Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

There are people in this very thread arguing that the struggle consisted of a single punch by Martin, even suggesting Martin was trying to help Zimmerman back up after he knocked him down.

You think that is a ludicrous scenario, yes?

It certainly doesn't fit the evidence.

 

[WildCat]

Four posts later:



How can someone seriously compare the amount of evidence we have to 911 or Bigfoot?

Speculation is not evidence. If you ever get any actual evidence it would be helpful if you posted it in this thread.

That's odd because you sure seem to be convinced that Z is innocent. Even though there is zero evidence so far to prove either guilt or innocence.

I'm sure you will try and say you are only doing that because of jury regulations. Even though this is a discussion forum and not a jury room.

In which case the only possible verdict will be not guilty. If the prosecution has some bombshell evidence that's being witheld they're doing a damn good job keeping it secret.

 

[WildCat]

Who was it just complaining about straw man posts around here?

If you have a gripe with a specific post, quote that post, explain your objection, and engage in debate about it.

This isn't anything but useless bickering.

All those posts were debated long ago, with predictable results.

Part of being a Truther is never admitting you were wrong, or change your mind, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Evidence, after all, can easily be ignored.

Or you just keep making the conspiracy theory more and more complex. What's the latest, that Zimmerman's wife knocked him around that night to make it look like he had been attacked by Martin?

 

[Unabogie]

Speculation is not evidence. If you ever get any actual evidence it would be helpful if you posted it in this thread.


In which case the only possible verdict will be not guilty. If the prosecution has some bombshell evidence that's being witheld they're doing a damn good job keeping it secret.

I think OTT meant it hasn't gone to trial yet.

 

[Unabogie]

All those posts were debated long ago, with predictable results.

Part of being a Truther is never admitting you were wrong, or change your mind, no matter how overwhelming the evidence. Evidence, after all, can easily be ignored.

Or you just keep making the conspiracy theory more and more complex. What's the latest, that Zimmerman's wife knocked him around that night to make it look like he had been attacked by Martin?

So you defend your straw man posts with more straw?

 

[marplots]

Just for you Cyl:

[qimg]http://skeweddistribution.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/taaffe.jpg?w=384&h=480[/qimg]


Frank Taaffe''s mug shot.

Can we see the version with blue arrows?

 

[johnny karate]

The photos and reports are quite clear.

The reports are clear, the photos are not. You don't have the ability or expertise to disinguish what is or isn't an injury simply by looking at a photograph.

And I can't prove a negative...

Nor can you assert a positive. At least not without evidence.

...if you think the marks were pre-existing then you provide evidence.

And if you think those marks are injuries, you have to provide evidence. Or does that standard only apply to other people?

 

[triforcharity]

The bounce is of equal severity to the initial fall?

And how common is this bouncing for someone who isn't unconscious?

There are two cuts on the back of GZ's head. One smaller than the other, which COULD come from one major fall, and a second collision after a bounce.

And how common is this? Very.

 

[triforcharity]

The photos and reports are quite clear. And I can't prove a negative, if you think the marks were pre-existing then you provide evidence. If wild speculation is all you have perhaps this isn't the forum for you, try ATS or something where that kind of stuff is encouraged.

Perhaps you didn't understand my post.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you, or anyone else who is willing, to prove that these are in fact legitimate injuries, that occurred during the fight, and are not dried blood, or pre-existing injuries.

It's not wild speculation, it's legitimate, well educated reasoning.

Could they have been pre-existing injuries? Yes.

Could some of the injuries that are marked with blue arrows dried blood? Yes.

Your turn. Prove the assertion that the injuries marked, are in fact injuries.

 

[triforcharity]

Are you from the "George's wife worked him over that night to make it appear he had been punched" camp?

Nope.

Could it be possible? Yep. Do I have evidence of such? Nope.

But, of course, you'll try to put me in that camp that apparently only you see people discussing. I haven't personally seen anything of the sort proposed since the old thread. But, you're welcome to prove me incorrect.

 

[This is The End]

Four posts later:



How can someone seriously compare the amount of evidence we have to 911 or Bigfoot?

Speculation is not evidence. If you ever get any actual evidence it would be helpful if you posted it in this thread.

That's odd because you sure seem to be convinced that Z is innocent. Even though there is zero evidence so far to prove either guilt or innocence.

I'm sure you will try and say you are only doing that because of jury regulations. Even though this is a discussion forum and not a jury room.

In which case the only possible verdict will be not guilty. If the prosecution has some bombshell evidence that's being witheld they're doing a damn good job keeping it secret.

It's like you didn't even read the posts you quoted.

 

[This is The End]

Part of being a Truther is never admitting you were wrong, or change your mind, no matter how overwhelming the evidence.

This is coming from the person with several of the most outrageous (and extensively documented wrong) arguments in this thread. Never having admitted being wrong on any of them. Plenty of goalpost moving though.

 

[BenBurch]

Perhaps you didn't understand my post.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative. I'm asking you, or anyone else who is willing, to prove that these are in fact legitimate injuries, that occurred during the fight, and are not dried blood, or pre-existing injuries.

It's not wild speculation, it's legitimate, well educated reasoning.

Could they have been pre-existing injuries? Yes.

Could some of the injuries that are marked with blue arrows dried blood? Yes.

Your turn. Prove the assertion that the injuries marked, are in fact injuries.

These very questions WILL come up in cross, so I don't know how anybody could think they are unreasonable to ask now.

Another thing that will come up; Prosecution will call expert medical witness and ask if the character of the injuries to GZ was such that he should have been in immediate fear for his life from them.

If the answer is "no" he's going to serve a long stretch in a place in the middle of the glades.

 

[Cylinder]

Another thing that will come up; Prosecution will call expert medical witness and ask if the character of the injuries to GZ was such that he should have been in immediate fear for his life from them.

If the answer is "no" he's going to serve a long stretch in a place in the middle of the glades.

The state probably isn't going to work from the theory that Zimmerman acted without reasonable fear - though their evidence is so weak in this case that it's hard to predict exactly what their bill of particulars will be. Any honest medical expert will have to admit that a continued assault in that manner would have the expected outcome of death or great bodily injury - which includes loss of conciousness. Since the state already has a use of force expert on record stating that Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with reasonable fear, it would be a fruitless strategy to try to impeach one of its experts with another.

 

[crimresearch]

These very questions WILL come up in cross, so I don't know how anybody could think they are unreasonable to ask now.

Another thing that will come up; Prosecution will call expert medical witness and ask if the character of the injuries to GZ was such that he should have been in immediate fear for his life from them.

If the answer is "no" he's going to serve a long stretch in a place in the middle of the glades.

And then the witness can collect the JREF $1million...

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There isn't a quantifiable medical threshold correlate to 'reasonable fear' that can be overlaid on random defendants like that.

The state can introduce evidence to persuade the jury that if they were on the ground being punched, that they wouldn't have felt fear, but they can't simply declare it to be non-existent with medical testimony from someone who has never even laid eyes on GZ. Admissible medical testimony has to have a basis in relevant fact.

ETA:
Even if there were such a magical medical measurement, and they were to testify that 'GZ was 5 punches away from being rendered unconscious and 12.75 punches away from severe brain damage' there is no way that a duty could be imposed on GZ to know such detailed medical assessments *in the middle of a fight*.

 

[triforcharity]

And then the witness can collect the JREF $1million...

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. There isn't a quantifiable medical threshold correlate to 'reasonable fear' that can be overlaid on random defendants like that.

The state can introduce evidence to persuade the jury that if they were on the ground being punched, that they wouldn't have felt fear, but they can't simply declare it to be non-existent with medical testimony from someone who has never even laid eyes on GZ.

The opinion of a medical expert giving his opinion of the severity of GZ's injuries is absolutely admissible. But I bet he won't use blue arrows.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

It's not wild speculation, it's legitimate, well educated reasoning.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

The opinion of a medical expert giving his opinion of the severity of GZ's injuries is absolutely admissible

Of course crimresearch said nothing remotely resembling the post you evidently think he made in order to come up with that response. Or you can show us where he said that medical experts could not give their opinion on the severity of GZ's injuries.

 

[triforcharity]

Of course crimresearch said nothing remotely resembling the post you evidently fantasized that he made in order to come up with that response. Or you can show us where he said that medical experts could not give their opinion on the severity of GZ's injuries.

I never claimed he did. Simply making a point. But, as evidenced by your previous post, you'll ignore anything that hurts your feelings. Care to address what I said in the previous post that you posted a laughing gif in response to? If not, I'd recommend your let the civil posters that are having a civil discussion continue to do so.

 

[sgtbaker]

I'll agree with that, and also the longer portion of your post also.

However, I do question why swelling and bruising wasn't noted by the PA.

I've personally written hundreds, if not thousands of medical incident reports. I would have included swelling as being noticed, especially in the case of a battery.

Could the bruising been missed by the medics? Sure. It may not have been there yet. However, the PA missing them, the next day, more than 12 hours later, I find......unusual.

I would love to see documents of these bruises and continued swelling almost 24 hours later.

You know, I don't recall exactly what was in the PA's report. Was he going there to document or to have his nose checked out?