Wow, it's like you don't even see my posts. People need to seriously get the timeline straight.
Read that timelike and then ask yourself why it is weird that you and TheL8Elvis keep saying "How could the judge think he was gonna flee, his lawyer turned in his passport!!". Because it was days later, that's why!!
I can only assume why you keep making that mistake. Just like I can only assume why you thought the judge's bail statements were "bizzaree".
The judge explained it in his order. He believes George was preparing to flee, but it was the ankle bracelet that thwarted his plan. Maybe George assumed he wouldn't have to wear one, so he was anticipating an opportunity to go to "Heaven".
By the way, "Heaven"? I'm guessing that was more of their code, like "Peter Pan". Canada is "Heaven" and Mexico is "Hell".
Ah, so it was the ankle bracelet that thwarted the devious plan to escape! lol. No doubt them paying credit card bills was also part of their devious plan, I know that would be top on my list if I was planning to flee.
Ah, so it was the ankle bracelet that thwarted the devious plan to escape! lol. No doubt them paying credit card bills was also part of their devious plan, I know that would be top on my list if I was planning to flee.
Just because you wouldn't have done it doesn't mean George didn't do it. He did. His wife committed perjury. They conspired to do it together. They hid money. They used crude code. I would hope that you wouldn't also racially profile a young kid and shoot him, but then who knows?
I don't know what you think would change that, just by mocking what George clearly did.
I remember not too long ago, all some people in this thread needed to believe a person was involved in burglary was a screwdriver and some jewelry. No actual evidence of burglary required.
But now it's suddenly laughable that a demonstrably dishonest person facing a murder charge who conspired to hide from the court a large cache of money and a passport might have been planning to go on the lam.
But who knows, maybe the self-appointed legal experts in this thread actually do know better than the experienced and respected judge with whom they are in stark disagreement.
Ah, so it was the ankle bracelet that thwarted the devious plan to escape! lol. No doubt them paying credit card bills was also part of their devious plan, I know that would be top on my list if I was planning to flee.
*Z is in jail supposedly planning his escape from the country.
*At the bond hearing Z still has hopes of escape.
*At the bond hearing Z sits there like a potted palm and lets his lawyer lie when the lawyer says Z has no other passports.
*Z get's out of jail after the bond hearing.
*Z's hopes are dashed for whatever reason.
*Then, days later, Z turns in his original passport.
Do you see why saying: "I don't understand why the Judge thought Z might flee since he turned in his passport to his lawyer!" makes absolutely no sense?
Don't forget the last part of that little time-line.
*Z's lawyer composes and dates the document showing that Z turned in his passport but does not submit it in hopes that the entire thing will go unnoticed.
Did you, perhaps, mean that there's zero solid evidence of it?? I could definitely accept that. That key word, solid, makes all the difference in the world.
I remember not too long ago, all some people in this thread needed to believe a person was involved in burglary was a screwdriver and some jewelry. No actual evidence of burglary required.
Love your reasoning, but I believe it actually went something like this:
Realist: the fact that TM, a teenager, was caught with a bag full of woman's jewelry that he couldn't explain and a screwdriver which is a common burglary tool suggests he may have been involved in some type of burglary or stolen goods.
Denialist/Travon Martin Truther: It suggests no such thing, why how dare you suggest it could be a burglary tool with no evidence, blah blah blah, deny reality, deny reality, act offended and suggest racism.
But now it's suddenly laughable that a demonstrably dishonest person facing a murder charge who conspired to hide from the court a large cache of money and a passport might have been planning to go on the lam.
Your analogy would actually be more applicable if/to people who said "hell no GZ's wife didn't lie and they weren't trying to hide any money, how dare you suggest that, there are plenty of innocent reasons she didn't tell the court?" That would be the equivalent and in fact I believe some people did take that position.
BTW, I bolded the relevant word in your post, which even you seem to acknowledge though perhaps only by accident. You see, the judge didn't say he believed GZ might have been, he stated it as a concluded fact. And the difference between your specious analogy is that a teenage boy carrying woman's jewelry he can't explain and a screwdriver does actually suggest some involvement with stolen goods and/or burglary, there aren't a whole lot of other possibilties.
Lying about how much money they had and having an extra passport does not suggest someone was planning to flee the country, there are plenty of other dishonest reasons that could have motivated them. And again, I know distinctions are hard when so many people want to play games and reduce everything to a simplicity, but I acknowledge it's entirely possible he wanted a passport so he could flee if he needed to at some point, i.e. "might". Where I think the judge is off base is in stating something as fact that is nothing but pure supposition and mind reading on his part.
But who knows, maybe the self-appointed legal experts in this thread actually do know better than the experienced and respected judge with whom they are in stark disagreement.
lol, that would be called an appeal to authority, how dare we disagree with this eminent man?!
I am surprised though, the distinguished scholar Alan Deshowitz thinks the entire case should be dismissed. I can't believe you know better than the experienced and respected Alan Dershowitz
Lying about how much money they had and having an extra passport does not suggest someone was planning to flee the country, there are plenty of other dishonest reasons that could have motivated them.
Does it give you no pause that you disagree completely with a respected judge??
OK, now you really have me confused...
Did you, perhaps, mean that there's zero solid evidence of it?? I could definitely accept that. That key word, solid, makes all the difference in the world.
No, I gave my opinion and it isn't going to change unless I get new info.
One can usually interpret info in several ways. I practice "innocent until proven guilty" and thus do not look at info in the worst light for the accused.
I'm not arguing about calling a screwdriver a burglary tool.
I'm arguing standards of evidence.
There is exactly as much evidence that Martin was involved in a burglary as there is that Zimmerman was intending to flee the jurisdiction.
But for some reason, Zimmerman supporters think there is a distinction based on their assertion that there is a distinction.
*And by the way, using that exact same standard, Zimmerman critics didn't invent the idea that he was intending to flee. That came from the experienced and respected judge who knows more about this kind of thing than any of us.
Love your reasoning, but I believe it actually went something like this:
Realist: the fact that TM, a teenager, was caught with a bag full of woman's jewelry that he couldn't explain and a screwdriver which is a common burglary tool suggests he may have been involved in some type of burglary or stolen goods.
Denialist/Travon Martin Truther: It suggests no such thing, why how dare you suggest it could be a burglary tool with no evidence, blah blah blah, deny reality, deny reality, act offended and suggest racism.
You belief is faulty, and seems almost entirely comprised of straw.
Your analogy would actually be more applicable if/to people who said "hell no GZ's wife didn't lie and they weren't trying to hide any money, how dare you suggest that, there are plenty of innocent reasons she didn't tell the court?" That would be the equivalent and in fact I believe some people did take that position.
That would only be equivalent if the issue being discussed was the perjury committed by Zimmerman's wife and their conspiracy to hide money.
It's not.
The issue is whether or not Zimmerman intended to flee, a notion you and others are very much denying.
My analogy is apt.
BTW, I bolded the relevant word in your post, which even you seem to acknowledge though perhaps only by accident. You see, the judge didn't say he believed GZ might have been, he stated it as a concluded fact. And the difference between your specious analogy is that a teenage boy carrying woman's jewelry he can't explain and a screwdriver does actually suggest some involvement with stolen goods and/or burglary, there aren't a whole lot of other possibilties.
So Zimmerman had an explanation for why he concealed money and a passport from the court?
I look forward to you providing a link to that explanation.
Because from my vantage point, I can't think of a whole lot of possibilities for why an accused murderer would do those things.
Lying about how much money they had and having an extra passport does not suggest someone was planning to flee the country, there are plenty of other dishonest reasons that could have motivated them.
And again, I know distinctions are hard when so many people want to play games and reduce everything to a simplicity, but I acknowledge it's entirely possible he wanted a passport so he could flee if he needed to at some point, i.e. "might". Where I think the judge is off base is in stating something as fact that is nothing but pure supposition and mind reading on his part.
You know that appealing to authority isn't always a fallacy, right?
Sometimes experts actually do know what they're talking about...
I am surprised though, the distinguished scholar Alan Deshowitz thinks the entire case should be dismissed. I can't believe you know better than the experienced and respected Alan Dershowitz
Dershowitz was so spectacularly wrong on the legality of the probably cause affidavit that I'm honestly surprised to see anyone still citing him as any kind of authority on this case.
No, I gave my opinion and it isn't going to change unless I get new info.
One can usually interpret info in several ways. I practice "innocent until proven guilty" and thus do not look at info in the worst light for the accused.
I don't see the point of this thread if people aren't even going to read the posts.
I really don't.
I have maintained from day one that a manslaughter charge is probably appropriate for GZ.
I just explained where the term "burglary tool" for a screwdriver came from, and everyone here knows it, anyway. It did not spring into existence from this case. It's been around for a very long time. People have been being charged with "possession of burglary tools", for carrying a screwdriver, for a long time.
And still we get posts like that...
We are still getting posts from people who have been in the threads a long time, that read as if they have just found out about the case and have no idea what position anyone holds.
It's exasperating, as I've said before, and mystifying.
I really don't know what to say anymore.
This time, the thread ignore is going to be permanent.
Question here: GZ was born in Virginia but his mother was born in Peru. Does that make him a citizen of Peru? Does it entitle him to any special protections under Peruvian law? Could he get a Peruvian passport?
I don't see the point of this thread if people aren't even going to read the posts.
I really don't.
I have maintained from day one that a manslaughter charge is probably appropriate for GZ.
I just explained where the term "burglary tool" for a screwdriver came from, and everyone here knows it, anyway. It did not spring into existence from this case. It's been around for a very long time. People have been being charged with "possession of burglary tools", for carrying a screwdriver, for a long time.
And, as I explained, it was an unnecessary explanation. The history and origins of the term "burglary tool" are not in question.
What is in question is the standard of evidence being applied to Martin and Zimmerman.
Strong circumstantial evidence exists that Martin was involved in a burglary, so people made the reasonable assumption that he was probably involved in a burglary.
By that same token, strong circumstantial evidence exists that Zimmerman was making preparations to flee, so it is an equally reasonable assumption that he was probably making preparations to flee.
And yet somehow, it is only the latter that is deemed laughable.
No, I gave my opinion and it isn't going to change unless I get new info.
One can usually interpret info in several ways. I practice "innocent until proven guilty" and thus do not look at info in the worst light for the accused.
"There's zero evidence or sign of [the idea that GZ was planning to flee justice]."
I specifically asked you to clarify that you meant "solid" evidence and you said no.
So you are literally saying there is zero evidence that Z was going to flee? And on top of that you are saying there is zero "sign" of it.
You do realize that the judge outlined the evidence that Z was going to flee right? Even if you don't agree with him that it is good or solid, does not mean that it is zero. It doesn't just magically not exist because you say there are other interpretations.
Question here: GZ was born in Virginia but his mother was born in Peru. Does that make him a citizen of Peru? Does it entitle him to any special protections under Peruvian law? Could he get a Peruvian passport?
The core issue will be to what extent Zimmerman's claims are corroborated. For instance:
Zimmerman claims he was walking to RVC to get an adress and that he was unfamiliar with addresses on TTL. Looking back at the SPD dispacth call, we find that Zimmerman could not provide a TTL address when asked by the dispatcher and the closest address he could provide was a non-existant address on RVC.
Zimmerman claims he was returning to his truck when he was assaulted. Looking back to his call with SPD dispatch, we know that Zimmerman proposed meeting at his truck, became worried about Martin lurking close by, agreed to meet at the mailboxes and then decided to have the reponding officer to call him instead.
Zimmerman claims that Martin confronted him near the top of the T where he was punched, he stumbled or fell down and the altercation moved down the dogwalf toward W6's back patio. DeeDee asserts that Martin challenged Zimmerman and that the line was dropped. W11 - around 20 feet away with her windows open, describes what she heard:
It sounded just like - we had the TV kind of loud - but it sounded just like two or more men talking kind of loud. And so I muted the TV, to see what was going on. And at that point it kind of just sounded like scuffling around. So, that's when I kinda went to just get the phone ...
While I was calling, the scuffling kinda turned to like a, one man was yelling, kinda like a "heah, heah," not a "help" yell, but just yelling. And so, then those yells kinda turned to "help, help, help." And at that point I was already on the phone with nine one one...
It sounded like it all started right on the sidewalk by our house there. And then, maybe like it bent the corner, and right there is where the scuffle started, and sort of scooted down.
W6 describes hearing a similar struggle - that started father away and moved closer.
Zimmerman claims that Martin had mounted him by this point and was punching his face and began slamming his head into the concrete. W14 wqas walking his dog and saw someone with a red shirt laying on the ground and struggling. He thought maybe it was someone who had broken their leg. W1 was looking at the commotion and saw figures of people struggling and "arms flailing." W6 - around 20 feet away - saw Martin on top of Zimmerman either holding him down or hitting him. Another witness from the RVC side also mentions seeing arms flailing. W6 describes the struggle:
Yeah, because that's my first thought when, you know, I look out there and I see this happening and the other guy's on top with, you know. I don't know if there are, you know, punches that are being thrown at him at this point, or if he's trying to hold him own, um, you know. It really just happened so quick, for the most part, but if anybody had not known anything what was going on, that's what it seemed like to me at that point when, you know, I looked out there and there's one guy on top of the other at that point, and both arms are, you know, d-- I don't know if he's trying to hold him down, or if those are actually punches, um, but. Yeah... Ah, the guy with black sweatshirt is on top of the guy with the red or, or white sweatshirt. And that's why I made the statement that he was hitting him on top-- Because, I mean, that's what it looked like from where I was standing. It could have been him just trying to forcefully hold the guy down, or it could be hitting him. You know, I just truly can't-- You know, after I thought-- You know, I'm thinking about it and everything. It could have been either. It's jus-- You know, I can't see that close to where they were actually at. But he was still on top with both hands, ah, either trying to hold the guy down or hitting him at that point.
Zimmerman claims that he was begging W6 for help. In an interview that morning after the incident, W6 states the man on bottom begged me for help.
Zimmerman claims the altercation moves from concrete to grass. W6 saw it in the opposite order, though they may be referencing different parts of the fight.
Zimmerman claims that Martin "sat up" after being shot. W6 describes Martin's posture shortly before hearing the "pop":
And I opened the sliding glass door, and, looking out there, it almost looked like, a s-- like a dog attacked by s-- or something like that because, there was a man vertically looking forward on, like towards the ground. So, if I'm standing at the glass door-- I don't know how to describe-- It was pretty much like I was laying on the ground directly in front of, like, directly in front of me on the sidewalk.
Martin isn't looking forward, like toward the RVC townhouses, but down, like toward the ground.
Zimmerman claims he returned to Martin after shooting him to check his hands. Mary Cutcher describes first seeing Zimmerman, after hearing the shot, standing over and "straddling" Martin.
Those are just samples of some of the deatil that can be teased out of the witness statements and compared with Zimmerman. It seems this altercation was recorded, seen or heard throughout. These are just some examples. Zimmerman described meeting Flashlight Man, a witness saw that. Zimmerman described the enounter with Ofc. Alaya. W6 heard that.
I'm still trying to document all the points of corroboration, but this serves as a good example against the repeated claim that only Zimmerman and Martin know what happened and one is dead.
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.
I like how you phrased that.