Because he just confirmed that they had his phone number and the officer would call when they arrived. He fumbled with directions and then said, "can the officer just call me?" I don't know what that is evidence of.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case
- Thread starter Cylinder
- Start date
- Status
Because he just confirmed that they had his phone number and the officer would call when they arrived. He fumbled with directions and then said, "can the officer just call me?" I don't know what that is evidence of.
Unabogie
Philosopher
Because he claims he stood there in front of a house for 84 seconds, a house he was only standing in front of in order to find its address. He didn't know that was RVC he was standing on? So while he's standing there for 84 seconds, he never says anything about the address that's right in front of him, which he claims was his sole reason for exiting the vehicle, even though on the NEN you hear him say "****, he's running", you hear him exit the car immediately, you hear him panting, you hear him SAY HE WAS FOLLOWING THE SUSPECT, and then for 84 seconds he does not return to his car because he was looking for an address, and he STOPS in front of a house and never mentions the address?
And you don't find ANY of that important?
Unabogie
Philosopher
Yes I did. It's in the interview from June 29th. Go find it, since it's been linked over and over, and please listen at least once. Maybe it will change your mind about some things.
According to the walkthrough, he was on the sidewalk, between the houses, not in front of them. It seems to me, at that point, he was very distracted by the flashlight not working. I just don't understand what you point is. He didn't ever give an address? Fine but you can still hear him on the phone, trying to give directions while being distracted by the flashlight issue. I just don't think there is anything to be taken from that, other than he got distracted for a whole minute and a half, by a malfunctioning flashlight.
If you are talking about him saying he was scared or nervous to walk back without the flashlight, I agree that he did say that in the 29th interview.
Thank you very much. If the diagram is correct, perhaps it tells us that when George says things about being at the T, it doesn't necessarily mean where the sidewalks actually cross. If we insist on mathematical accuracy in these kinds of statements, we'd then have to accuse one of the officers of lying.
Obviously, either the keys/mini flash was moved or the second officer was mistaken. If the cop can be mistaken about precisely where things were, so can Georgey.
To me, this helps resolve the discrepancy between where GZ say the fight started and where everything ended up.
I still cannot explain why TM might have punched him out of the blue.
Since we have SPD's crime scene sketch (p 145) and distance table (p 147), we can calculate the distances involved. First, the sketch itself:
Distances recorded are in relation to two landmarks - Pillar A is the pillar supporting the patio on the northwest corner of 2861 Retreat View Circle. This is where the distance lines converge near the top of the sketch. Pillar B is that of the southwest corner of the adjacent townhose, 2851 RVC. This is where the distance lines converge near the bottom.
Looking at the photo of 2861 RVC, notice three things - first the pillar itself (below the dish), next the yellow marker for OM-4 (near the base of the white fence), and finally Pillar B (the pillar just next to the tree.)
Looking at the distance table (p. 147) we see that the distance from Pillar A to OM-4 is 22 feet and the distance from Pillar B to OM-4 is 11 feet, 2 inches. (I believe that 39.10 is feet/inches and not a decimal notation with significant digits.)
Now we have established a base for a series of triangles from which to measure distance.
Substituting the distances (after converting to inches) from the distance table (p. 147), and solving the triangle, we find the following:
Not quite useful yet, but we're getting there. Since I'm interested in the vertical distance (in the perspective of my diagram) from Pillar A to OM-6, I need to make a right triangle.
Solving that right triangle, we find that the vertical distance from Pillar A to OM-6 (segment d above) is 239 inches - right at 20 feet.
Since the townhomes are parallel to the sidewalk running between the them, we can also say that OM-6 is right at 20 feet down the sidewalk - not including the distance from the top of the T to the imaginary line connecting the north sides of the townhomes.
Distances recorded are in relation to two landmarks - Pillar A is the pillar supporting the patio on the northwest corner of 2861 Retreat View Circle. This is where the distance lines converge near the top of the sketch. Pillar B is that of the southwest corner of the adjacent townhose, 2851 RVC. This is where the distance lines converge near the bottom.
Looking at the photo of 2861 RVC, notice three things - first the pillar itself (below the dish), next the yellow marker for OM-4 (near the base of the white fence), and finally Pillar B (the pillar just next to the tree.)
Looking at the distance table (p. 147) we see that the distance from Pillar A to OM-4 is 22 feet and the distance from Pillar B to OM-4 is 11 feet, 2 inches. (I believe that 39.10 is feet/inches and not a decimal notation with significant digits.)
Now we have established a base for a series of triangles from which to measure distance.
Substituting the distances (after converting to inches) from the distance table (p. 147), and solving the triangle, we find the following:
Not quite useful yet, but we're getting there. Since I'm interested in the vertical distance (in the perspective of my diagram) from Pillar A to OM-6, I need to make a right triangle.
Solving that right triangle, we find that the vertical distance from Pillar A to OM-6 (segment d above) is 239 inches - right at 20 feet.
Since the townhomes are parallel to the sidewalk running between the them, we can also say that OM-6 is right at 20 feet down the sidewalk - not including the distance from the top of the T to the imaginary line connecting the north sides of the townhomes.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,459
The funny thing is that all these theories about how GZ is lying are obsessively focused on irrelevant chicken**** minutia, 45' here, oh my God how could he not know the street name there, et al. But if GZ is lying, it's almost certainly about the initial moments of the confrontation, and whether he was truly in fear for his life at the final moment. The problem is that with no witnesses to the confrontation starting, and no witness to the moment of the shot, we will never know for certain if he is telling the truth about those exact moments.
That stark truth is too much for the "GZ is a violent criminal racist" crowd to bear, so they are forced to invent theory after theory, grasping at straws like "he should have known the street name". Ya, let's send someone to jail for the rest of their life because they didn't know the street name you are convinced they should know.
That stark truth is too much for the "GZ is a violent criminal racist" crowd to bear, so they are forced to invent theory after theory, grasping at straws like "he should have known the street name". Ya, let's send someone to jail for the rest of their life because they didn't know the street name you are convinced they should know.
Last edited:
Unabogie
Philosopher
So you can't produce a link?
Not my job to back up your claim for you.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/documents-tell-zimmermans-side-in-martin-shooting.html?_r=1
Here, for the tenth time. Sgtbaker already backed me up, but I doubt you'll listen no matter how many times this is posted.
quadraginta
Becoming Beth
Not that it will make a significant change in your calculations, but I suspect that those distances are being expressed in feet and decimal fractions of feet, with most of them being rounded off to the nearest tenth of a foot.
You may very well be right. The reason I chose feet + inches instead of decimal feet is the distance table.
There is no decimal value greater than 12.
One measurement uses a decimal value of .1
One measurement uses a decimal value of .10
So CST Smith either dropped a zero as a signifigant digit in one measurement and not the other or the decimal value is expressed as inches. I should probably look into the equipment used - we'll consider this a preliminary finding.
Natural Born Skeptic
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2007
- Messages
- 1,459
I think you are off by about 3.7'. That spells guilty!You may very well be right. The reason I chose feet + inches instead of decimal feet is the distance table.
There is no decimal value greater than 12.
One measurement uses a decimal value of .1
One measurement uses a decimal value of .10
So CST Smith either dropped a zero as a signifigant digit in one measurement and not the other or the decimal value is expressed as inches. I should probably look into the equipment used - we'll consider this a preliminary finding.
But we do know he was telling the truth seconds before (W6) and seconds after (Cutcher.) We also know that at least the distance between the two didn't change in the time it took W6 to turn around, grab the phone and take a couple of steps up the stairs (FDLE Firearms Lab.)
I think you are off by about 3.7'. That spells guilty!
If I don't post for a week or so, we'll all know that Corey has a conspiracy information with my name on it.
Unabogie
Philosopher
I think the distance you're missing here is the distance from the T to the first house. In that first image you posted, you can see how that distance is at least 15 feet. I don't think it's at all close to 8 feet, as someone suggested earlier. Again, you can go to Google Maps and use the ruler tool and see what they say. Is Google Maps wrong? Is there any reason to think their tool is inaccurate?
https://maps.google.com/maps?showlabs=1
You can make a distance tool there by saving a map to your "my maps" and then run distances yourself.
For one thing, the T sidewalk is not parallel to the houses. On the side where George claims he was attacked, it's a little further away than on the other side.
Google Maps says:
- The distance from the T to the first house is 17 feet.
- The lots are 27 feet, not 22 feet. I'm not sure if the pillars are different from the lots or if there is space in between the houses.
- The overall distance to the body, is 45 feet or so.
Also, Trayvon's phone was found even further south of the T. If they traveled from the T, fighting, and we think his phone fell just as the fight started, how the hell did it end up 15 feet south of the body? Do you have a theory about that? Did someone throw the phone?
The missing distance is noted in the last paragraph. I think it's closer to 8 feet, but I haven't figured that out yet.
Any comment I make about inaccurate tools will have this thread back in moderation.
You're claiming that the dogwalk portion of the sidewalk isn't fairly parallel to the townhomes on RVC? I know the cutthrough winds a bit, but that is irrelevant to the calculation.
At any rate, I've shown my work and methodology so I invite any specific objections. Otherwise, it's between CST Smith and some old Greek dudes.
crimresearch
Alumbrado
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 10,600
In the appropriate section of the forum...
Unabogie
Philosopher
By the way, the 22 feet could be referring to the first aid kit, which is item 4 on the evidence list and was found almost to the end of the first house, close to the house. It may not be referring to the width of the lots, which again, Google Maps says is more like 27 feet.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/
This page is informative.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/
This page is informative.
- Status