Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[marplots]

It seems to me that there's a difference between:

1) not remembering which checkout line you used, and

2) imagining that you lost sight of someone , and then a police dispatch told you to look for that person, and then you move your car, and then you spot him walking between two houses, and then he comes back and circles your car and runs off again, and then the dispatcher repeatedly asks you for an address, and then you get out of your car to look for an address, and then the guy who ran off jumped at you while spitting corny movie dialogue.

That sounds reasonable, but might not be. The problem, from the rememberer's point of view, is that no one tells you beforehand that the next ten minutes are going to be seriously significant and you ought to pay attention. It's only afterwards that any of what happened becomes important.

I have been the victim of a serious crime. I was able to identify the gun used, but when asked what happened shortly before the newsworthy stuff, I simply couldn't accurately recreate it. What I found was that I filled in using my own intentions and general heuristics about what constituted normal. I was told by police that remembering the gun pointed at you is much more common than the face of the person holding it, just because of the emotional connection with getting shot -- I guess we tend to focus on where the danger seems to be.

I can't say in GZ's case, but I would grant some leeway.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It seems to me that there's a difference between:

1) not remembering which checkout line you used, and

2) imagining that you lost sight of someone , and then a police dispatch told you to look for that person, and then you move your car, and then you spot him walking between two houses, and then he comes back and circles your car and runs off again, and then the dispatcher repeatedly asks you for an address, and then you get out of your car to look for an address, and then the guy who ran off jumped at you while spitting corny movie dialogue.

I think I get your point, it would be a lot easier to remember the checkout line.

 

[This is The End]

No, he just told you the opposite.

I'm glad NBS is here to interpret what crim really says, because using the English language sure doesn't seem to give us the same answers NBS gets.

 

[This is The End]

I'd be happy to explain more things to you. But before I do, I just want to make sure that you now understand and are acknowledging that nowhere did he say or intimate that only white people are capable of racism. Please confirm that. Otherwise it would be like moving on to subtraction lessons while you're still stuck on addition.

He did. You're wrong. Not sure if he meant it though. His other post accusing people of reverse-racism in FMF sure makes it read that way....

 

[This is The End]

Fair enough statement. I'll gladly acknowledge my posting manner as of later could use some work on civility. Where do you think blatant or purposeful misrepresentation of what others say falls under the category of civility? As an example no more then a couple of posts above you misrepresented what crimresearch said and said he said something he didn't. Then said he's spend the next 3 days denying it. Is that civil? If it was accidental it's not been pointed out yet you've offered no acknowledgement nor correction. Is that civil?

Seriously, do you not think that perhaps there is a small chance that you are the one that misrepresented what crimresearch said? You did it last week as well.

Didn't know that white people were the only people capable of racism and bias.

Then get a clue.

Goodbye.

crim singled out that sentence first of all. Secondly, that response only means one thing in the English language as a response to that specific sentence.

Here's the kicker, I have little doubt that everyone realizes and hopes that crim didn't mean it that way.

Yet you, for whatever reason, think that no one realizes that and, on top of that, that it should be clear that crim meant it differently....

You were so confident that you saw something that no one else did that you go on a tirade trying to explain another posters post! It looks to me like you were 100% sure what crim meant.

I on the other hand, merely give the benefit of the doubt. But, in light of other posts by crim recently, I have a feeling that crim sees lots of racists where there are none. Yet I am still not convinced. I am not as easily convinced 100% of what other posters mean as you seem to be. Especially when there is a clear definition under the English language.

Didn't know that white people were the only people capable of racism and bias.

Then get a clue.

Goodbye.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Another one that Serino pointed out, was that George claimed he stopped following when asked, then started back to his truck. The walk back to the T in the walkthrough takes all of ten seconds. You can watch it in real time. But on the tape, from the time he stops running, you can time until the end of the call, and it's 84 seconds. Almost a minute and a half. So he could not have immediately turned around and walked back to his truck. It's impossible. He's lying to cover up whatever he really did during that time. And the obvious conclusion is that after being asked to stop following, he continued, even though he said OK. This is further supported by the fact that in the tape, he says not to meet him at his truck. Just call him and ask him where he is, he says. This is because after hanging up he went to look for Trayvon. And this is even further supported by DeeDee, who is told by Trayvon that George is following him again and is approaching him.

At this point, all of the evidence supports DeeDee, while George is telling a story that is contradicted by the tape, the location of the body, and DeeDee.

Can that be excused as a bad memory?

It can be excused as you inventing and misstating things.

 

[sgtbaker]

I am aware of that.

Please try to follow along:





Again, please try to follow:


That's quite a bit different than acknowledging them at all.

Please, if you're going to argue semantics with me and make implications that I'm a liar in the process, have the courtesy to argue against things I've actually said.

That's all I'm saying. I don't believe Zimmerman.

And I have said over and over and over again that that belief has no bearing on the standard of proof required to convict him of a crime.

Yet for some reason knee-jerk zealots in this thread translate "I don't believe Zimmerman" into "Death to Zimmerman!!!".

He claims he was repeatedly punched.

He claims he had his head repeatedly slammed onto the ground.

I disagree that his wounds are consistent with these claims. Hopefully, we will eventually have the testimony of medical professionals to decide the issue.

And then there is the curious lack of Zimmerman's blood on the person who was beating him while he bled profusely.

Isn't it your position that Zimmerman is telling the truth?

He was acquitted because the state failed to meet their burden.

Do you think O.J. was actually innocent?

Really?

de·fend

Verb:

• Resist an attack made on (someone or something); protect from harm or danger: "we shall defend our country".
• Speak or write in favor of (an action or person); attempt to justify: "he defended his policy of imposing high taxes".

Do you deny engaging in the activity as defined above in regard to Zimmerman?

Weird because I find there are zealots in this thread who equate, I am not jumping to conclusions with, his I believe every word that comes out of his mouth. I have packing to do. Be back in a few days.

 

[sgtbaker]

That sounds reasonable, but might not be. The problem, from the rememberer's point of view, is that no one tells you beforehand that the next ten minutes are going to be seriously significant and you ought to pay attention. It's only afterwards that any of what happened becomes important.

I have been the victim of a serious crime. I was able to identify the gun used, but when asked what happened shortly before the newsworthy stuff, I simply couldn't accurately recreate it. What I found was that I filled in using my own intentions and general heuristics about what constituted normal. I was told by police that remembering the gun pointed at you is much more common than the face of the person holding it, just because of the emotional connection with getting shot -- I guess we tend to focus on where the danger seems to be.

I can't say in GZ's case, but I would grant some leeway.

Thank you for that. I can cite evidence but it seems difficult to apply without perspective.

 

[KatieG]

So you think someone else beat up Zimmerman?

No, to me it means GZ didn't get beat up at all. Yes, he has injuries. Yes, some blood flowed. Doesn't look like someone who got punched repeatedly and had his head slammed into the concrete. That's my opinion, worth no more, no less than anyone else's.

 

[Mumbles]

That sounds reasonable, but might not be. The problem, from the rememberer's point of view, is that no one tells you beforehand that the next ten minutes are going to be seriously significant and you ought to pay attention. It's only afterwards that any of what happened becomes important.

I have been the victim of a serious crime. I was able to identify the gun used, but when asked what happened shortly before the newsworthy stuff, I simply couldn't accurately recreate it. What I found was that I filled in using my own intentions and general heuristics about what constituted normal. I was told by police that remembering the gun pointed at you is much more common than the face of the person holding it, just because of the emotional connection with getting shot -- I guess we tend to focus on where the danger seems to be.

I can't say in GZ's case, but I would grant some leeway.

Except, as has already been pointed out several times now, the location of Martin's body also doesn't match Zimmerman's story. And other testimonies match what happened on his own police call vastly better than his own reenactment did. And in his police call, Zimmerman quickly identified Martin as threatening, and clearly became more nervous, and then angry, as Martin walked past his car, so if anything, he should have remembered this very clearly, according to what you just said.

 

[crimresearch]

Except, as has already been pointed out several times now, the location of Martin's body also doesn't match Zimmerman's story. And other testimonies match what happened on his own police call vastly better than his own reenactment did. And in his police call, Zimmerman quickly identified Martin as threatening, and clearly became more nervous, and then angry, as Martin walked past his car, so if anything, he should have remembered this very clearly, according to what you just said.

Again, what is the science behind the notion that stress like being nervous or angry, improves memory?

Isn't the eyewitness testimony of crime victims proven wrong over and over?

Isn't that the classic psychology experiment on faulty reporting?

 

[This is The End]

It can be excused as you inventing and misstating things.

There can be little doubt as to how you watched that video and didn't see the 2 glaringly obvious points where Z is trying to cover his story.

They both will be brought up at trial, guaranteed.

The several other little inconsistencies can be blamed on faulty memory I'm sure, but those two? Impossible.

There can only be one reason why you would try to include those in the faulty memory camp. The same reason that your few posts during the bond hearing were strictly focused on the prosecution.

And that is the same reason that when Unabogie makes a post about clear facts in evidence you respond with a one liner about Unabogie inventing and misstating things. As opposed to, I don't know, maybe responding to the facts in discussion!! You have done little to none of that in these threads. Attack instead of respond with counterarguments is your main strategy it seems.

I have no doubt that what you do fools alot of people, but those that think logically and fairly see right through it.

 

[Cylinder]

Except, as has already been pointed out several times now, the location of Martin's body also doesn't match Zimmerman's story.

By around 15-20 feet in a reenactment where he states he's not exactly certain of the placement - a distance that can easily be covered in the struggle he describes, one witness heard and another saw.

 

[Unabogie]

By around 15-20 feet in a reenactment where he states he's not exactly certain of the placement - a distance that can easily be covered in the struggle he describes, one witness heard and another saw.

The distance from the T to the first house is 15' and the lots are 30' wide. The fight was seen in the middle of the second lot. That's 55'.

 

[Dan O.]

Another fact supporting DeeDee is that Martin's cell phone, and Zimmerman's flashlight, we're found near Martin's body, as was Martin's bag from the 7-11. The only item found near the T is Zimmerman's car keys - which could have been dropped before the fight, or flung during it.

One thing that bothers me is the timeline - I can't really get it to match up for DeeDee's version of events, there's simply too much of a gap between when Martin runs, and when the fight supposedly starts. That may not turn out to be sigificant,and she's certainly far loser to the evidence than Zimmerman's absurd reenactment is, but it's still a hole in her story.

As we acquire more information we are able to put together better potential scenario's. The possibility that George lost his keys can help fill in the time gap. George was tailing Trayvon in his truck and had pulled up the the cut-through before proclaiming "****, he's running". The distance from the road to the tee is much less than the distance from the Tee to Trayvon's residence so trayvon would not expect to reach "home" befor George rounded the corner. So for this scenario, Trayvon holds up in the bushes as George runs up to the tee, turns south and heads down the center path. As he turns the corner he attempts to put his keys in his pocket and pulls out the black flashlight dropping the keys in the grass in the process. Eventually George will realize that he doesn't have his keys and will try to look for them along the path. This keeps George in the area of the tee and with George there, Trayvon is trapped. Eventually, Trayvon decides to come out of hiding and verbally confront George.

 

[Cylinder]

The distance from the T to the first house is 15' and the lots are 30' wide. The fight was seen in the middle of the second lot. That's 55'.

But Zimmerman reenacts the terminal phase of the fight behind W11s patio. It actually ended behind the adjoining patio - W6s townhouse.

 

[Unabogie]

But Zimmerman reenacts the terminal phase of the fight behind W11s patio. It actually ended behind the adjoining patio - W6s townhouse.

He was wrong, and that's why they said his story doesn't match. Even the adjoining patio is 45' away from the T. Remember, his first story was one punch, then down to the ground.

 

[Cylinder]

ME-8C - the swabs taken from the cuff and lower sleeve of both hands - gave no indication for the presence of blood. [see round 1, page 106]

I totally hosed that post. Things are a bit quieter now, so I'll tidy it up. ME-8C is a stain unrelated to the rubbing taken from each cuff/lower sleeve. I screwed that part up in the quoted portion above.


ME-8 is Martin's inner shirt

The right cuff/lower sleeve of Martin's inner shirt gave no chemical indication of blood. No DNA foreign to Martin was found.

The left cuff/lower sleeve of Martin's inner shirt gave no chemical indication of blood. A mixed DNA profile with at least two contributors was present. No determination could be made regarding Zimmerman as the foreign contributor.


ME-12 is Martin's outer hoodie

The right cuff/lower sleeve of Martin's outer hoodie gave no chemical indication of blood. No DNA foreign to Martin was found.

The left cuff/lower sleeve of Martin's outer hoodie gave no chemical indication of blood. No DNA foreign to Martin was found.

 

[Cylinder]

Martin had 7 stains that tested positive for blood - Zimmerman had 32.

 

[Dancing David]

I guess that depends. If you do so in a dark alley somewhere out of sight from any witnesses, you can make up any story you like after the fact.

Suddenly, "unreasonable" magically becomes "reasonable".

You seem to assume jurors are ignorant, that judges are ignorant, in fact you seem to assume everyone is ignorant. Court officers, police officers, investigators, and lawyers lawyers.Only you are suspicious and somehow you are the only one who thinks about these things.

How far does it go?

Reasonable extends to every one and their judgement, is everyone else ignorant?

See you in ten days.