Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

So now we are differentiating suspicious behavior into objective and subjective ?

We have been all along. The idea that Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin might have been more a product of his own mindset than Martin's behavior has already been pointed out.

That would make it subjective.

Someone walking into a bank in the middle of June wearing a ski mask and trench coat would be objectively suspicious behavior.

There is zero evidence that Martin was engaged in objectively suspicious behavior. (You know, like "peering into cars and windows", which you tried to conflate with "looking at houses".)

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin was purely subjective.

And you have helpfully defined suspicious behavior as being rooted in suspicions activity.

I'm glad you found that helpful. And this might be a good time to remind you that no evidence of any kind has been presented (outside of Zimmerman's claim) that Martin was engaged in suspicious activity.

So now being suspicious eqauls being involved in criminal activity ?

Not necessarily, but it certainly applies here. Or do you think Zimmerman thought Martin was behaving suspiciously in a non-criminal manner?

Proving someone wasn't acting suspiciously is not proving a negative.

So... asking someone to prove a person wasn't do something isn't asking them to prove a negative...

Okay...

That's absurd.

What's absurd is you providing a textbook example of proving a negative and then claiming is wasn't an example of proving a negative.

Here, I'll break it down for you:
"Proving someone wasn't acting suspiciously is not proving a negative."

See the word I highlighted? That's the negative you are expecting me to prove.

Provide evidence of how he was behaving, then we can conclude if it falls under the category of suspicious or not.

Martin's behavior can be described as such: Walking home from the store and talking on the phone.

The evidence for that behavior has already been provided during the course of this discussion.

So GZ is guilty of not considering all possibilities. *shrugs* You admit the possibility that TM may have looked odd or out of place.

I actually stated the opposite by noting the prevalence of hands-free devices. Something cannot both be prevalent and odd or out of place.

If Zimmerman thought he looked odd or out of place because it didn't cross his mind that Martin might be engaged in a fairly common activity, that says more about Zimmerman than it does Martin.

It has to do with helping define suspicious behavior. We can't agree or disagree TM was acting suspiciously until we agree what suspicios behavior is.

Great. Why don't you quote the parts of the document you linked that specifically describe suspicious behavior in accordance with how Zimmerman described Martin?

Then you should expect two different results.

Yeah, in one instance you would expect someone to call the police, and in the other you would expect them to defend themselves. Kind of the point I've been making.

 

[leftysergeant]

I am not that familiar with the gun in question.
Could the abrasion and damage on Zimmerman's face be from the slide going back when the gun was shot? In other words, could Zimmerman have been injured when he fired the gun in an awkward position, too close to his face?

Not very likely. I do not see how the slide would have made such a superficial abrasion and not cut deeply at some point and not have caused rather pronounced bruising around the point of contact.

 

[Dancing David]

I don't understand why you are discounting it as 'hearsay' -

It is hearsay and therefore generally not admissible as evidence in court. The case is not tried on the JREF

 

[marplots]

Horse hockey. When an obvious threat to your life overtakes you and you have no weapon, the law allows you to strike back physically. If you have a weapon and somebody who is an obvious threat to your life, you are entitled to present that firearm and tell him to cease and desist from threatening behavior. If he continues to threaten you, you are allowed to fire for effect.

What you are not allowed to do is to convince somebody, intentionally or otherwise, that you are a pervert or gang banger, get into a fight and then pull a gun out and kill the victim.

That Z and Martin came into contact at all was entirely Z's decision and he acted with malice in making that decision.

The two main points the jury will have to decide, I think. Judging by the length of this thread and the passion shown, I expect it will be tough to get a unanimous verdict.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

At best, Osterman was just repeating something Zimmerman told him. Repeating someone else's claim is not a separate piece of evidence.

But regardless of what Zimmerman might have told him, Osterman wasn't there and therefore has no direct knowledge of what transpired.

That's why hearsay isn't admissible as evidence in a court of law.

Yes, Osterman was just repeating something Zimmerman told him. Your claim was that zimmerman never said he was hit multiple times.
Osterman repeating that GZ told him he was hit multiple times is direct evidence GZ claimed to have been hit multiple times.
It doesn't prove GZ was hit multiple times, but that wasn't the question, was it ? You have been claiming GZ never claimed to have been hit multiple times.

And this isn't a court of law - I would have to go search, but I believe you have made that same point earlier in this thread about legal standards and this being just an Internet forum - So I can use hearsay as evidence to come to my own conclusions if it seems reasonable for me to do so.

It is? How many versions of one event do you think someone is allowed to give in a criminal investigation before their honesty is called into question? Two? Three? Twelve?

42.

The real question should be how many significantly different versions of one event should it take. And I haven't heard any significantly different versions.

I don't have a problem with a written statement being a shorter version with fewer details than the version told to an investigator in person. And I think it's been covered in this thread before that memory is not 100% reliable, details will change over the course of tellings, etc.

I don't find thatt GZ didn't mention being hit multiple times in his statement to be a problem. There are *many* details he didn't mention in that short written narrative.

You've already acknowledged that Zimmerman was probably being untruthful in at least one detail of his account, and yet seem to be unbothered by that untruthfulness.

You now also seem unbothered by Zimmerman giving different versions of his account.

Just out of curiosity, does is even matter to you what Zimmerman says, as long as it fits within the general framework of "I was acting in self-defense"?

Or is there a point where you might begin to question whether or not this guy is lying?

Didn't you already answer this question above ? You've already acknowledged that Zimmerman was probably being untruthful in at least one detail of his account

The question shouldn't be whether I believe every word he says, but rather whether his narrative as a whole is believable,which I find it to be, and whether there is evidence to contradict his story, which I don't find there to be.

So you feel that the repeated punching is just a minor detail? Something that can be easily glossed-over or forgotten?

In the context of him writing down a narrative, yes.

And you're not troubled by the embellishments that were added in the retelling, but were curiously absent in the initial police statement?

No.

And of course you're still left with the problem of no injuries on either Zimmerman's face or Martin's hands that correspond with the latter repeatedly punching the former.

The statements of people actually on the scene with GZ that evening disagree with your assessment. So it's really probably more of a problem for you - because I don't see any difficulty of MOM getting people up on the stand to testify that when they saw GZ that night he looked like he had been beaten.

 

[Rare Truth]

The State released the 10th supplemental discovery today. It shows the original charges by the lead homicide detective was to charge Zimmerman with Murder.

He revised it four times after that.

http://www.clickorlando.com/blob/view/-/18054072/data/2/-/t40yfvz/-/Zimmerman-case-doc-2.pdf

A snippet:

From Page 25, paragraph 4:

Quote:
Investigative findings show that George Michael Zimmerman had at least two opportunities to speak with Trayvon Benjamin Martin In order to defuse the circumstances surrounding their encounter.

On at least two occasions, George Michael Zimmerman failed to Identify himself as a concerned resident or a neighborhood watch member to Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

Investigative findings show the physical dimensions of Trayvon Benjamin Martin, and that of George Michael Zimmerman, coupled with the absence of any specialized training !n hand to hand combat between either combatant, did not place George Michael Zimmerman In an extraordinary or exceptional disadvantage of apparent physical ability or defensive capacity.

Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him, during which neither a deadly weapon nor deadly force was deployed by Trayvon Martin.

The encounter between George Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin was ultimately avoidable by Zimmerman, if Zimmerman had remained In his vehicle and awaited the arrival of law enforcement, or conversely If he had Identified himself to Martin as a concerned citizen and initiated dialog in an effort to dispel each party's concern.

There is no Indication that Martin was involved In any criminal activity at the time of the encounter.

Zimmerman, by his statements made to the call taker and recorded for review, and his statements made to investigators following the shooting death of Martin, make it clear that he had already reached a faulty conclusion as to Martin's purpose for being in the neighborhood.

 

[Dan O.]

False claim (2 of 3) "He [Trayvon] tried to buy something that required ID."

This claim is not totally unsupported. There is this statement subsequently provided as supporting evidence:

"the clerk looking over his shoulder at the tobacco products"​

In the video from the camera to the cashier's front left, at time 18:23:13, the cashier makes a motion with his right hand over his right shoulder. he does not look back.

http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-7-11-surveillance-video-night-shooting/

• Gesture over shoulder at index 00:00:09 (camera time 18:23:13)
• Slow motion from camera over cashier's right shoulder at index 00:01:53

The supporting statement is itself a false claim.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, Osterman was just repeating something Zimmerman told him. Your claim was that zimmerman never said he was hit multiple times.

That's because in his statement to the police he did not make that claim.

That Zimmerman tells different versions of his story isn't my fault. If I state that Zimmerman didn’t claim Martin roundhouse kicked him in the back of the head based on his earlier statements, and then yet another version surfaces in which he does claim that, that’s more about Zimmerman embellishing his story than it is about me being wrong.

Osterman repeating that GZ told him he was hit multiple times is direct evidence GZ claimed to have been hit multiple times.

It doesn't prove GZ was hit multiple times, but that wasn't the question, was it ? You have been claiming GZ never claimed to have been hit multiple times.

Again, based on his statement to the police, it was a factual claim. Fortunately for those committed to believing Zimmerman, he has offered multiple versions so one can pick and choose which version to cite depending on which particular detail you want to believe.

And this isn't a court of law - I would have to go search, but I believe you have made that same point earlier in this thread about legal standards and this being just an Internet forum - So I can use hearsay as evidence to come to my own conclusions if it seems reasonable for me to do so.

It does not seem reasonable to believe hearsay. But you go ahead and do it anyway.

The real question should be how many significantly different versions of one event should it take. And I haven't heard any significantly different versions.

I guess it comes down to how we each define “significant”. I think someone being punched to the point they thought their head was going to explode is a fairly significant detail in an assault. And one that wouldn’t simply slip their mind when recounting that assault.

But you apparently disagree. However, I’m quite certain you don’t think the punching itself is insignificant. I’m willing to bet you find the repeated punching Zimmerman claims to have suffered (at least in one version) to be very significant. The only time it becomes insignificant is when Zimmerman forgets to mention it. Then it’s just a minor detail.

I don't have a problem with a written statement being a shorter version with fewer details than the version told to an investigator in person. And I think it's been covered in this thread before that memory is not 100% reliable, details will change over the course of tellings, etc.

Yes, that has been covered. Remind me again, is it the initial version that is supposed to be the most reliable, or is it the subsequent versions?

Because I seem to recall claims being made that Witness 6’s initial version of events (in which he says Martin was punching Zimmerman “MMA-style”) was deemed more reliable that his later version (in which he says he actually can’t be sure if Martin was hitting Zimmerman or merely restraining him).

So which is it? The initial version or the later version that is most reliable?

I don't find thatt GZ didn't mention being hit multiple times in his statement to be a problem. There are *many* details he didn't mention in that short written narrative.

Are there any other events in the chronology of the assault that he didn’t mention? He certainly recalls what Martin supposedly said to him. He’s pretty clear on that particular detail. And yet repeatedly getting punched in the face completely slipped his mind.

Didn't you already answer this question above ? You've already acknowledged that Zimmerman was probably being untruthful in at least one detail of his account.

The question shouldn't be whether I believe every word he says, but rather whether his narrative as a whole is believable,which I find it to be, and whether there is evidence to contradict his story, which I don't find there to be.

And so the fact that he embellishes details isn’t a problem. Details that cast Martin in the role of a murderous thug bent on killing Zimmerman, which you admit doesn’t seem plausible.

Based on that same penchant for implausible embellishment, how can you be sure Zimmerman didn’t initiate the altercation? How do you know he didn’t assault or threaten Martin in some manner that gave Martin justification to defend himself?

Zimmerman has weaved an ever-changing tale in which he was the innocent victim of a brutal assault by a homicidal attacker. We are in agreement – to varying degrees – that Zimmerman embellished that account in order to bolster his self-defense claim.

So how can you know when the embellishment stops and the truth begins?

The statements of people actually on the scene with GZ that evening disagree with your assessment. So it's really probably more of a problem for you - because I don't see any difficulty of MOM getting people up on the stand to testify that when they saw GZ that night he looked like he had been beaten.

Do you honestly think that’s how it works? The defense attorney just puts laypeople on the stand to ask them if they thought it looked someone had been beaten? I’m pretty sure medical professionals will be called to testify as to the nature and cause of Zimmerman’s injuries as opposed to random people who are just asked to take a guess.

And as a matter of fact, the medical professionals have already weighed in. Their reports indicated Zimmerman had one significant injury on his face: A broken nose. Which can be attributed to the one punch we know Martin delivered. Other than that there are just minor abrasions, and of course one tiny abrasion on Martin’s otherwise pristine hands.

But hey, someone on the scene might think it looked like Zimmerman was beaten up, so that’s proof positive Martin repeatedly punched him in the face! Case closed!

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This claim is not totally unsupported. There is this statement subsequently provided as supporting evidence:

"the clerk looking over his shoulder at the tobacco products"​

In the video from the camera to the cashier's front left, at time 18:23:13, the cashier makes a motion with his right hand over his right shoulder. he does not look back.

http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-7-11-surveillance-video-night-shooting/

• Gesture over shoulder at index 00:00:09 (camera time 18:23:13)
• Slow motion from camera over cashier's right shoulder at index 00:01:53

The supporting statement is itself a false claim.

You are correct. I was wrong, the clerk didn't look back over his shoulder, but just gestured with his hand.

Is that proof TM didn't attempt or ask about purchasing a cigar ( or something similar) ? I wonder why TM carried a lighter...

 

[Dan O.]

You are correct. I was wrong, the clerk didn't look back over his shoulder, but just gestured with his hand.

Is that proof TM didn't attempt or ask about purchasing a cigar ( or something similar) ? I wonder why TM carried a lighter...

It is your claim that Trayvon attempted to purchase something that required an ID. Are you trying to reverse the burden of proof?

And about that gesture, it's more of a gesture at his shoulder. Did you look at the slowed down version from the back camera?

 

[Mumbles]

OK, the clerk looking over his shoulder at the tobacco products, and then the three guys who followed after TM at the store buying black and milds, and TM having a lighter in his pocket, and taking 40 minutes to walk home a half mile ... none of that could possibly be related. OK then.

It's time to step your game up.

First, if the store clerk would refuse to sell Martin some tobacco product from behind the counter, why would he then watch as Martin negotiated with "the three guys", Martin hand them over money, them walk in asking for tobacco products, and then walk out and hand these product to Martin, without objection? Store clerks aren't idiots.

Also, why were there no tobacco products found on Martin?

And having answered those tow, what does any of this have to do with Martin fighting Zimmerman behind some houses?

Of course it takes him 3 times as long as it should ? Why of course ?

You're responding to your own quote. If you wish to have us view it as "suspicious", then it's on you to explain why a high-school kid who was dawdling while on the phone with a girl is shocking.

Good luck!

So, in summary, you have no evidence to refute GZ claim he was acting suspiciously.

Again, The evidence to refute George Zimmerman's claim that Martin was "acting suspiciously", is Zimmerman's description of Martin's behavior. Zimmerman's stated reason for finding Martin "suspicious" was that Martin was looking around as he walked down the street, and that simply is not suspicious behavior, and thus Zimmerman had no reason to treat him with suspicion.

What you don't seem to understand is that you have nothing on this fact. It doesn't even matter if Martin was casing houses a mere minute before Zimmerman first spotted him, because Zimmerman had no evidence of this, much like you have no evidence. Zimmerman, by his own word both before and after he shot Martin, did not see Martin doing anything that a reasonable person would find suspicious. And because of this, Zimmerman had no reason to pull over and call the police, and no reason to get out of his car and run after Martin.

Again, we have not seen the actual toxicology report. Perhaps there is more information on there.

It seems both unlikely, and, unless they come up with something like bath salts, irrelevant.

Talking on the phone generally implies listening as well - a rather quiet activity. Lots of 'perhaps' - no actual reason why he didn't just go home.

That's mostly because my speculation doesn't matter much. There's no real reason why Zimmerman didn't run home, either, so why bother with these pointless statements?

He thought TM was suspicious because he is reckless and dumb? And of course, TM who was suspended from school 3 times, smoked pot, had unaccounted for items and what was referred to as a burglary tool in his backpack, he is the model of smart and sensible behavioral ?

Another pointless statement. Even if you are correct about Martin, it has nothing to do with why Zimmerman decided that he needed to chase Martin around at night.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

I have no idea why you would disagree. Do you think that anyone nearby you who reaches into their pocket is a thug, or do you think that a guy who comes dashing after you, on a street, at nighttime, should be treated as a friend?

Regardless, I see what I wrote as basic, common sense.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's because in his statement to the police he did not make that claim.
That Zimmerman tells different versions of his story isn't my fault. If I state that Zimmerman didn’t claim Martin roundhouse kicked him in the back of the head based on his earlier statements, and then yet another version surfaces in which he does claim that, that’s more about Zimmerman embellishing his story than it is about me being wrong.

Again, based on his statement to the police, it was a factual claim. Fortunately for those committed to believing Zimmerman, he has offered multiple versions so one can pick and choose which version to cite depending on which particular detail you want to believe.

He made a written statement and verbal statements. If you want to believe the differences are solely about embellishing, fine.

I guess it comes down to how we each define “significant”. I think someone being punched to the point they thought their head was going to explode is a fairly significant detail in an assault. And one that wouldn’t simply slip their mind when recounting that assault.

But you apparently disagree. However, I’m quite certain you don’t think the punching itself is insignificant. I’m willing to bet you find the repeated punching Zimmerman claims to have suffered (at least in one version) to be very significant. The only time it becomes insignificant is when Zimmerman forgets to mention it. Then it’s just a minor detail.

Actually, I don't find his being punched to be as significant as whether he felt in grave danger when TM was hitting his head into the sidewalk. That would be the more important point to using deadly force to stop TM, wouldn't it ?

Yes, that has been covered. Remind me again, is it the initial version that is supposed to be the most reliable, or is it the subsequent versions?

The written and oral versions are basically contemporaneous. So if he mentioned details in the oral version, I would think that it would be equally reliable to the written version.

Because I seem to recall claims being made that Witness 6’s initial version of events (in which he says Martin was punching Zimmerman “MMA-style”) was deemed more reliable that his later version (in which he says he actually can’t be sure if Martin was hitting Zimmerman or merely restraining him).

I'm responsible to explain all the claims you recall ?

So which is it? The initial version or the later version that is most reliable?

I don't know, you tell me.

Are there any other events in the chronology of the assault that he didn’t mention? He certainly recalls what Martin supposedly said to him. He’s pretty clear on that particular detail. And yet repeatedly getting punched in the face completely slipped his mind.

Yes, the whole flashlight thing.

And so the fact that he embellishes details isn’t a problem. Details that cast Martin in the role of a murderous thug bent on killing Zimmerman, which you admit doesn’t seem plausible.

Based on that same penchant for implausible embellishment, how can you be sure Zimmerman didn’t initiate the altercation? How do you know he didn’t assault or threaten Martin in some manner that gave Martin justification to defend himself?

Zimmerman has weaved an ever-changing tale in which he was the innocent victim of a brutal assault by a homicidal attacker. We are in agreement – to varying degrees – that Zimmerman embellished that account in order to bolster his self-defense claim.

So how can you know when the embellishment stops and the truth begins?

That's the crux of it, isn't it ? I don't know. You don't know. It seems we will never know.

You have a perception of the events that differs from my perception based on a shared set of facts.

Based on my understanding of the law (which is probably not very good) and my understanding of the evidence, I don't think GZ can be found guilty. It may be that he is completely at fault, but I don't think it can be proven, or even shown to be likely from the evidence.

Do you honestly think that’s how it works? The defense attorney just puts laypeople on the stand to ask them if they thought it looked someone had been beaten? I’m pretty sure medical professionals will be called to testify as to the nature and cause of Zimmerman’s injuries as opposed to random people who are just asked to take a guess.

No, that's no how I think it works. I think MOM will submit into evidence the fact that:
"Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him."

and for some deja vu
witness 13
Zimmerman: "Ah, man this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him."
Officer Smith:
Zimmermnn nppeared to hAve a broken and bloody nose and swelling of his face
Officer Ayala:
Zimmerman was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head
Officer Serino:
On 3/9/20121 received a fax f rom Altamonte Family Practice, which contained the medical records identifying the Injur ies sustained by Zimmerman on the evening of 2/2612012. Said medical reoords l ist Zimmerman's
injur ies as;
1. Open wound of scalp, wi thout mention of complication
2. Nasal bones, closed fractUre
3. Assaul t by other specI f ied means

All of this does not prove he did not fall down and injure himself.I think, when presented to a jury, it will provide sufficient evidence for his claim he was getting beaten up.

And as a matter of fact, the medical professionals have already weighed in. Their reports indicated Zimmerman had one significant injury on his face: A broken nose. Which can be attributed to the one punch we know Martin delivered. Other than that there are just minor abrasions, and of course one tiny abrasion on Martin’s otherwise pristine hands.

Well then, they'll have some explaining to do as to why his injuries are consistent with a life threatening violent episode, won't they ?

But hey, someone on the scene might think it looked like Zimmerman was beaten up, so that’s proof positive Martin repeatedly punched him in the face! Case closed!

Your sarcasm is amusing, but misplaced.

 

[leftysergeant]

Well then, they'll have some explaining to do as to why his injuries are consistent with a life threatening violent episode, won't they ?

No, because they are not consistant with an assault by an unarmed person, or with having his head banged on the pavement. They are consistant with his having run into a tree, and having inflicted an injury on himself with his gun to sell the story that he was assaulted.

 

[johnny karate]

He made a written statement and verbal statements. If you want to believe the differences are solely about embellishing, fine.

Zimmerman added details that made the altercation more dramatic. That’s pretty much the definition of “embellishing”.

Actually, I don't find his being punched to be as significant as whether he felt in grave danger when TM was hitting his head into the sidewalk. That would be the more important point to using deadly force to stop TM, wouldn't it ?

Sure it would. And there’s just as much corroborating evidence to support that claim as well. Which is to say, none.

The written and oral versions are basically contemporaneous. So if he mentioned details in the oral version, I would think that it would be equally reliable to the written version.

The oral version you cited was from the next day, or whenever it was Zimmerman was called back in by the police. Plenty of time for Zimmerman to consider his predicament, confer with his wife, and decide to spice up his story a little bit.

That's the crux of it, isn't it ? I don't know. You don't know. It seems we will never know.

You have a perception of the events that differs from my perception based on a shared set of facts.

Based on my understanding of the law (which is probably not very good) and my understanding of the evidence, I don't think GZ can be found guilty. It may be that he is completely at fault, but I don't think it can be proven, or even shown to be likely from the evidence.

I don’t really disagree with any of that. As far as Zimmerman being acquitted, it’s a wait-and-see situation for me. Sure, we’ve seen most of the evidence, but trials are more than just a presentation of evidence. If they were, we wouldn’t need trials. None of us know how the prosecution is going to make their case, and the assertions of self-proclaimed legal experts (I’m not referring to you) are not particularly compelling to me.

No, that's no how I think it works. I think MOM will submit into evidence the fact that:

"Investigative findings show the physical injuries displayed by George Michael Zimmerman are marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode as described by him."

Well, you’re presenting that statement as if it’s some ironclad conclusion reached as a result of the investigation, as opposed to simply one of many statements made in the report, some of which with I’m sure you wouldn’t agree.

For starters, consider the definition of the word “marginally”, and then ask yourself what size margin of error that includes.

Secondly, the statement was made by a non-medical professional. That might widen the margin of error just a bit.

Ultimately, that statement is useless in deriving anything conclusive regarding either the nature or cause of Zimmerman’s injuries.

and for some deja vu

witness 13
Zimmerman: "Ah, man this guy he was beating up on me so I had to shoot him."
Officer Smith:
Zimmermnn nppeared to hAve a broken and bloody nose and swelling of his face

The broken and bloody nose is not being contested. And “swelling of his face” is pretty vague. Is it referring to the swelling the might have resulted from Zimmerman’s broken nose? We don’t know, and I doubt the officer without medical training is in a position to tell us.

Officer Ayala:

Zimmerman was also bleeding from his nose and the back of his head

Again, not in question.

Officer Serino:

On 3/9/20121 received a fax f rom Altamonte Family Practice, which contained the medical records identifying the Injur ies sustained by Zimmerman on the evening of 2/2612012. Said medical reoords l ist Zimmerman's
injur ies as;
1. Open wound of scalp, wi thout mention of complication
2. Nasal bones, closed fractUre
3. Assaul t by other specI f ied means

Yeah… “assault” isn’t an injury, so I have no idea what it’s doing on that list. It’s also a fairly generic term. How severe was the assault? In that particular context, we have no idea.

All of this does not prove he did not fall down and injure himself.I think, when presented to a jury, it will provide sufficient evidence for his claim he was getting beaten up.

Except you seem to be under the misapprehension that none of this information will be challenged or refuted by the prosecution. Of course it will be.

It’s consists mainly of vague generalizations offered by non-medical professionals. If I can pick it apart in the casual environment of an internet forum, a skilled prosecutor will be able to completely shred it during trial.

Well then, they'll have some explaining to do as to why his injuries are consistent with a life threatening violent episode, won't they ?

No, not really. All they’ll have to counter is the opinion of someone without medical training who stated Zimmerman’s injuries were marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode. Do you honestly not think they can put a doctor on the stand to do that?

 

[leftysergeant]

The broken and bloody nose is not being contested. And “swelling of his face” is pretty vague. Is it referring to the swelling the might have resulted from Zimmerman’s broken nose? We don’t know, and I doubt the officer without medical training is in a position to tell us.

The "swelling of his face is not supported by physical evidence or photographs over several years. Dummy always did have a slightly puffy face. The most damning fact is that no tests beyond casual observation confirmed that his nose was actually broken. There is no bruising of any sort away from the owie on the side of his nose. That owie and the other scratches, all aligned with the same axis, are the only injuries that can positively be proven to have occurred prior to his firing his weapon, based on the coagulation of blood on his mustache. Note, however, that the blood shows no signs of coagulation on the back of his head, thus making it impossible to establish a time frame for when those lacerations occurred.

No, not really. All they’ll have to counter is the opinion of someone without medical training who stated Zimmerman’s injuries were marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode. Do you honestly not think they can put a doctor on the stand to do that?

They are, however, entirely consistant with two alternate theories, specificly, that he ran into a tree and that he inflicted the injuries to the back of his own head with his gun immediately after realizing that he had just murdered an unarmed kid and was in deep doo-doo if he could not come up[ with some really horrendous story about how the kid had whumped on him.

He also had time between the first interview and any following to consult with a corrupt former cop who had acted as his mentor in other matters. Some of the embellishments may have originated with Osterman.

 

[Dan O.]

False claim (3 / 3) TM took 40 minutes to walk half a mile.

Store video time of Trayvon leaving 18:24 till Zimmerman's call to SPD 19:09 would be 45 minutes. But there is a problem in that you are comparing the times on two different clocks and there is nothing to assert that the clocks are synchronized.

There is a document that shows the police had acquired the surveillance video by late march:

Zimmerman-documents.pdf page 70
2012-03-29 (SA) Dale Crosby conducted a recorded, sworn interview with [store clerk]
stated that he did not remember Martin being in the store.
was shown a video of Martim at the counter
stated he did not remember his interaction with Martin.
​

But this does not cover the actual acquisition of the video or the verification of the camera's time.

If there were a common event measured by both clocks, that would help establish the synchronization. Looking at the video again:

http://axiomamnesia.com/2012/05/18/trayvon-martin-7-11-surveillance-video-night-shooting/

While the cashier is counting the change, trayvon makes moves that could be reaching for the controls on his phone and in the audio is heard what sounds like "hello, hello". TM's left hand is in his pocket viewed from back right camera. (time: 18:23:57)

And also from the prosecutions documents:

Zimmerman-documents.pdf page 36
2012-04-02 T.C. O'Steen Interview with dee-dee in Miami
"… had talked with him on the cell phone several times on the date of the incident." "The Victim left the store and the phone disconnected. She then called back and the Victim was walking and said it was starting to rain."
​

This seems to establish that there was an event that could be timed by both the store video clock and the clock of trayvon's phone provider. But if we assume that the clocks are synchronized, the times do not line up:

11:13 Hollywood text
11:15 North Dade text
11:18 North Dade text
13:30 Miami text
14:20 - 14:23	Incoming 3
14:38 - 16:21	Incoming 103
14:45 - 14:47	Incoming 2
15:02 - 15:04	Incoming 2
15:04 - 15:07	Incoming 3
16:08 North Dade text
16:28 - 17:09	North Dade Incoming 41
17:09 - 18:30	North Dade Incoming 81
[B]18:23:57 -- Call disconnected while Trayvon is at checkout
[/B]18:30 - 18:43	North Dade Incoming 13
18:41 - 18:45	Incoming 4
18:45 - 18:50	North Dade Incoming 5
18:46 - 18:48	North Dade Incoming 2
18:49 - 18:53	Incoming 4
18:53 - 18:54	North Dade Incoming 1
18:54 - 18:55	North Dade Incoming 1
18:54 - 19:12	Incoming 18
19:04 - 19:05	Incoming 1
19:09:34 -- George Zimmerman calls the Sanford Police Department (SPD) from his truck
19:11:33 -- Zimmerman tells the police dispatcher that Trayvon Martin is running.
19:12 - 19:16	Incoming 4
19:16:55 -- Gunshot heard on 911 call

So, not only is there no evidence presented that the clocks between the store video and the police dispatcher are synchronized, there is evidence that indicates that they are not. Until these clocks can be corrected, comparing times between them is meaningless.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Store video time of Trayvon leaving 18:24 till Zimmerman's call to SPD 19:09 would be 45 minutes. But there is a problem in that you are comparing the times on two different clocks and there is nothing to assert that the clocks are synchronized.
<snip>
So, not only is there no evidence presented that the clocks between the store video and the police dispatcher are synchronized, there is evidence that indicates that they are not. Until these clocks can be corrected, comparing times between them is meaningless.

The hilited word ... I do not think it means what you think it means ...

Circumstantial evidence shows that it took TM approximately 45 minutes to walk a half mile. Which is approximately 3 times longer than it would take an average person at normal walking speed.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I don’t really disagree with any of that. As far as Zimmerman being acquitted, it’s a wait-and-see situation for me. Sure, we’ve seen most of the evidence, but trials are more than just a presentation of evidence. If they were, we wouldn’t need trials. None of us know how the prosecution is going to make their case, and the assertions of self-proclaimed legal experts (I’m not referring to you) are not particularly compelling to me.

I agree, and we obviously differ on interpretation of evidence, and the presentation of it to jurors will likely be important in how they interpret it.

Well, you’re presenting that statement as if it’s some ironclad conclusion reached as a result of the investigation, as opposed to simply one of many statements made in the report, some of which with I’m sure you wouldn’t agree.

Although you are trying to diminish it as 'simply one of many statements' it clearly is a conclusion reached from the investigation. So when the State who is prosecuting GZ finds that his injuries are consistent (however marginally) with his story, I find that to be powerful evidence for the defense, because it is an admission that is not in their ('the States') best interest to make.

For starters, consider the definition of the word “marginally”, and then ask yourself what size margin of error that includes.

Secondly, the statement was made by a non-medical professional. That might widen the margin of error just a bit.

Ultimately, that statement is useless in deriving anything conclusive regarding either the nature or cause of Zimmerman’s injuries.

You're points are all valid. But the state still has the burden to prove (or convince the jury) that things didn't go down like GZ said. And admitting his injuries are consistent with his story don't help them.

The broken and bloody nose is not being contested. And “swelling of his face” is pretty vague. Is it referring to the swelling the might have resulted from Zimmerman’s broken nose? We don’t know, and I doubt the officer without medical training is in a position to tell us.
Again, not in question.

Yeah… “assault” isn’t an injury, so I have no idea what it’s doing on that list. It’s also a fairly generic term. How severe was the assault? In that particular context, we have no idea.

I was just pasting my original assertion based on the info we had at the time, I don't think it will be difficult for the defense to find witnesses to testify GZ looked beaten up.

Except you seem to be under the misapprehension that none of this information will be challenged or refuted by the prosecution. Of course it will be. It’s consists mainly of vague generalizations offered by non-medical professionals. If I can pick it apart in the casual environment of an internet forum, a skilled prosecutor will be able to completely shred it during trial.

Yeah, but BDLR is no Johnny Karate.

No, not really. All they’ll have to counter is the opinion of someone without medical training who stated Zimmerman’s injuries were marginally consistent with a life-threatening violent episode. Do you honestly not think they can put a doctor on the stand to do that? [/FONT][/COLOR]

I'm sure they can put a random doctor on the stand, one who didn't examine GZ at the time, and get him to say whatever they want. Is that more compelling than the investigators conclusion his injuries are consistent ? Is that going to be more compelling than the EMTs and officer on the scene testimony ? I doubt it.

 

[johnny karate]

Although you are trying to diminish it as 'simply one of many statements' it clearly is a conclusion reached from the investigation. So when the State who is prosecuting GZ finds that his injuries are consistent (however marginally) with his story, I find that to be powerful evidence for the defense, because it is an admission that is not in their ('the States') best interest to make.

It only matters if it's factual. And in the realm of fact, the opinion of a non-medical professional - no matter whose side he's on - carries little weight regarding medical matters.

I'll put it to you this way: Had Serino reached the opposite conclusion, would you consider that to be the final word on the issue? Or would you maybe be more interested to hear what a medical profession had to say about it?

You're points are all valid. But the state still has the burden to prove (or convince the jury) that things didn't go down like GZ said.

I don't think the prosecution will have a difficult time taking Zimmerman's story apart. But will painting Zimmerman as a liar be enough to overcome their burden? Only time will tell.

And admitting his injuries are consistent with his story don't help them.

Well, "the state" didn't "admit" that. One police investigator opined it. And the state loses no ground in determining that that particular opinion was in error.

I was just pasting my original assertion based on the info we had at the time, I don't think it will be difficult for the defense to find witnesses to testify GZ looked beaten up.

And I would submit that "looked beaten up" is vague to the point of meaninglessness. Zimmerman describes an assault very specific in nature. He needs to have injuries commensurate with the assault he described. That he might have looked "beaten up" tells us nothing.

Yeah, but BDLR is no Johnny Karate.

I'm sure they can put a random doctor on the stand, one who didn't examine GZ at the time, and get him to say whatever they want. Is that more compelling than the investigators conclusion his injuries are consistent ? Is that going to be more compelling than the EMTs and officer on the scene testimony ? I doubt it.

Is a doctor's testimony more compelling than a non-medical professional regarding medical matters? Of course it is. And I don't think any of the EMT's made statements that support the aspect of Zimmerman's story we've been discussing (i.e. the claim of being repeatedly punched).

And yes, if the prosecution puts some shyster on the stand, it probably won't sway the jury. But a doctor who offers an informed opinion after examining the medical records and photos of Zimmerman taken after the altercation just might.

 

[Dan O.]

The hilited word ... I do not think it means what you think it means ...

Circumstantial evidence shows that it took TM approximately 45 minutes to walk a half mile. Which is approximately 3 times longer than it would take an average person at normal walking speed.

What circumstantial evidence? The evidence you didn't even provided has been demolished. If you have something else you need to produce it. Otherwise, what you are doing is spamming false facts.

BTW, "meaningless" as in having no meaning as in BS.