Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

So what about you? What do you think of witnesses changing their stories and the possibility that someone helped them change it?

Someone, who? The difference between these other witnesses and George is that they have no reason to lie. They are not facing imprisonment or anything else. When a neutral witness changes his story, it's problematic in that it makes it harder to judge which version to which we should give credence, but it's not the same as murder suspect giving mutliple versions of his story, especially when the original version is contradicted by the ensuing investigation.

We all know WHY George would want to lie. Do you have any evidence about the other witnesses? Who helped them change? Why did they do it? And why would the witnesses go along with it in order to persecute George? Do they hate him?

And how many people conspired to get them to change their story?

 

[Rare Truth]

Raimondo covers the body some time after TM is pronounced dead, which was at 1930 hours.
...

Right after. Page 16, doc dump.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf

"I procured the emergency blanket from my vehicle and covered the male."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Thank you. If they swabbed his fingernails but neglected to swab his hands, then yes, that would mitigate the importance of not finding blood there. In fact, if they neglected to take those swabs at all I'd be very pissed at LE.

If they swabbed, but didn't bag them, I'd have to hear more about how that would affect the DNA results.

If they found Trayvon's DNA but not George's, I'd consider that evidence that none of George's blood got on his hands. So far, that looks to be the case but we may be wrong.

Did you note anywhere they claim to have swabbed the hands, other than under the fingernails?

Did you note anywhere they claim to have bagged his hands ?

Did you note that the body wasn't covered for at least 10-15 minutes after the shooting ?

Did you note they did find GZ blood in the places you would expect where they did swab ?

Did you note anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, but we've seen how the authorities make mistakes. We're all human, aren't we? It IS a possibility, even though it's unlikely. We can't make the assumption they did what they should have done without something telling us that they did it.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Considering that they swabbed his fingernails and examined his hands for wounds, I'd say the least likely of all scenarios is that they found blood on his hands and did not test them as they did the fingernails.

I'd call the default position is that they did, but didn't find George's blood, just as it appears.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Attn: Rare truth

Thank you. Why that so difficult to get you to do, I don't understand. 1 more simple question to go....

So now the we have corrected the incorrect statement about the casing being under the victim, how about you answer the other question I asked you ? Then we can work on dispelling that.

If you don't believe the second picture is accurate, please, don't feel like you have only two options. Tell us what position you think they were in when GZ shot TM ?

Is there a reason you don't answer this question ?

 

[Unabogie]

Did you note anywhere they claim to have swabbed the hands, other than under the fingernails?

Did you note anywhere they claim to have bagged his hands ?

Did you note that the body wasn't covered for at least 10-15 minutes after the shooting ?

Did you note they did find GZ blood in the places you would expect where they did swab ?

Did you note anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

I don't think his hands would be free of blood, since he was bleeding until he died.

But first, why bag the hands? Would that be required?

Second, finding some of George's blood on his shirt isn't the same as on his hands. We know that George grabbed him after he killed him. If George had his own blood on his own hands, that would transfer to Trayvpn's shirt.

The question is about Trayvon's hands and how they support George's story. It's not a smoking gun. It's just another piece in a puzzle that makes George out to be a liar.

If Trayvon hit him once or twice, but not 30 times. If he did not try and smother him with two hands. If he did not try and repeatedly smash his head against the ground, this would match the hands much better, but it would also show that George lied to make his case sound more dire.

Doesn't that seem more likely than a non-violent kid suddenly going homicidal on poor George for no reason at all?

Carl Sagan liked to talk about "prosaic" explanations. What would be more prosaic than that George chased after him like we can all hear on the tape, then caught up to him, they argued, he got on the losing end of a fist fight, then over-reacted?

Or that George was innocent at every turn until the deadly teenager attacked him for no reason?

 

[bookworm]

Someone, who? The difference between these other witnesses and George is that they have no reason to lie. They are not facing imprisonment or anything else. When a neutral witness changes his story, it's problematic in that it makes it harder to judge which version to which we should give credence, but it's not the same as murder suspect giving mutliple versions of his story, especially when the original version is contradicted by the ensuing investigation.

We all know WHY George would want to lie. Do you have any evidence about the other witnesses? Who helped them change? Why did they do it? And why would the witnesses go along with it in order to persecute George? Do they hate him?

And how many people conspired to get them to change their story?

Well, people do adjust their perceptions based on new information. For example, the witness who said he saw TM on top of Z and Z was screaming. Wasn't he the one who later said it must have been TM on the bottom because it was TM screaming? And didn't he hear that from the media reports? Also, sometimes witnesses may just want to go along with the common story that most people seem to be supporting. Some people may want to support the agenda that Sharpton is pushing. Sometimes, people are influenced by the person interviewing them.....for example, hypothetically, "you didn't see one person chasing another?" said in a doubtful voice may make the witness say "oh yeah, I guess I did". Do you really not admit it's a possibility these witnesses were influenced later?

 

[Unabogie]

Well, people do adjust their perceptions based on new information. For example, the witness who said he saw TM on top of Z and Z was screaming. Wasn't he the one who later said it must have been TM on the bottom because it was TM screaming? And didn't he hear that from the media reports? Also, sometimes witnesses may just want to go along with the common story that most people seem to be supporting. Some people may want to support the agenda that Sharpton is pushing. Sometimes, people are influenced by the person interviewing them.....for example, hypothetically, "you didn't see one person chasing another?" said in a doubtful voice may make the witness say "oh yeah, I guess I did". Do you really not admit it's a possibility these witnesses were influenced later?

When you bring up Sharpton, you lose me completely. Let's stick to the facts, ok? This isn't a conspiracy against White People. It's a trial about a very weird guy from Florida who shot an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store.

 

[tsig]

As far as I know, Z's new bond hearing is in 4 days, on Friday.

I would like to try and have an in thread poll (this never works ).

Please quote this and say A,B, or C.

(As far as I remember, original bond was $150,000.)

Poll:

A) Equal to, or less than, original bond

B) More than original bond

C) Bond Denied​

C.

 

[crimresearch]

I got that, thanks. I'm just trying to understand what in this particular case would form the ingredients in making that assessment.

If someone takes your 9mm out of your inside the waist band holster, and pulls the trigger from a few inches away, it is reasonable to believe that you are going to get hurt or killed.

If someone is on top of you punching you, and they move one hand down as if to take said 9mm, it is reasonable to believe that they are going to pull the trigger should they get it in their hand.

The prosecution, when all is said and done, is going to have to provide proof that not only the jury, but the judge and any possible appeals court will accept that this never happened.

They can't just just spin wild mind reading accusations about GZ's secret plot to commit murder, they must show actual proof... of a negative.

Unless they've got something up their sleeve, it is going to be hard to reach that standard inside the court room, where they can't use the sort of faked evidence that is flying all over the internet.

 

[LTC8K6]

Right after. Page 16, doc dump.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf

"I procured the emergency blanket from my vehicle and covered the male."

Yes, that's what I just read to make my post...

We don't know whether that actually took one minute, or five minutes.

His car is presumably parked somewhere outside the crime scene.

If it's raining, it wouldn't take long to wash whatever was on TM's hands away.

 

[bookworm]

When you bring up Sharpton, you lose me completely. Let's stick to the facts, ok? This isn't a conspiracy against White People. It's a trial about a very weird guy from Florida who shot an unarmed teenager on his way home from the store.

Sharpton is a fact.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

My questions were:
Did you note anywhere they claim to have swabbed the hands, other than under the fingernails?
Did you note anywhere they claim to have bagged his hands ?
Did you note that the body wasn't covered for at least 10-15 minutes after the shooting ?
Did you note they did find GZ blood in the places you would expect where they did swab ?
Did you note anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

I don't think his hands would be free of blood, since he was bleeding until he died.

But first, why bag the hands? Would that be required?

Second, finding some of George's blood on his shirt isn't the same as on his hands. We know that George grabbed him after he killed him. If George had his own blood on his own hands, that would transfer to Trayvpn's shirt.

The question is about Trayvon's hands and how they support George's story. It's not a smoking gun. It's just another piece in a puzzle that makes George out to be a liar.

If Trayvon hit him once or twice, but not 30 times. If he did not try and smother him with two hands. If he did not try and repeatedly smash his head against the ground, this would match the hands much better, but it would also show that George lied to make his case sound more dire.

Doesn't that seem more likely than a non-violent kid suddenly going homicidal on poor George for no reason at all?

Carl Sagan liked to talk about "prosaic" explanations. What would be more prosaic than that George chased after him like we can all hear on the tape, then caught up to him, they argued, he got on the losing end of a fist fight, then over-reacted?

Or that George was innocent at every turn until the deadly teenager attacked him for no reason?

I don't think you answered any of my questions ?

But to answer your question, they would bag his hands to preserve evidence.

 

[crimresearch]

Yes, but we've seen how the authorities make mistakes. We're all human, aren't we? It IS a possibility, even though it's unlikely. We can't make the assumption they did what they should have done without something telling us that they did it.

'We' as in 'you', can't. The court must, absent proof to the contrary.

 

[GWCarver]

Off Topic
To me, being told to go to another thread is pretty much equivalent to being given the bum's rush.

In the Amanda Knox thread, I don't recall those who suggested the state police lab had fabricated the DNA bra-clasp evidence being told to go to the CT area. If they were told that, they ignored it. Yet here, skeptics are constantly being advised to go somewhere else.

The goal here seems to be to get everyone to toe a particular line, but I have yet to figure out what the difference is between what can actually be discussed and the esoteric "thread derailer" material.

This case has a wide scope, and I think it is silly to pretend otherwise.

 

[bookworm]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Considering that they swabbed his fingernails and examined his hands for wounds, I'd say the least likely of all scenarios is that they found blood on his hands and did not test them as they did the fingernails.

I'd call the default position is that they did, but didn't find George's blood, just as it appears.

I disagree. Although I do agree it's unlikely they tested the fingernails and not the hands, I have to think it's a possibility. It's indisputable that Z had blood on his face and head. Given the other circumstances and witness testimony, and the absence of another plausible explanation, I myself find that Martin must have been hitting him. So there has to be an explanation for why there is no blood on his hands. Either, for some reason they didn't test them. Or the rain did wash it away. Or possibly he just didn't hit him where the blood was. Or Zimmerman gave himself all those injuries, which I don't see the possibility of. If more comes to light, I'll be happy to adjust that position.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think his hands would be free of blood, since he was bleeding until he died.

But first, why bag the hands? Would that be required?

Second, finding some of George's blood on his shirt isn't the same as on his hands. We know that George grabbed him after he killed him. If George had his own blood on his own hands, that would transfer to Trayvpn's shirt.

The question is about Trayvon's hands and how they support George's story. It's not a smoking gun. It's just another piece in a puzzle that makes George out to be a liar.

If Trayvon hit him once or twice, but not 30 times. If he did not try and smother him with two hands. If he did not try and repeatedly smash his head against the ground, this would match the hands much better, but it would also show that George lied to make his case sound more dire.

Doesn't that seem more likely than a non-violent kid suddenly going homicidal on poor George for no reason at all?

Carl Sagan liked to talk about "prosaic" explanations. What would be more prosaic than that George chased after him like we can all hear on the tape, then caught up to him, they argued, he got on the losing end of a fist fight, then over-reacted?

Or that George was innocent at every turn until the deadly teenager attacked him for no reason?

Well, you need good evidence to break GZ's version of events.

I just don't see it.

You can't just say you don't like GZ's story, or GZ's story has problems.

That's not going to work in court, imo.

GZ can just say that yes, he is confused about the exact events because of the fight and the darkness and the shock of being punched, etc. He wasn't sure exactly where he was, or exactly where things happened.

And that's entirely reasonable, imo.

Whether the punch happened at the T, or 10 feet south, isn't a deal breaker for GZ, imo.

If you tell the police that something happened at X, then the police say, "Well, we actually found this here, not there.", and you really don't know for sure, it's natural for you to try to "explain" what the police found, or why they found it.

 

[crimresearch]

My questions were:
Did you note anywhere they claim to have swabbed the hands, other than under the fingernails?
Did you note anywhere they claim to have bagged his hands ?
Did you note that the body wasn't covered for at least 10-15 minutes after the shooting ?
Did you note they did find GZ blood in the places you would expect where they did swab ?
Did you note anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?



I don't think you answered any of my questions ?

But to answer your question, they would bag his hands to preserve evidence.

Maybe they don't show that kind of stuff on CSI...

 

[LTC8K6]

I disagree. Although I do agree it's unlikely they tested the fingernails and not the hands, I have to think it's a possibility. It's indisputable that Z had blood on his face and head. Given the other circumstances and witness testimony, and the absence of another plausible explanation, I myself find that Martin must have been hitting him. So there has to be an explanation for why there is no blood on his hands. Either, for some reason they didn't test them. Or the rain did wash it away. Or possibly he just didn't hit him where the blood was. Or Zimmerman gave himself all those injuries, which I don't see the possibility of. If more comes to light, I'll be happy to adjust that position.

Maybe. GZ's nose may not have started bleeding right away.

GZ's nose may not have been really injured until TM's last punch, for example.

It may only have been 5 seconds from broken nose to gunshot.

GZ gets up, nose starts flowing. Prior, the blood was going down GZ's throat.

 

[crimresearch]

Off Topic
To me, being told to go to another thread is pretty much equivalent to being given the bum's rush.

In the Amanda Knox thread, I don't recall those who suggested the state police lab had fabricated the DNA bra-clasp evidence being told to go to the CT area. If they were told that, they ignored it. Yet here, skeptics are constantly being advised to go somewhere else.

The goal here seems to be to get everyone to toe a particular line, but I have yet to figure out what the difference is between what can actually be discussed and the esoteric "thread derailer" material.

This case has a wide scope, and I think it is silly to pretend otherwise.

So are you seriously claiming that on a skeptic's forum there should be no pointing out when people are using classic CT tactics to spin irrational fantasies out of a real life tragedy?

Everyone should just nod their head and respect the 'Dee Dee heard multiple gunshots', and 'magic audio voice analysis', and 'GZ fled from the police after he shot TM' stuff?

The faked pictures, and 'my computer screen goes blank', and 'the local police, FBI, FDLE labs are are all in on the coverup' insinuations, backed up with nothing but spin and ad homs?

Because facts and opinions and the law are interchangeable?

ETA: In all seriousness, shouldn't this forum be a little different than some random chat room?