is ever 100% and to concentrate on what we have solid evidence of.

 

[This is The End]

You might want to hone those skeptic skills a little more. Then you'll notice that Unaboogie only "adjusted his conclusions" about Serino once he discovered that Serino said things he liked, because he thinks they now mesh with what he's believed from the beginning. It's rather humorous he believes that's a sign of "being a good skeptic". That would be like me suddenly doing an about face and embracing a new voice expert who confirms my beliefs and claims the screaming voice is GZ, after ranting the first 150 pages that the voice experts claiming it is TM are full of woo. And then making it all the more over the top hilarious by having the audacity to claim that my about face proves I'm "adjusting my position and being a good skeptic". No, it would suggest precisely the opposite.

Don't act like it's not possible for it to have both been something Unaboogie "liked" (using your word) and how a good skeptic would operate.

I seriously doubt you disagree with proper scientific method even if someone is satisfied with the results.

Please separate your thoughts of Unaboogie from his post. That is what a good skeptic would do. If you have evidence of someone making incorrect posts in the past it does not mean that every single one of their posts is incorrect.

Again with the voice experts. I don't see why you are 100% convinced it is impossible. Perhaps I am reading you wrong and that you are only 99% convinced, which I would agree with. Do not forget that in 100 or 1000 years or so, it is almost a guarantee that we would have sufficient technology to reliably analyze much worse audio that even that. If you are 100% and you disagree that that day will come then all I can only assume why you would do that.

 

[LTC8K6]

George Zimmerman : Witness Support and Legal Recap

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873

Jeralyn's take on the case so far.

(She's a defense attorney.)

 

[marplots]

...(I clipped and rearranged to get to this):
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.

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.

This is worth noting, because internal consistency will tell you that someone is lying. Unfortunately, it won't tell you which version is a lie and which the truth (or if either is true at all).

There was a case last year in Florida where a mother was accused of killing her daughter. She was an inveterate and thorough liar. She lied about things you wouldn't think mattered and she did it consistently. She was found not guilty on the murder charge, but guilty of lying to investigators.

Will George face the same charges as Casey?

 

[This is The End]

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."

You must not have been here earlier in the thread when people were admonished for knowing the more obscure definition of follow that implies pursue to catch.

Now it turns out that those same people (not you marplots) would have us believe that Z was one of those few.

ETA: And that Z used one definition in his 26th answer, and then the other one the 29th answer.

 

[This is The End]

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.

I don't mean to be mean or try and force everyone to go the extra mile, but if someone is using the wrong version please re-post the link when you admonish them! Even if you have posted it a million times before.

Please remember these forums are for the benefit of everyone and that includes lurkers and/or people who have not been following the thread.

I could try and find the link in your posts, but I assume you could do it faster than me. I assume that goes doubly the same for lurkers.

 

[This is The End]

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.

Again you are taking the memory studies to heart and running with them! Just because the studies show that, on average, the most accurate testimony would be the earliest doesn't mean that it is always the case.

You must look at all available evidence that you can find, and see if there are any valid motives for changes as well.

 

[This is The End]

<snip>

Good info in that post for one.

But, I believe alot of that depends on whether or not Z goes for an immunity hearing.

AFAIK 2 situations will have different affects on what exactly happens at the trial and how some of what you pointed out in your post applies:

1) No immunity hearing
2) Yes immunity hearing, but Z loses it

The third option [3) Yes immunity hearing, and Z wins it] would, of course, preclude a trial from happening.

The differences between 1 and 2 were delved into way earlier in the thread by someone who was involved with the Florida legal system. I will try and find it.

 

[crimresearch]

This is worth noting, because internal consistency will tell you that someone is lying. Unfortunately, it won't tell you which version is a lie and which the truth (or if either is true at all).

There was a case last year in Florida where a mother was accused of killing her daughter. She was an inveterate and thorough liar. She lied about things you wouldn't think mattered and she did it consistently. She was found not guilty on the murder charge, but guilty of lying to investigators.

Will George face the same charges as Casey?

Not based on anything reported so far.