Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[AlBell]

TV just reported MOM will not try SYG, rather settle for standard self-defense.

 

[leftysergeant]

I am begining to get the impression that there may be something about the physical evidence at the scene that would suggest that Z had a chance to flee, but thought that he had to take martin out because he couldn't run fast enough, or was just too pissed off at getting his ass whumped.

Comnsider that Z claims Martin was on top when he fired. Z is right-handed. His weapon ejects to the right. (I do not know what sort of arc the cartridge makes when ejected, but it might be important, if someone knows it.)

With their heads both pointed north, the spent cartidge would be to the west of where it was fired. Martin's body was to the east of the cartridge.

This does not make sense.

From the NEN conversation, Z seemed to think that Martin had a weapon, so shooting him while he was down migt be defensible. I will have to track it down, but someone mentioned Z's saying "the gun is on the ground" and going to look for something. I have to wonder whether Z had rolled Martin face-down to look for the weapon he was sure was there, thus rolling him closer to the cartridge.

 

[Cylinder]

With their heads both pointed north, the spent cartidge would be to the west of where it was fired. Martin's body was to the east of the cartridge.

This does not make sense.

The problem with that is that the crime scene sketh indicates the location of the body after he was moved by police and rescue during treatment.

W6 saw the altercation seconds before the fatal shot and both Zimmerman and Martin were in the exact position that Zimmerman describes. Other eyewitnesses saw Zimmerman seconds after the shot when he checked the body and none describe him moving it. W13 was on the scene seconds later and did not claim Zimmerman had moved anything. SPD had Ziimmerman at gunpoint a minute or so after the fatal shot.

 

[Dan O.]

The problem with that is that the crime scene sketh indicates the location of the body after he was moved by police and rescue during treatment.

W6 saw the altercation seconds before the fatal shot and both Zimmerman and Martin were in the exact position that Zimmerman describes. Other eyewitnesses saw Zimmerman seconds after the shot when he checked the body and none describe him moving it. W13 was on the scene seconds later and did not claim Zimmerman had moved anything. SPD had Ziimmerman at gunpoint a minute or so after the fatal shot.

How does Martin's body get from a position where the arms are stretched out as described by Zimmerman to the position in the photo with his arms under him?

 

[Cylinder]

How does Martin's body get from a position where the arms are stretched out as described by Zimmerman to the position in the photo with his arms under him?

Well, I'm trying to stay away from discussing the Martin photo in detail at this point because of the nature of its release and the poor quality of the image. Martin's arms seem to be more beside him than under him to my eyes in that photo but it really doesn't help the discussion at this point.

We do know that - as in others - Zimmerman's account matches W6's observations in this regard.

I've never heard a gunshot before, but now, knowing that it was a gunshot that I heard, um, and from that point, as [my girlfreind] was still making it up the stairs, I ran upstairs while I was on the phone with the, uh, 9-1-1 person that answered my call, and I ran over to the window to look down and when I looked down, I saw the person that was actually on top at that point, was laying in my grass, kind of in a sprawled position, not moving. Um, and I saw the, another person with his hands in the air, as it looked, I don;t beleive it was cops at that point. It looked more like neighbors with flashlights that were coming around the corner. Uh, and the guy had his hands in the air, saying, the gun's on the ground, I shot this guy in self-defense and no lie, at least maybe 20 seconds later the cops are already all there.

One problem I'm having (and help me here if I'm missing something) is that Ofc. Smith - the "arms under body" witness along with whatever the photo shows - fails to mention the photograph in his narrative. It would have to be under Smith's custody of the scene that the image was taken because upon arrival, Alaya takes a pulse, flips the body and begins CPR. I have to retrace the statements in this regard though - so I may have to correct some impression I have on this point.

 

[Unabogie]

Well, I'm trying to stay away from discussing the Martin photo in detail at this point because of the nature of its release and the poor quality of the image. Martin's arms seem to be more beside him than under him to my eyes in that photo but it really doesn't help the discussion at this point.

Why would the nature of its release affect your ability to discuss a piece of evidence?

We do know that - as in others - Zimmerman's account matches W6's observations in this regard.

Actually that witness contradicts something George said. He says George had his hands in the air, was standing, and told witnesses the gun was on the ground. Yet the gun was actually in his holster. He says the police were there within 20 seconds, so where does George go an find his gun that was laying on the ground and reholster it and why didn't anyone see that?

 

[Cylinder]

Why would the nature of its release affect your ability to discuss a piece of evidence?

Willingness. Entering in to that discussion would lead to linking or posting the image. Like questions about Martin's parents, I tend to stay away until the point it seems relevalnt and neccessary.

Actually that witness contradicts something George said. He says George had his hands in the air, was standing, and told witnesses the gun was on the ground. Yet the gun was actually in his holster. He says the police were there within 20 seconds, so where does George go an find his gun that was laying on the ground and reholster it and why didn't anyone see that?

I questioned that as well. It is my belief that W6 conflated Zimmerman's comments to W13 with his comments to Ofc. Smith. In Zimmerman's reenactment, he relates how he wanted to relate to Smith the position of his holstered weapon before cuffing because he was being ordered to place his hands near the hidden firearm. Zimmerman kind of used kind of "it's down here" language which could be misinterpreted by W6 as "my gun's on the ground." There events were seconds apart. Also notice W6 uses "neighbors" plural. W13 was alone - the first flashlight man - until Smith arrived on the scene. W13 doesn't report Zimmerman claiming his weapon was on the ground.

 

[Unabogie]

Willingness. Entering in to that discussion would lead to linking or posting the image. Like questions about Martin's parents, I tend to stay away until the point it seems relevalnt and neccessary.

How is that in any way similar to questions about the murder victim's parents? It's a photo of the crime scene which directly contradicts a portion of the defendant's story. I don't see any reason why it should be ignored.

I questioned that as well. It is my belief that W6 conflated Zimmerman's comments to W13 with his comments to Ofc. Smith. In Zimmerman's reenactment, he relates how he wanted to relate to Smith the position of his holstered weapon before cuffing because he was being ordered to place his hands near the hidden firearm. Zimmerman kind of used kind of "it's down here" language which could be misinterpreted by W6 as "my gun's on the ground." There events were seconds apart. Also notice W6 uses "neighbors" plural. W13 was alone - the first flashlight man - until Smith arrived on the scene. W13 doesn't report Zimmerman claiming his weapon was on the ground.

So W6 is an unreliable witness and we should ignore what he says? Or should we just accept what he says when we agree with it? Again, George contradicts witness testimony. W6 says George said the gun was on the ground. We know that wasn't true. George says he straddled the victim just to keep him from struggling and put him in a Y shape, and from the photo we can see that's not true. And the photo matches with what the EMT said about the position of the body. From those bits of information, we can deduce that George was either lying or he moved the body after he killed the child for some other reason.

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~
Comnsider that Z claims Martin was on top when he fired. Z is right-handed. His weapon ejects to the right. (I do not know what sort of arc the cartridge makes when ejected, but it might be important, if someone knows it.)

With their heads both pointed north, the spent cartidge would be to the west of where it was fired. Martin's body was to the east of the cartridge.

This does not make sense.
~~~

Maybe Zman likes to use his gun gangsta style.

 

[Cylinder]

How is that in any way similar to questions about the murder victim's parents? It's a photo of the crime scene which directly contradicts a portion of the defendant's story. I don't see any reason why it should be ignored.

I didn't say you should ignore it. I said I was unwilling to discuss it at this point in time because of the way they were released and the neccessity of using them at this point. If it becomes an issue of actual (as opposed to fictional) relevance, then I will consider it at that point.

So W6 is an unreliable witness and we should ignore what he says? Or should we just accept what he says when we agree with it?

I don't think you understand how evidence is judged. Humans do not have 100% accurate memory. Evidence should be filtered through and tested against other evidence. Like a jigsaw puzzle, one starts to find that some peices fit and complete an emerging picture. Some may fit and change the veiw of the picture. Some may not fit well at all. The evidence chooses itself.

Zimmerman does attribute down there to the position of his weapon while speaking to a flashlight man. It just wasn't to W13 and he wasn't refering to the ground.

Remember last month's outrage was Zimmerman's callous relation to W13 of the caliber of his handgun when asked. Were they talking about the weapon Zimmerman told him was laying on the ground?

W6 is a reliable witness. He remembered correctly Zimmerman asserting self-defense to W13. He remembers accurately the timing of when he stepped out and issued a warning. He remembered reliably what the actors were wearing.

Wax on. Wax off.

George says he straddled the victim just to keep him from struggling and put him in a Y shape, and from the photo we can see that's not true.

Bravo Sierra. The photo doesn't show Zimmerman doing or not doing anything. Cutcher corroborates Zimmerman checking the victim, including the straddling part.

And the photo matches with what the EMT said about the position of the body.

It was Ofc. Smith. The body had been moved by the time EMTs arrived.

From those bits of information, we can deduce that George was either lying or he moved the body after he killed the child for some other reason.

Zimmerman says he moved the arms out. W6 says the arms were in the same position Zimmerman describes. Mary Cutcher describes the same straddling posture Zimmerman describes. You're right, the only rational conclusion is Zimmerman is lying and that allows us to fabricate a motive.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

AH, that old game again.

Show me where I used the exact word "confused"!

No one is falling for show me where I used that exact word game.

No, and they shouldn't. It's funny you are being so dishonest when you quoted me, and I said:

Why don't you go back and hilite where I used the word confused, or implied anyone confused her ?

To confuse this:
With this:
She would have to be confused. By definition.

To confuse something, she would have to be confused by definition. Congratulations on your tautology. And again, dodging my questions.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Ok, fair enough. Given the evidence at hand, which I know you've seen, what defense argument could convince you that SZ did not lie to the courts?

This is a pretty good article about the perjury charge. Given the facts at hand, I don't see how the perjury charge would stick.

SZ admitted that the fund existed. When questioned on the current amounts in the account, SZ referred the court to her brother-in-law as he knew the "current" amounts. She even said that she could "probably get him on the phone". The prosecution chose NOT to ask her brother-in-law how much was currently in the accounts. Given this, and the fact that the prosecution probably knew how much was in the account from the prison phone records already, the court shouldn't feel deceived by SZ or GZ. It should feel like it has been manipulated by Angela Corey.

 

[Dan O.]

SZ admitted that the fund existed. When questioned on the current amounts in the account, SZ referred the court to her brother-in-law as he knew the "current" amounts. She even said that she could "probably get him on the phone". The prosecution chose NOT to ask her brother-in-law how much was currently in the accounts. Given this, and the fact that the prosecution probably knew how much was in the account from the prison phone records already, the court shouldn't feel deceived by SZ or GZ. It should feel like it has been manipulated by Angela Corey.

Why are you leaving out the fact that it was assertained that the brother-in-law was not available to give testimony to this court? It feels like you are being manipulative.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Why are you leaving out the fact that it was assertained that the brother-in-law was not available to give testimony to this court? It feels like you are being manipulative.

Huh? Where was it ascertained that he was not available?

 

[johnny karate]

This is a pretty good article about the perjury charge. Given the facts at hand, I don't see how the perjury charge would stick.

SZ admitted that the fund existed. When questioned on the current amounts in the account, SZ referred the court to her brother-in-law as he knew the "current" amounts. She even said that she could "probably get him on the phone". The prosecution chose NOT to ask her brother-in-law how much was currently in the accounts. Given this, and the fact that the prosecution probably knew how much was in the account from the prison phone records already, the court shouldn't feel deceived by SZ or GZ. It should feel like it has been manipulated by Angela Corey.

Since it bears repeating:

Lie #1:

De la Rionda: Okay. And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?

Zimmerman: To my knowledge, that's correct.

Lie #2:

De la Rionda: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

Zimmerman: I do not.

As established by the following conversation between Zimmerman and his wife which demonstrates both her awareness of the money (which she denied in Lie #1) and her awareness of the amount (which she denied in Lie #2):

George: In my account, do I have at least 100?

Shellie: No.

George: How close am I?

Shellie: 8. 8.60.

George: Really? So total everything, how much are we looking at?

Shellie: Like 155.

Shellie Zimmerman - while under oath - denied the fact that she and her husband had any money, and then denied having knowledge of the amount of money they had collected in his defense fund.

Jail house recordings established both of those denials to be untruthful.

But hey, good luck with your semantic sophistry.

I'm sure crap like that goes over like gangbusters in a courtroom.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Lie #1:

You may want to actually read the article I posted as this is not a lie at all. The question was about the ORIGINAL statement. Not about what was currently in the account.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

...
She lied under oath. That's perjury. Feel to offer a cite that proves me wrong.
...

ANyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyone who heard her testimony under oath and saw the jailhouse transcripts knew she was guilty.
...

You may want to actually read the article I posted as this is not a lie at all. The question was about the ORIGINAL statement. Not about what was currently in the account.

Some people already have all the answers.

 

[Dan O.]

Huh? Where was it ascertained that he was not available?

For anyone that has a basic understanding of the legal system, it Was assertained by the prosecutor while he was questioning Shelly:

Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?

A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.

Q: Okay.* So he’s not there now.

A: No, he is not, sir.

​

Shelly obviously didn't understand the requirement of testifying under oath at this type of hearing though she should have given that she herself was just sworn in before she started to testify. But the attorneys on both sides and the court would have understood so there was no attempt to make what would be a pointless call.

The prosecutor then went with the next best alternative and asked Shelly:

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?​

To which she willfully lied.


BTW, Thanks for the link to that article that provided the relavent testimony. It would have been a pain otherwise to have to hunt for it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Why are you leaving out the fact that it was assertained that the brother-in-law was not available to give testimony to this court? It feels like you are being manipulative.

Why are you leaving out the fact that the prosecution made no effort to depose the brother-in-law and ascertain the account balances ? Was it too much effort for the court to have him phone in testimony, just like everyone else ? Surely the account balance was of utmost importance in determining bail, right ?

It feels like you are being manipulative.

 

[Unabogie]

Why are you leaving out the fact that the prosecution made no effort to depose the brother-in-law and ascertain the account balances ? Was it too much effort for the court to have him phone in testimony, just like everyone else ? Surely the account balance was of utmost importance in determining bail, right ?

It feels like you are being manipulative.

Why would that excuse her blatant lying and George's conspiracy with her to defraud the court? My goodness, but you are just never going to see these people for who they are.