Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/docum...o_continue.pdf
As an illustrative example, while the analysis includes GPS records for Mr. Martins phone for all of the time he was in the Sanford area, specifically absent is any such data for February 26, 2012, the date of the event.
10. Similarly, there seems to be missing entries regarding phone calls made to the phone or texts made to or from the phone in the evening hours of February 26, 2012.

If they thought the GPS data was important, why would they phrase it as "an illustrative example" instead of filing a specific request for an order for that GPS data to be provided? Either (a) they know it doesn't exist and are just grandstanding, or (b) they don't care about the GPS data and just wanted the continuance.

BTW, that last link appears broken to me.

 

[Unabogie]

Just out of curiosity, is there anything pro-Zimmerman you don't uncritically accept as a fact?

That's why I am finding Shellie Zimmerman's perjury charges so fascinating.

To me it's a very handy barometer of how willing someone is to just accept what the Zimmermans say no matter what. If a person can't admit that what Shellie did was one of the clearest cases of lying under oath since oaths were invented, then certainly when the state presents its case and demonstrates how George lied to the police and how forensics proves his story impossible, we'll be treated to the same kind of spin about how George merely misspoke and we can't divine how in his mind he was telling the truth, even if his words look like lies.

I mean, just because he said he took one punch and went down to the ground, where he stayed, all the while taking a beating from a ghetto talking thug whom he outweighed by 50 pounds, that does not in any way preclude them moving 40 feet to the south where the body was found.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If they thought the GPS data was important, why would they phrase it as "an illustrative example" instead of filing a specific request for an order for that GPS data to be provided? Either (a) they know it doesn't exist and are just grandstanding, or (b) they don't care about the GPS data and just wanted the continuance.

BTW, that last link appears broken to me.

Sorry, the link is broken becuase I cut and paste from a previous post.
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf

Or C) They did:
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/motion_for_specific_disc.pdf
#3: reagrding the particulrs of the cell phone analysis done in california

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That's why I am finding Shellie Zimmerman's perjury charges so fascinating.

To me it's a very handy barometer of how willing someone is to just accept what the Zimmermans say no matter what. If a person can't admit that what Shellie did was one of the clearest cases of lying under oath since oaths were invented, then certainly when the state presents its case and demonstrates how George lied to the police and how forensics proves his story impossible, we'll be treated to the same kind of spin about how George merely misspoke and we can't divine how in his mind he was telling the truth, even if his words look like lies.

I mean, just because he said he took one punch and went down to the ground, where he stayed, all the while taking a beating from a ghetto talking thug whom he outweighed by 50 pounds, that does not in any way preclude them moving 40 feet to the south where the body was found.

Briefly, what I hope you would keep in mind is something I posted in response to JK a while back:

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.

Same goes for Shellie Zimmerman. I know they were transferring money between accounts, etc.

I don't think that there is enough evidence to find SZ is guilty of perjury.

JK thinks the laws on perjury don't allow "hair-splitting semantic trickery" to escape conviction - I think they do. It is far,far, away from "the clearest cases of lying under oath since oaths were invented,"

 

[Newtons Bit]

JK thinks the laws on perjury don't allow "hair-splitting semantic trickery" to escape conviction - I think they do.

The law is intentionally designed to allow this sort of thing: the technicalities matter. I don't understand why people don't get that.

 

[Unabogie]

Sorry, the link is broken becuase I cut and paste from a previous post.
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/defendants_motion_to_continue.pdf

Or C) They did:
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0113/motion_for_specific_disc.pdf
#3: reagrding the particulrs of the cell phone analysis done in california

They asked for phone analysis, of which at that time they had no knowledge. That's not the same as the GPS data is it? Particularly your claim that there's some specific day being withheld from the defense. You're alleging that there's data that the state has that they won't give to O'Mara.

In fact, in the motion to continue, O'Mara specifically says that the state has not violated any rule with regards to discovery, just that their "formal" adherence is slow so they need to continue.

 

[Unabogie]

Briefly, what I hope you would keep in mind is something I posted in response to JK a while back:

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.

Same goes for Shellie Zimmerman. I know they were transferring money between accounts, etc.

I don't think that there is enough evidence to find SZ is guilty of perjury.

JK thinks the laws on perjury don't allow "hair-splitting semantic trickery" to escape conviction - I think they do. It is far,far, away from "the clearest cases of lying under oath since oaths were invented,"

You're being very slippery here. I'm pointing out how Shellie lied in an obvious and provable way. It's not rational for a person to deny this. What she said was objectively false and anyone not invested in George's defense would see that. My point above is that if a person can't admit something so obvious as being untrue, that when George is tried, the same cognitive dissonance will declare that any obvious lies on his part are also not obvious lies. The state will show to the jury that George lied in material ways about what happened that night, but no matter what they show, George's supporters will deny that they are lies, just as they deny that Shellie lied.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

They asked for phone analysis, of which at that time they had no knowledge. That's not the same as the GPS data is it?

Yes, it is. They asked for the particulars of the analysis - that would include all the GPS data that came form that analysis.

I don't understand why you don't want to know about the GPS data. That could potentially confirm or deny whether TM circled the car, where he was at a specific time that we could match to the NEN call, whether he went back to Brandy Greens house before returning to the Tee ... it could answer a lot of questions

Particularly your claim that there's some specific day being withheld from the defense. You're alleging that there's data that the state has that they won't give to O'Mara.

That's not my claim, that's MOMs claim and allegation. If you think he is lying about it, that's your prerogative.

In fact, in the motion to continue, O'Mara specifically says that the state has not violated any rule with regards to discovery, just that their "formal" adherence is slow so they need to continue.

I don't have it memorized, but OK, I don't find it hard to believe. He has to work within that judicial system and those people in the future, it does not behoove him to antagonize them. That includes the remark about Judge Nelson he made, at least in my interpretation.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You're being very slippery here. I'm pointing out how Shellie lied in an obvious and provable way. It's not rational for a person to deny this. What she said was objectively false and anyone not invested in George's defense would see that. My point above is that if a person can't admit something so obvious as being untrue, that when George is tried, the same cognitive dissonance will declare that any obvious lies on his part are also not obvious lies. The state will show to the jury that George lied in material ways about what happened that night, but no matter what they show, George's supporters will deny that they are lies, just as they deny that Shellie lied.

I don't see them as analogous scenarios, as you do.

What she said may be objectively false, but in the context of the questions and answer, she may have given what she believed to be a truthful answer. Which would make it not perjury, and difficult to prove as perjury. I've explained my reasoning, and don't feel the need to continue to do so ad nauseum.

 

[Unabogie]

Yes, it is. They asked for the particulars of the analysis - that would include all the GPS data that came form that analysis.

I don't understand why you don't want to know about the GPS data. That could potentially confirm or deny whether TM circled the car, where he was at a specific time that we could match to the NEN call, whether he went back to Brandy Greens house before returning to the Tee ... it could answer a lot of questions

You think the GPS data in your phone is accurate enough to tell you that information? That's ridiculous. You'd have to know where George was with his car at the time, have to have collected that information down to the foot, and then you'd have to show the points in an accurate circle based on milliseconds. In 3d space. And since Shellie moved the car, you've got no way of even knowing where his car was. Sorry, but no dice. I work with game programming. That's a lot of data you think your phone is collecting about your physical location.

That's not my claim, that's MOMs claim and allegation. If you think he is lying about it, that's your prerogative.

I think he's being self serving. You're the one who takes everything the defense says as fact.

I don't have it memorized, but OK, I don't find it hard to believe. He has to work within that judicial system and those people in the future, it does not behoove him to antagonize them. That includes the remark about Judge Nelson he made, at least in my interpretation.

Except that you assume he was digging at the judge for no reason, but when faced with willful breaking of the Harris rule with regards to discovery, he's being deferential about some key piece of evidence? Come on.

Seriously, you can't tell if someone "circled a car" based on their phone records.

 

[Unabogie]

I don't see them as analogous scenarios, as you do.

What she said may be objectively false, but in the context of the questions and answer, she may have given what she believed to be a truthful answer. Which would make it not perjury, and difficult to prove as perjury. I've explained my reasoning, and don't feel the need to continue to do so ad nauseum.

I'm not talking about perjury. I'm talking about what you just did, yet again, which is making excuses and rationalizations for every lie these people tell. Since you can't admit, even now, that she lied to the court, then when the state shows all the ways in which George lied, you'll find excuses and rationalizations for those as well. That's why I called Shellie's perjury case such a good barometer of cognitive dissonance.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You think the GPS data in your phone is accurate enough to tell you that information? That's ridiculous

To tell me my accurate location at a particular time ? Sure. I know that the T-mobile comet can do that.

You'd have to know where George was with his car at the time, have to have collected that information down to the foot, and then you'd have to show the points in an accurate circle based on milliseconds. In 3d space. And since Shellie moved the car, you've got no way of even knowing where his car was. Sorry, but no dice.

I said potentially. It may or may not answer some or none of those questions. We won't know until we know what data exists.

I work with game programming. That's a lot of data you think your phone is collecting about your physical location.

I am not making an assumption about how much data exists - just that it exists at all.

I think he's being self serving. [You're the one who takes everything the defense says as fact.

Obviously what he does is probably going to be self serving

However, I think lying is not very self serving for him.

So, aside from self serving - do you think he is lying or not ?

Except that you assume he was digging at the judge for no reason, but when faced with willful breaking of the Harris rule with regards to discovery, he's being deferential about some key piece of evidence? Come on.

There is a difference between 'being deferential' or making a veiled dig, and accusing someone of willfully violating discovery rules, isn't there ?

Seriously, you can't tell if someone "circled a car" based on their phone records.

No, probably not, that wasn't my best example.

 

[Unabogie]

To tell me my accurate location at a particular time ? Sure. I know that the T-mobile comet can do that.

Yes, but it doesn't store those coordinates. You'd be talking terabytes of data being stored every day.

(x, y, z, timestamp) every second or so?

I said potentially. It may or may not answer some or none of those questions. We won't know until we know what data exists.

But we can also tell that points in space don't tell you a path. To specify a path you need points on a curve in sufficient number to show progression. There's no way your cel phone company is storing that data on every customer.

I am not making an assumption about how much data exists - just that it exists at all.

You don't know that there's any data that hasn't been turned over. In the motion to continue, O'Mara admits there is not.

Obviously what he does is probably going to be self serving

Which is why it's foolish to accept it as fact.

There is a difference between 'being deferential' or making a veiled dig, and accusing someone of willfully violating discovery rules, isn't there ?

No, I've followed other cases, and when there's missing discovery, the defense has no qualms about asking for it and moving to secure an order from the judge.

No, probably not, that wasn't my best example.

Then what do you think the GPS data can possibly show that will explain who started the fight and whether or not George chased Trayvon Martin? It seems more relevant to look at George's GPS data to show that HIS path matched. The fact that you don't see any discussion of this is pretty telling, isn't it? You can't tell anything from the scant data your phone keeps about you aside from your general location, which we all know. The case revolves around you believing George's story. If he lied, he'll be convicted. What would Trayvon's general location tell us, since we know he was there because that's where George shot and killed him?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes, but it doesn't store those coordinates. You'd be talking terabytes of data being stored every day.

(x, y, z, timestamp) every second or so?

No, and I never claimed that it stored it every second or so.

But we can also tell that points in space don't tell you a path. To specify a path you need points on a curve in sufficient number to show progression. There's no way your cel phone company is storing that data on every customer.

You don't know that there's any data that hasn't been turned over. In the motion to continue, O'Mara admits there is not.

It's a 15 page doc - can you be more specific where you see this admission ?

Which is why it's foolish to accept it as fact.

Nice dodge ! Lying, or not ?

No, I've followed other cases, and when there's missing discovery, the defense has no qualms about asking for it and moving to secure an order from the judge.

Yes, and that's what he did on the 31st of january.

Then what do you think the GPS data can possibly show that will explain who started the fight and whether or not George chased Trayvon Martin?

C'mon, I didn't make that claim, don't start doing that nonsense.

It seems more relevant to look at George's GPS data to show that HIS path matched. The fact that you don't see any discussion of this is pretty telling, isn't it?

No, because I have seen discussion of it, GZ voluntarily gave the police his phone and they took all the text, emails and GPS data from it. They have had it since last March.

You can't tell anything from the scant data your phone keeps about you aside from your general location, which we all know. The case revolves around you believing George's story. If he lied, he'll be convicted.

If you say so. What is it you think you can prove that he lied about that will make disprove his claim that TM was reaching for his gun and he was afraid of being killed ?

What would Trayvon's general location tell us, since we know he was there because that's where George shot and killed him?

It could potentially tell us if he went to Brandy Greens house, hundreds of feet away, prior to his assaulting GZ. Unless you don't think phone GPS data is that accurate, which I think almost anyone with a smartphone will disagree with.

ETA: it's a bit dishonest to leave out just a few bits of my post that you didn't want to answer and not make that clear.

 

[Unabogie]

No, and I never claimed that it stored it every second or so.

Then you can't recreate a path. End of story.

It's a 15 page doc - can you be more specific where you see this admission ?

On the first or second page. He says the state has not violated any rules. That's an admission that there is no missing evidence, which would violate the Harris rule

Nice dodge ! Lying, or not ?

You're losing me. Lying about what again?

Yes, and that's what he did on the 31st of january.

No, specifically regarding the 26th. That just seems to be a generalized motion.

No, because I have seen discussion of it, GZ voluntarily gave the police his phone and they took all the text, emails and GPS data from it. They have had it since last March.

The data is not stored on your phone, is it? The phone company would have it. Where's that request?

If you say so. What is it you think you can prove that he lied about that will make disprove his claim that TM was reaching for his gun and he was afraid of being killed ?

I've told you this many times. The timeline doesn't match when he claims to have been walking back to his truck. The body is in the wrong spot. He denies ever following Trayvon and claims to have been only looking for an address. He claims Trayvon spoke in ghetto speak.

All of this will crumble at trial.

It could potentially tell us if he went to Brandy Greens house, hundreds of feet away, prior to his assaulting GZ. Unless you don't think phone GPS data is that accurate, which I think almost anyone with a smartphone will disagree with.

There you go, asserting that Trayvon assaulted George. I don't think you've got any evidence for that aside from his own self-serving claims. But you use that as a confirmed fact. Even if he went by his place, it still wouldn't explain everything that's wrong with his tale. For instance, why his timeline doesn't match. Why the body is in the wrong place. It could show that George didn't run down the path looking for an address at all, but instead tried to cut Trayvon off trying to, in George's demented mind, running out the back entrance. They he chased Trayvon the opposite direction which better explains why Trayvon's belongings are south of his body, not north. So again, what do you think the GPS could prove that can't be explained in more than one way?

ETA: it's a bit dishonest to leave out just a few bits of my post that you didn't want to answer and not make that clear.

You type long posts. I don't have time to address everything you write. Feel free to pose a followup question.

 

[Newtons Bit]

Yes, but it doesn't store those coordinates. You'd be talking terabytes of data being stored every day.

(x, y, z, timestamp) every second or so?

You'd need a data structure with the following:
float1 (4 bytes) latitude,
float2 (4 bytes) longitude,

The timestamp could be computed from the location of the GPS in the array. 8 bytes total.

There's 86,400 seconds in a day, necessitating 0.7MB/day. It would take almost 1.5 million days before a terrabyte would be necessary.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Then you can't recreate a path. End of story.

I agree, and you slayed that strawman, unless you want to go back and quote where I claimed you could recreate an exact path ?

That doesn't mean it is end of story and there is no useful data to be had.

On the first or second page. He says the state has not violated any rules.That's an admission that there is no missing evidence, which would violate the Harris rule

#6 says the state has taken a formalistic approach, and that is not in violation of the rules to do that. That's not the same as what you claim above. In fact, in context, MOM says that this formalistic approach means MOM has to file formal dsicovery demands. Which is exactly what he did the next day, 31 January.

Your summary is completely innacurate - whether intentionally or not, I can't tell.

You're losing me. Lying about what again?

Just look upthread a few posts, it was all of earlier today:

Particularly your claim that there's some specific day being withheld from the defense. You're alleging that there's data that the state has that they won't give to O'Mara.

That's MOMs claim. HE claims data is being withheld.

I wanted to know if you think he is lying about the data for every day except the 26th being there - yes or no ?

No, specifically regarding the 26th. That just seems to be a generalized motion.

So the demand for specific discovery is too general for you ?

It is a specific request for all of the data from california , of which MOM states the GPS data for the 26th is absent. It goes back to that whole 'formalistic' thing the state is making MOM do - so he made a formal. If the state doesn't respond to that and provide all the data, there will be problems.

The data is not stored on your phone, is it? The phone company would have it. Where's that request?

There is data stored on your phone, yes. There is also cell phone tower data that the phone company has. 2 different things.

If you thought we were talking about phone company data, then it would be even more bizarre for the state to turn it all over to MOM except for the 26th, wouldn't it ? And you would have to think MOM would be lying about not having it.

I've told you this many times. The timeline doesn't match when he claims to have been walking back to his truck. The body is in the wrong spot. He denies ever following Trayvon and claims to have been only looking for an address. He claims Trayvon spoke in ghetto speak.

All of this will crumble at trial.

So you say. Even if it does, it does not prove GZ was not acting in self defense.

There you go, asserting that Trayvon assaulted George.

I'm just doing the same thing you do in most of your posts.

I don't think you've got any evidence for that aside from his own self-serving claims.

And neither does the state. I seem to recall Lead Investigator Gilbreath stating that under oath, right ?

But you use that as a confirmed fact. Even if he went by his place, it still wouldn't explain everything that's wrong with his tale. For instance, why his timeline doesn't match. Why the body is in the wrong place. It could show that George didn't run down the path looking for an address at all, but instead tried to cut Trayvon off trying to, in George's demented mind, running out the back entrance. They he chased Trayvon the opposite direction which better explains why Trayvon's belongings are south of his body, not north. So again, what do you think the GPS could prove that can't be explained in more than one way?

I already answered that by example:
It may confirm or deny whether TM circled the car, where he was at a specific time that we could match to the NEN call, whether he went back to Brandy Greens house before returning to the Tee to assault GZ

I'm not sure untill I know how much data there is, and what it is. And as you pointed out, the circling the car is unlikely, so that is a bad example.

You type long posts. I don't have time to address everything you write. Feel free to pose a followup question.

You managed to respond to the entire post except two line you omitted:

However, I think lying is not very self serving for him.

So, aside from self serving - do you think he is lying or not ?

 

[Unabogie]

You'd need a data structure with the following:
float1 (4 bytes) latitude,
float2 (4 bytes) longitude,

The timestamp could be computed from the location of the GPS in the array. 8 bytes total.

There's 86,400 seconds in a day, necessitating 0.7MB/day. It would take almost 1.5 million days before a terrabyte would be necessary.

If you based it off the array and you lost packets, then you couldn't rely on each packet to show you a virtual path. But thanks for the math. I was off by a lot if it were every second or so.

By the way, I just looked up to see exactly how often that data is stored. The best I found was this link:

http://www.aclu.org/government-location-tracking-cell-phones-gps-devices-and-license-plate-readers

As long as it is turned on, your mobile phone registers its position with cell towers every few minutes, whether the phone is being used or not – and mobile carriers are retaining location data on their customers.

I was way off on the data being stored, but I was correct that the GPS data from either phone would provide almost zero information relevant to this case. Certainly no data would provide information about "circling cars" or "doubling back".

 

[Newtons Bit]

If you based it off the array and you lost packets, then you couldn't rely on each packet to show you a virtual path. But thanks for the math. I was off by a lot if it were every second or so.

By the way, I just looked up to see exactly how often that data is stored. The best I found was this link:

http://www.aclu.org/government-location-tracking-cell-phones-gps-devices-and-license-plate-readers



I was way off on the data being stored, but I was correct that the GPS data from either phone would provide almost zero information relevant to this case. Certainly no data would provide information about "circling cars" or "doubling back".

It would give some coarse information. That could be useful. It could also be meaningless.

 

[Unabogie]

It would give some coarse information. That could be useful. It could also be meaningless.

But in this case there's no question that both people were there in the general time frame alleged. No one disputes that. There's nothing in those GPS records that would refute or support Zimmerman's claims. It will all depend on his believability on the stand, which is what I've been saying all along.