Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[WildCat]

http://m.wdbo.com/news/news/local/br...in-case/nPbfp/

Homie! “Oh you got me. You got me, you got it" said the dead boy. What a pile of bunk!

Experts disagree:

At 7:17 p.m. on Feb. 26, the bullet that killed Trayvon entered hischest square-on, just to the left of his breastbone, according to his autopsy. It punched a hole in his right ventricle, the lower right chamber of the heart, and broke into three pieces.

The bullet's lead core — the bulkiest part — was found just behind his heart, still inside the pericardium, the sac that contains that organ. Two other fragments were found next to his right lung, which had been perforated and collapsed, the report said.

When Sanford firefighters arrived 10 minutes later, at 7:27 p.m., firefighter Stacey Livingston checked him over.

During an interview March 24 with agents with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Livingston said: "He had a small bullet hole in his chest area that wasn't even bleeding,"

Not on the outside.

Inside, however, his chest cavity had filled with 2,300 milliliters of blood, according to the autopsy. That's about one-third of a healthy person's total blood volume, Anderson said.

Trayvon's heart had kept pumping, both pathologists said, but with each contraction, blood was leaking or gushinginto his chest, depending on the size of the bullet hole.

The two doctors agreed that Trayvon remained conscious for a time. Anderson suggested the teenager may have been conscious for several minutes. Manion estimated it at just 20 to 30 seconds.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-autopsy-20120817,0,2262850.story


And Martin wasn't bleeding externally.

 

[Cylinder]

Why did he have it with him 45 feet down the walkway?

His large flashlight was not working. It seems Zimmerman pocketed it where it fell out during the altercation. The small flashlight was dropped at the T where Zimmerman claims the attack began.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Experts disagree:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/os-trayvon-martin-autopsy-20120817,0,2262850.story


And Martin wasn't bleeding externally.

You mean his heart didn't explode, like the reasonable professor leatherman claimed ?

 

[Noztradamus]

GZ told her the money was for his bond. Thus it would be entirely reasonable for her to claim that she did not believe that the money was hers.

And the $74000 she transfered from George's account into her account. Was that hers, George's, or Schrödinger's?

 

[johnny karate]

I thought it was quite clear we were discussing perjury in general.

If you say so. Since the technicality to which you refer has absolutely no bearing on this particular case, I'm not sure of what relevance it is to discuss.

So, there was clearly confusion of interpretation in a written back and forth between us, but somehow it's just semantic trickery if someone claims there is a confusion of interpretation in a verbal exchange ?

Because the semantic trickery upon which you are relying is based on an interpretation of the question Shellie Zimmerman was asked that flies in the face of normal human communication.

"You mentioned...that you all had no money, is that correct?" doesn't mean "Can you confirm that you previously stated that you had no money?".

Any more than "You said you were picking me up at 8, right?" means "Can you confirm that you previously stated you were picking me up at 8?".

As myself and others have pointed out numerous times people don't talk that way.

It's the height of disingenuousness to assert otherwise.

 

[johnny karate]

Asserting something does not make it true.

It sure doesn't.

Speaking of which, you previous asserted this:

What I find troubling is: it is probable the prosecution already knew how much was in the account and intentionally chose to keep that information from the court. The prosecution was arguing for a higher bond. They knew the fund existed. This is a high profile case of a polarizing nature that has garnered international attention. In this case, such a fund is likely to gather large amounts of donors. They had in their possession phone records that talked about amounts in the fund from four days prior. They then decided not to call the brother-in-law to determine how much money is in the fund. They chose not to provide the court with the phone records. This allowed GZ to walk with a very low bond (on the short-term). That's either gross incompetence or manipulation.

I've bolded the assertions you made that still require evidence.

 

[johnny karate]

Experts disagree:

And Martin wasn't bleeding externally.

Hey, you're back! I was afraid you ran away for good this time.

So let's pick it back up:

It seems clear to me there's multiple injuries and abrasions and marks, indicating multiple punches.

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

How are you able to distinguish abrasions from dried blood by simply looking at a photo?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Because the semantic trickery upon which you are relying is based on an interpretation of the question Shellie Zimmerman was asked that flies in the face of normal human communication.

"You mentioned...that you all had no money, is that correct?" doesn't mean "Can you confirm that you previously stated that you had no money?".

Any more than "You said you were picking me up at 8, right?" means "Can you confirm that you previously stated you were picking me up at 8?".

As myself and others have pointed out numerous times people don't talk that way.

It's the height of disingenuousness to assert otherwise.

Thank you for admitting you understand the problem. People ask poorly worded questions.

"You mentioned...that you all had no money, is that correct?" doesn't mean "Can you confirm that you previously stated that you had no money?".

Actually, it does literally mean that.

You can't claim someone committed perjury because they answered the actual, literal question you asked. Adversarial questing in the courtroom is not 'normal human communication.' It's technical and nit-picky.

This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of “empirical fact” and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.
SZ had no obligation to answer the question BDLR intended to ask, but did not, whether 'normal human communication' works that way or not.

 

[WildCat]

How are you able to distinguish abrasions from dried blood by simply looking at a photo?

I have eyes.

You may as well ask how a non-biologist can identify a cat in a photo.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/doc...discovery-documents-part-2-284-pages-7122012/

or

http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/15490330/data/1/-/kligxm/-/Zimmerman-documents.pdf

So Dan, was the keychain flashlight "on" , or are the officers who all reported it being "on" mistaken, and it was actually "off", despite what they reported ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You've been helpfull in the past with links. Can you provide a link to the entire hearing so I can give you the exact quote of what was said 10 minutes earlier as well as the complete quote for this question and answer.
But not at all reasonable for her to not know why money was being discussed in this hearing in the first place.

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/writ/appendix_4.pdf

 

[WildCat]

So Dan, was the keychain flashlight "on" , or are the officers who all reported it being "on" mistaken, and it was actually "off", despite what they reported ?

Dan thinks the beam from a flashlight would be visible in a photograph...

Reminiscent of a moon landing conspiracy theorist wondering why stars aren't visible in the moon photos.

 

[johnny karate]

Thank you for admitting you understand the problem. People ask poorly worded questions.

"You mentioned...that you all had no money, is that correct?" doesn't mean "Can you confirm that you previously stated that you had no money?".

Actually, it does literally mean that.

You can't claim someone committed perjury because they answered the actual, literal question you asked. Adversarial questing in the courtroom is not 'normal human communication.' It's technical and nit-picky.

This Court has held that statements alleged to be perjurious must be of “empirical fact” and not of opinion, belief or perception…. One of the essential elements of perjury in official proceedings is that the person making the statement does not believe it to be true… The questions posed to elicit perjured testimony must be asked with the appropriate specificity necessary to result in an equally specific statement of fact.
SZ had no obligation to answer the question BDLR intended to ask, but did not, whether 'normal human communication' works that way or not.

Okay then. I guess we'll see how that works out in court.

And good luck. I know you're desperate to proven right on anything at this point.

And not to rain on your parade - but this isn't the only lie Zimmerman's wife told. We'll see how far this thin premise you're clinging to will stretch.

 

[johnny karate]

I have eyes.

So do the medical professionals who examined Zimmerman. They also have medical training.

They didn't note these additional "abrasions" you claim exist.

What's so special about your eyes?

Edit: You have read the medical reports, right? Because it wasn't that long ago when you were scoffing at the idea they had been released while everyone else was full aware that they had been. And I just want to make sure you weren't still laboring under the same willful ignorance that caused you to make embarrassingly uninformed posts in the past.

 

[johnny karate]

O'Mara: Other major assets that you have that you can liquidate reasonably to assist in coming up with money for a bond?

Shellie: None that I know of.

O'Mara: Are you of any financial means where you can assist in those costs?

Shellie: Not that I'm aware of.

George: You're going to take out 10 and keep it with you in cash, less than 10.

Shellie: Like 9.

George: Say about 10. I'm wondering, you have more than 10, right?

Shellie: Not with me.

George: You don't have access to more than 10 in your account?

Shellie: I do.

George: I have access to... in your account.

Shellie: Yeah.

Good luck, spin doctors!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Okay then. I guess we'll see how that works out in court.

We will. And it's pretty obvious at this point that it will work out poorly for the prosecution unless they have a heck of a lot more than has been discussed here.

And good luck. I know you're desperate to proven right on anything at this point.

You are the one claiming to know that SZ committed perjury.

And not to rain on your parade - but this isn't the only lie Zimmerman's wife told. We'll see how far this thin premise you're clinging to will stretch.

That the prosecution will have to prove that she actually lied, and didn't tell the truth in response to BDLR piss poor questioning ? I think it will stretch all the way across the entire charge.

 

[johnny karate]

That the prosecution will have to prove that she actually lied, and didn't tell the truth in response to BDLR piss poor questioning ? I think it will stretch all the way across the entire charge.

See my next post. You're missing the forest for the trees, or more to the point one tree in particular. If you think that one question you and others have been hammering away at is the only instance of Zimmerman's wife lying under oath, you are sadly deluded.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

"You mentioned...that you all had no money, is that correct?" doesn't mean "Can you confirm that you previously stated that you had no money?".

Actually, it does literally mean that.

The "had" is especially relevant since it's referring to past tense, as is "mentioned" for that matter. When my brain hears those types of words it tends to immediately "go past tense" because I assume people are using them for a reason. This reminds me of the earlier discussion where some people insisted it was "impossible" that GZ didn't know the street name. Even after quite a few people pointed out they don't know the street names of streets close to them it was still "impossible".

An objective reading of the statement above makes it easy to see it could be validly interpreted by different people in different ways, but some people only seem to see the world from one viewpoint, and anything that doesn't confirm that viewpoint is rejected or even worse deemed ridiculous or dishonest.

 

[Newtons Bit]

It sure doesn't.

Speaking of which, you previous asserted this:


I've bolded the assertions you made that still require evidence.

The prosecution asked SZ about the fund at the bond hearing. What other evidence do I need to provide that the prosecution knew about the fund?

 

[johnny karate]

The "had" is especially relevant since it's referring to past tense, as is "mentioned" for that matter. This reminds me of the earlier discussion where some people insisted it was "impossible" that GZ didn't know the street name. Even after quite a few people pointed out they don't know the street names of streets close to them it was still "impossible".

An objective reading of the statement above makes it easy to see it could be validly interpreted by different people in different ways, but some people only seem to see the world from one viewpoint, and anything that doesn't confirm that viewpoint is rejected or even worse deemed ridiculous or dishonest.

Shellie Zimmerman's perjury doesn't depend on her answer to a single question.

She lied throughout her testimony in an obvious attempt to hide money from the court.

If you don't like the phrasing of the prosecutor's questions, then take a look at O'Mara's questions that I quoted above.

Then take a look at the transcripts from the jail house conversations between Zimmerman and his wife I also quoted.

She was specifically asked if she had the financial means to assist in her husband's bond.

She said she didn't.

And yet her conversation with her husband from five days prior reveals she had approximately $10,000 in her personal bank account.

I look forward to the opinions the deniers offer in rebuttal. Or more to the point, the opinions they poach from some biased website to pass off as their own.