Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Dan O.]

What exactly do you mean butchered by OCR ? You are looking at the actual documents. I don't understand how OCR has anything to do with this.

This is hilarious given that it was you who first posted that butchered OCR as evidence that the flashlight was on. (link)

Officer Smiths report (page 80) clearly states "there were a set of keys containing a small flashlight that was on, ..."

Smith's report is pretty much the only evidence that stands so it is Smith's report vs. Smith's photos and I've already covered how Smith may have convinced herself that the flashlight was on.

Officer Mead clearly states the flashlight was on.

As I already said, that was only in the third report, it was not a contemporaneous report but was generated after an interview by the investigator over a month later. Why was Mead being questioned about the flashlight when his previous reports made no mention of it at all? and why was "on" in quotes? Was this interview recorded? I would be interesting to listen to that exchange to hear how the information was pulled out..


You've managed to pick a few cherries that say that the light was on. Only one of which has any strength. But there were more officers that noted the location of the flashlight yet did not note that it was on (Joseph Santiago 3/2/2012 7:44 1st discovery pg 16, Stacie McCoy, 3/9/2012 1st discovery pg 17). A lit flashlight in a dark environment is such a bloody obvious thing that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to miss it. Many officers walked past that Tee that night and did not note the lit flashlight on the ground in their reports.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I'd think that multiple people making a point of noting something is far more suggestive as to the facts than people not noting something, especially when we're talking about a lit flashlight.

 

[Dan O.]

I'd think that multiple people making a point of noting something is far more suggestive as to the facts than people not noting something, especially when we're talking about a lit flashlight.

That's your personal opinion and you are entitled to it. if you could come up with a scientific study that actually shows it to be true, then I'll consider it myself.

 

[This is The End]

For the life of me I can't figure out why any rational person would think any of that was significant.

WildCat, on record as thinking it is 100% believable to forget which pocket you put your cellphone in after 30 seconds.

ETA: Unless, of course, WildCat didn't even read the entire post, which as I say below, appears to be the case.

 

[This is The End]

It's like 9/11 truthers going over every statement with a fine-toothed comb looking for anything that doesn't look right to them, then declaring proof of inside jobby-job.

Did you know Rumsfeld once said the nose cone of the plane that hit the Pentagon punched through the C-ring? OMG, inside job!

I seriously don't understand comparing a murder investigation to 911 conspiracy theory...

If Z is convicted will you still compare it to 911?

What exactly do you want us to talk about in this thread? Do you have a list of approved topics?

But most importantly: How is Z's description of the moment of the attack not a valid topic??

My post was about the 2nd most important few seconds of the entire night. 2nd only to the few seconds before the gunshot. And you respond to it with that?

Considering your comparison used the highlighted words "declaring proof", I have a feeling that you didn't even read the entire post.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What exactly do you mean butchered by OCR ? You are looking at the actual documents. I don't understand how OCR has anything to do with this.
Officer Smiths report (page 80) clearly states "there were a set of keys containing a small flashlight that was on, ..."

Officer Mead clearly states the flashlight was on.

This is hilarious given that it was you who first posted that butchered OCR as evidence that the flashlight was on. (link)

I linked to a perfectly human OCR-able PDF copy of the report. I cut and paste the OCR'ed text for convenience. You can see what the original words say in the PDF. So the OCR software had trouble with the crappy original, and that proves what, exactly ? We have the original, so why is the fact that it wasn't OCR'ed perfectly relevant ?

Smith's report is pretty much the only evidence that stands so it is Smith's report vs. Smith's photos and I've already covered how Smith may have convinced herself that the flashlight was on.

You mean how you convinced yourself the flashlight was not on.

As I already said, that was only in the third report, it was not a contemporaneous report but was generated after an interview by the investigator over a month later. Why was Mead being questioned about the flashlight when his previous reports made no mention of it at all? and why was "on" in quotes? Was this interview recorded? I would be interesting to listen to that exchange to hear how the information was pulled out..

So it wasn't contemporaneous, therefor it might be wrong.
However, the one that is contemporaneous doesn't say what you want it to say, so therefor it might be wrong.

You've managed to pick a few cherries that say that the light was on.

I've quoted all the reports that mention the state of the flashlight. How exactly is that cherry picking ?

Only one of which has any strength.

Wrong.

But there were more officers that noted the location of the flashlight yet did not note that it was on (Joseph Santiago 3/2/2012 7:44 1st discovery pg 16, Stacie McCoy, 3/9/2012 1st discovery pg 17). A lit flashlight in a dark environment is such a bloody obvious thing that it would be nearly impossible for anyone to miss it. Many officers walked past that Tee that night and did not note the lit flashlight on the ground in their reports.

Therefor, the flashlight was off ?


ETA: link with an image from the actual report.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8363921&postcount=13114

And we clearly went over all this at that point in the thread, yet you continue to call it an OCR error ? That's quite dishonest of you.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

...
So I ask myself why would he want to claim he was reaching for his pants

So what did yourself answer ?

It was a serious question.

Why would GZ need to manufacture as story about reaching into his pants pocket versus his jacket pocket ?

 

[Dan O.]

I linked to a perfectly human OCR-able PDF copy of the report. I cut and paste the OCR'ed text for convenience. You can see what the original words say in the PDF. So the OCR software had trouble with the crappy original, and that proves what, exactly ? We have the original, so why is the fact that it wasn't OCR'ed perfectly relevant ?

Your response here will taint your arguments forever unless you redeem yourself by pointing out your own mistake. Please post a reply including the text you highlighted from the OCR and the actual text from the PDF. I could do it myself but that wouldn't help your redemption.

 

[WildCat]

A forehead abrasion was mentioned in the EMT report. I'm not sure if you read it or were even aware it had been released. (It has, by the way. Quite some time ago.)

Why mention one abrasion but not the numerous others you claim exist?

So now you're claiming there is at least one abrasion.

Why do you think that abrasion wasn't mentioned by the doctor's report?

Fascinating watching you dig yourself into a hole.

 

[WildCat]

Smith's report is pretty much the only evidence that stands so it is Smith's report vs. Smith's photos and I've already covered how Smith may have convinced herself that the flashlight was on.

Holy crap, you're still claiming that the light from a flashlight would show up in a flash photograph?

Are you a moon landing conspiracy theorist too? No stars in the supposed moon photos!

 

[WildCat]

WildCat, on record as thinking it is 100% believable to forget which pocket you put your cellphone in after 30 seconds.

Why yes it is. I have wasted much time at work looking for a tool I had just used 30 seconds prior, and that was under far less stressful circumstances.

Hell, just last Friday my boss asked me if I knew where a particular tool was, and I pointed out it was in his hand.

Yours is nothing but an argument from personal incredulity.

 

[WildCat]

I seriously don't understand comparing a murder investigation to 911 conspiracy theory...

Because you're using the same tactics CTs use. Arguments from personal incredulity and immaterial inconsistencies used to "prove" guilt.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Your response here will taint your arguments forever unless you redeem yourself by pointing out your own mistake. Please post a reply including the text you highlighted from the OCR and the actual text from the PDF. I could do it myself but that wouldn't help your redemption.

I linked to a perfectly human OCR-able PDF copy of the report.

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf

I cut and paste the relevant OCR'ed text for convenience.

There were a set of keys containing a smal l f lash l ight that was on

You forgot to answer these questions:

So the OCR software had trouble with the crappy original, and that proves what, exactly ?

We have the original, so why is the fact that it wasn't OCR'ed perfectly relevant ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Here, I'll re-post this since the champions of Shellie Zimmerman seemed to have overlooked it:

Who are the champions of Shellie Zimmerman ?
Are they the something like the champions of Trayvon Martin ?

That's Shellie Zimmerman under oath claiming to not be of any financial means to assist in her husband's legal costs five days after stating on the record she had at least $10,000 in her personal bank account.

My guess for the lack of response is that LegalInsurrection.com doesn't address this particular exchange, so some people don't know what their opinions are without being told first.

Which people don't know their opinions without being told first ?

 

[johnny karate]

So now you're claiming there is at least one abrasion.

I'm so embarrassed for you:

"All those injuries" are in total a broken nose, a forehead abrasion, and two small cuts on the back of the head.

For your convenience, here is that list again:

- Broken nose

- Two small cuts on the back of the head (.5 cm and 2 cm)

- Forehead abrasion (noted by the EMT on the scene, but not the doctor the next day)

And here those wounds are in their totality, as documented in the medical records:

• Broken nose
• 2 small cuts on the back of his head (2 cm and .5 cm)
• Forehead abrasion (noted by the EMT on the scene, but not by the doctor the next day)

Officially documented injuries to Zimmerman:

• Broken nose (To avoid any pointless semantic tangents, I'm not going to quibble on this point)

• Two small cuts on the back of his head (2 cm and .5 cm respectively)

• Forehead abrasion (mentioned in the EMT report but not by the doctor)

Seriously, do you pay attention to anything that goes on in this thread or case?

Because you seem to have a habit of posting things without having the faintest clue as to what the facts are.

Why do you think that abrasion wasn't mentioned by the doctor's report?

Because it was either medically insignificant or too minor to even be noticed.

But let's go back to your original claim:

Please answer my question. Why would those marks (which some may be abrasions and others dried blood) be either the result of repeated falls or punches? Because what you just posted is not an answer to that at all.

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

What do you suppose it does to your theory of "multiple punches" when the injuries that you claim were sustained by those "multiple punches" either weren't noticed or were deemed too medically insignificant to be documented by the medical professionals who examined Zimmerman?

What do you imagine Martin was punching Zimmerman with? A throw pillow? Or maybe a bag of marshmallows?

Even Zimmerman himself confirms the broken nose was the result of a single punch (I'm guessing with your track record that you were unaware of this fact):

Zimmerman: I looked up and he punched me and broke my nose.

Hannity: One shot?

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.

Hannity: One shot?

Zimmerman: Yes.

So where is your evidence that Martin punched Zimmerman "multiple times" other than these injuries you claim you can tell exist just by looking at a photo, and if they exist at all, either weren't noticed or deemed medically insignificant by the medical professionals who examined him?

Fascinating watching you dig yourself into a hole.

What hole would that be? Is it the one where they keep all the facts and correct information about this case? Because you might want to join me in that hole.

 

[johnny karate]

Who are the champions of Shellie Zimmerman ?
Are they the something like the champions of Trayvon Martin ?

Which people don't know their opinions without being told first ?

I'm not sure why you chose to respond to just that and ignore the content of my post.

So let's try this again:

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.

Please explain to me how Shellie Zimmerman isn't lying.

 

[WildCat]

I'm so embarrassed for you:




Seriously, do you pay attention to anything that goes on in this thread or case?

Because you seem to have a habit of posting things without having the faintest clue as to what the facts are.

So about your claim that all those were the result of a single punch and fall...

eta: and why do you suppose the forehead abrasion wasn't mentioned in the doctor's report?

 

[Cylinder]

Why mention one abrasion but not the numerous others you claim exist?

SFD Resuce Paramedic Micheal Brandy interview with FDLE:

Umm well he had a definite laceration to the back of his head and it...he had like a uhh like bald type...so you could tell...I mean...it was pretty big. It was like like at least an inch by about a half inch wide. So I mean it was a definite wound back there. Uh...he some abrasions on the forehead. He had a kinda...look like...deformity of the nose...kinda a little bit swollen. He had some abrasions on the cheek and forehead.

Other rescue responders fail to mention the abrasions, but they appear in the photo taken around an hour later. The EMTs also fail to mention the swelling on the side of Zimmerman's head. Is that died blood as well?

 

[johnny karate]

So about your claim that all those were the result of a single punch and fall...

*sigh*

Arguing with you is really quite tedious.

When did I ever claim all of Zimmerman's four documented injuries were the result of either a punch or a fall?

(I'll give you a hint: It was never.)

I'll break it down for you. Again.

Zimmerman's nose was broken when he was punched. That this was done in a single punch was confirmed by Zimmerman himself.

Zimmerman sustained two cuts on the back of his head during the ensuing struggle of the ground. The cuts were minor, and like all minor injuries don't require an explanation involving significant trauma. Minor injuries are the result of minor trauma.

The forehead abrasion that wasn't even noted the next day? Who knows? Abrasions, by definition, are minor injuries. Even more minor than the two small cuts Zimmerman sustained. Abrasion can occur in the most innocuous of ways. I'm not sure why it even matters how Zimmerman sustained such an insignificant injury.

So back to your claim: What evidence do you have that Zimmerman received "multiple punches"?

We know the broken nose was the result of a single punch.

We know the two small cuts on the back of Zimmerman's head were not the result of punches.

So what is you evidence of "multiple punches"? The deadly forehead abrasion that wasn't even significant enough to be noted during a medical exam the following day?

eta: and why do you suppose the forehead abrasion wasn't mentioned in the doctor's report?

Asked and answered. You really need to start paying attention to what's going on.

 

[triforcharity]

If that's was that question is referring to, then all SZ has to do is argue that she did not believe the money was hers. Which will be an easy task, as GZ told her that money was for the bond.

However, she took "10" out to keep on her. Assuming, of course, that "10" actually refers to 10,000.

But, I could understand that line of reasoning. I'll agree that is plausible.