Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

I'm pretty sure the state isn't basing its charges on a post by a CSI wannabe on an internet forum.

I doubt that also. Never claimed it was, nor did I state that it was likely.

 

[triforcharity]

You need a medical degree to identify an abrasion in a photo? Some other special knowledge?
Useless strawman arguments snipped

You'd need at least a good working knowledge of medicine to be able to diagnose an abrasion from a photo alone, yes, I would agree.

It is of course subject to be incorrect, as medical diagnosis via photo is unreliable. An actual examination would be best.

A photo of what appears to be abrasions, could be old, could be dried blood, and could be something completely benign.

Diagnosis by photo is a bad idea.

ARE they abrasions? Don't know. It's your claim, prove it. Show me how you conclusively ruled out a pre-existing abrasion, or even dried blood.

I'll wait. Please list any assumptions and show your work.

 

[Unabogie]

Question: was George carrying his wallet the night he killed Trayvon Martin? Was that listed in any of the evidence dumps?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Question: was George carrying his wallet the night he killed Trayvon Martin? Was that listed in any of the evidence dumps?

Yes, he had his wallet. No, I don't think it was listed.

I believe there were references to him carrying his CWP in it, and something about credit cards and being on his way to the store.

It was one or more indirect but clear references that he had his wallet. Maybe I posted something about it in response to his only having some change in his pockets or something, I don't recall.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, he had his wallet. No, I don't think it was listed.

I believe there were references to him carrying his CWP in it, and something about credit cards and being on his way to the store.

It was one or more indirect but clear references that he had his wallet. Maybe I posted something about it in response to his only having some change in his pockets or something, I don't recall.

Thanks, do you have a cite for that?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Thanks, do you have a cite for that?

Nope, I looked briefly but couldn't find it. I'll try to see if I can remember the context.

It's also possible I am mis-remembering, but I don't think so.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Thanks, do you have a cite for that?

It's in the tim smith interview by TC O'steen in the second discovery. Page 23.

"zimmerman also had a concealed weapons permit in his wallet"

I don't have a link to an OCR'ed version, or I would just cut and paste.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Just something I do, wasn't really aware of it.

Thanks for not letting them on to our secret code, I really do appreciate it ?

 

[Unabogie]

It's in the tim smith interview by TC O'steen in the second discovery. Page 23.

"zimmerman also had a concealed weapons permit in his wallet"

I don't have a link to an OCR'ed version, or I would just cut and paste.

Thanks, I believe you.

 

[This is The End]

I'm pretty sure the state isn't basing its charges on a post by a CSI wannabe on an internet forum.

More like an entire forum of CSI wannabes! Did you even go read that place?


I saw a post there that asked if Z's bloody nose could have been from the ejected bullet casing.

 

[This is The End]

Ah, so you do admit that Martin assaulted Zimmerman, and this assault continued beyond the initial punch to the face.

Thousands of posts later and you still leave out the important qualifier first.

The evidence shows that M assaulted Z.

However, there is no evidence that shows M assaulted Z first.

 

[This is The End]

But like a 9/11 truther who claims not to see airplane debris at the Pentagon, you'll claim you don't see the abrasions, right?

I know I asked you this before, but why do you keep comparing the Z/M case to CTs?

There is lots of evidence against 9/11 truthers and against bigfoot and the like. On the other hand, there is zero evidence that M really went for Z's gun, aside from Z's word.

I don't think it is logical to believe Z 100% just because of how the law in the USA is written. This is an internet forum, not a jury room.

We currently have no solid evidence one way or the other.

 

[This is The End]

I doubt that also. Never claimed it was, nor did I state that it was likely.

Really it's absurd to suggest that the state didn't hear that sound until after someone on the internet pointed it out. They probably analyzed every second of that tape within the first month.

 

[This is The End]

Question: was George carrying his wallet the night he killed Trayvon Martin? Was that listed in any of the evidence dumps?

I seem to remember something about the wallet being in the truck. So that would be why it was not in the evidence.

 

[This is The End]

Convenient. Let's just move on, even though you never bothered answering my questions, or explained why you think the judges claim that GZ would flee the country is a reasonable conclusion. Quite telling.

Reasonable for the court to conclude does not mean the same thing as reasonable for us to conclude! If you don't believe that fine. We just discussed it for 2 whole pages....

 

[TheL8Elvis]

OK so I misread your current argument. I apologize.

You admit that it is a possibility Z was going to flee.

Your beef is that the Judge said it was a sure thing. That he said it like there was no question about it.

Here's the small problem with that though. If I recall, when we got that bond .pdf, we were all surprised that the Judge said it like that. It was never in question that it was weird that the Judge said it so definitively.

Reasonable for the court to conclude does not mean the same thing as reasonable for us to conclude! If you don't believe that fine. We just discussed it for 2 whole pages....

No, we didn't discuss it for two whole pages. You just kept asserting things without backing them up. Would you like to quote to where you linked to some evidence to back up your claims ?

But, just to clarify, so I can understand, when you say "Reasonable for the court to conclude does not mean the same thing as reasonable for us to conclude" ...
Do you find JKLs conclusion reasonable in the non-legal sense (whatever that means) ?
If so, I have a list of questions for you that you'll probably avoid answering again.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Now THAT is hilarious. Anyone reading the thread knows that you are the one that has not answered those questions.
...

Well, TheL8Elvis's theory is that Z was hiding the money just to get a lower bond. Period.

And that the passport hiding was just an innocent mistake or something...

I'm not sure why TheL8Elvis's thinks those are more reasonable than the alternative that the Judge said was the reasonable scenario.

This is what happens when you go round and round ... you accuse me of not answering questions that you already acknowledge I answered earlier in the thread.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Leatherman goes CT

In his latest blog post Saturday, Leatherman must have been really digging for something to post, because this is what he came up with:

That led me to think that someone was in the truck ... If I’m right, the police have the phone records, they know who the second person was and this would be one of the facts that they probably would withhold until the last possible moment for maximum strategic value.

Now whom might that person have been?

I’ll hazard a guess that, if it was not Frank Taffee, ... it was the first person who arrived at the crime scene carrying a flashlight and a cell phone with which he took a photo of the back of GZ’s head.

Yup, he's right on par with Jeralyn at talk left...

 

[Cylinder]

Mark O'Mara is supposed to make an announcement in this afternoon's press conference. Just a heads-up for whoever's interested.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

In his latest blog post Saturday, Leatherman must have been really digging for something to post, because this is what he came up with:

That led me to think that someone was in the truck ... If I’m right, the police have the phone records, they know who the second person was and this would be one of the facts that they probably would withhold until the last possible moment for maximum strategic value.

Now whom might that person have been?

I’ll hazard a guess that, if it was not Frank Taffee, ... it was the first person who arrived at the crime scene carrying a flashlight and a cell phone with which he took a photo of the back of GZ’s head.

Yup, he's right on par with Jeralyn at talk left...

I'd say it's much more on par with the Treehouse.