Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

I'm not sure why you think Zimmerman's self-defense claim hinges on determining who punched who first.

A very good case could be made that Martin punched Zimmerman in self-defense. Aspects of Zimmerman's behavior in his own version of events could be construed as threatening.
The point is, just because Zimmerman was punched first does not mean he then had the right to shoot Martin dead. I'm pretty sure if the altercation were as simple as that, Zimmerman would be going away for a very long time. So, ultimately, that first punch doesn't really matter.

What does matter is the story Zimmerman goes on to tell about how Martin tried to kill him. That is what prompted his alleged self-defense. And that is what is going to have to stand up to scrutiny in court.

Ironically, Z's own story, given on the Hanity show could almost not be more favorable to M if he tried.

I detailed that extensively in several posts, here's one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8840175#post8840175

Also extensively detailed is the correct response to the Z team's damage control of trying to say it was "just" for reaching into his pocket. Which, of course, only requires pointing out how they conveniently leave out all the other circumstances like: being followed, at night, unknown civilian, reaching for the pocket almost immediately after being asked what they are doing [following], etc.

 

[This is The End]

Another article I'm late on from a few days ago, sorry if it was already posted.

Crump filed paperwork on Wed in preparation for the civil suit which will happen if and when Z loses (or does not even have) the self defense hearing in April.

As we remember from the OJ trials of the 90s, the civil trial is much easier to win.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...von-martin-george-zimmerman-young-miami-woman

As the article points out, this is not to be confused with the separate civil case against the homeowners association which they filed in August.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

First you said this:

It sounds to me like the phone's battery suddenly died or became disconnected so the phone wasn't able to write the current buffers to nonvolatile flash.

Which is wrong.

And then you said this:

ETA: given that there are a number of third party GPS tracking apps for the android, it appears that tracking is not an internal function of the android OS. This brings up the possibility that the APP was not running every day.

Which is also wrong.

Now you say:

I don't know if TheL8Elvis really doesn't understand this or if he is just being sarcastic. I see that Android is keeping the same kind of location cache that everybody got so upset about when they discovered it in the iPhone. The reaction is funny because the existence of the cache actually reduces the external tracking of the phone. To appease the complainers, apple caused the caches to expire more rapidly which actually has the opposite effect to what the complainers wanted.

What apple does is completely irrelevant.

So you obviously understand why both your previous statements were wrong, but never acknowledge that.

If this is the GPS data that MOM is complaining about being missing for the 26th, I can tell you exactly why there is no data for the 26th and it doesn't have anything to do with the phone failing to save buffers or anybody deleting anything.

So, let's see if as they say, third time's a charm.

If that is that data MOM is talking about (big if, as we have not been given any context around that data) them please tell us exactly why there is no data for the 26th ?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Ironically, Z's own story, given on the Hanity show could almost not be more favorable to M if he tried.

So wait - now GZ statements are truthful, and should be taken at face value ?

I need to make sure I understand this - If GZ says something possibly helpful to his case, we don't believe him, because it is self serving, but if he says something not helpful, we take him at his word. Is that how this works ?

I detailed that extensively in several posts, here's one:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=8840175#post8840175

Also extensively detailed is the correct response to the Z team's damage control of trying to say it was "just" for reaching into his pocket. Which, of course, only requires pointing out how they conveniently leave out all the other circumstances like: being followed, at night, unknown civilian, reaching for the pocket almost immediately after being asked what they are doing [following], etc.

Really ? "the Z team" ?

 

[Dan O.]

First you said this:

It sounds to me like the phone's battery suddenly died or became disconnected so the phone wasn't able to write the current buffers to nonvolatile flash.

Which is wrong.

On the contrary. Note the part I highlighted. this was a speculation based on the information available at that point. It is a completely valid speculation and no evidence has been brought forward to invalidate it so it remains valid.

And then you said this:

ETA: given that there are a number of third party GPS tracking apps for the android, it appears that tracking is not an internal function of the android OS. This brings up the possibility that the APP was not running every day.

Which is also wrong.

Wrong in what sense? I did a search for [android gps tracking] and found several apps with recent updates including one authored by google. There's is an implied speculation that the GPS data in question was produced by such an app because without the app there would be no GPS tracking data. That statement remains true.

Now you say:

I don't know if TheL8Elvis really doesn't understand this or if he is just being sarcastic. I see that Android is keeping the same kind of location cache that everybody got so upset about when they discovered it in the iPhone. The reaction is funny because the existence of the cache actually reduces the external tracking of the phone. To appease the complainers, apple caused the caches to expire more rapidly which actually has the opposite effect to what the complainers wanted.

What apple does is completely irrelevant.

Is it? Those Android phones are remarkably similar to the Apple iPhone in form and function. Are you saying that this is just a coincidence?

So you obviously understand why both your previous statements were wrong, but never acknowledge that.

On the contrary, it is you that make it painfully obvious that you haven't got a clue about any of this.

If this is the GPS data that MOM is complaining about being missing for the 26th, I can tell you exactly why there is no data for the 26th and it doesn't have anything to do with the phone failing to save buffers or anybody deleting anything.

So, let's see if as they say, third time's a charm.

If that is that data MOM is talking about (big if, as we have not been given any context around that data) them please tell us exactly why there is no data for the 26th ?

First you need to show that you will be able to understand the answer. Go back to that link you provided for the app that dumps the location caches. If you follow that link you can find a page that shows a sample output. Describe what the fields in this data are and where the values come from.

 

[johnny karate]

So wait - now GZ statements are truthful, and should be taken at face value ?

I need to make sure I understand this - If GZ says something possibly helpful to his case, we don't believe him, because it is self serving, but if he says something not helpful, we take him at his word. Is that how this works ?

How do you imagine it works?

Zimmerman can spin any fanciful tale of ambush and murder attempts that he wants, and as long as it generally, sort of fits the framework of self-defense he gets acquitted? Regardless of any inconsistencies and lies?

I don't think you understand how important his version of events is in this case, and just how much the prosecution is going to focus on tearing it to shreds.

If Zimmerman claims that he didn't exhibit any threatening behavior towards Martin, the prosecution is going to have field day using his own words against him.

I know you don't care if Zimmerman lies and embellishes his story, but a jury might.

 

[johnny karate]

And I'm not sure where you think made that claim ?

Whether he can claim immunity depends on him not being the aggressor, that is how it's relevant to his self-defense claim.

And just because Martin might have punched Zimmerman first does not make Martin the aggressor. The first punch isn't nearly as important in this case as the part of Zimmerman's story where Martin suddenly turned into a cold-blooded, brutal murderer.

And as far as determining who was the aggressor in this case, what we have to work with is a guy with a gun who got out of his car to follow a stranger at night, and the teenage boy who was running away from him.

Furthermore, getting punched by someone is not justification to shoot them dead.

Well, had somebody in this discussion actually claimed just because Zimmerman was punched first does not mean he then had the right to shoot Martin dead, then you would be spot on. But I don't recall anyone claiming that.

Your incessant focus on the one particular of the altercation seems to indicate otherwise.

And the state will have to prove that GZ was not acting in self defense. Casting doubt on part of his story is not the same thing as proving he didn't act in self defense.

But proving parts of his story untrue or impossible just might. And that's is what the state will be attempting to do.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

On the contrary. Note the part I highlighted. this was a speculation based on the information available at that point. It is a completely valid speculation and no evidence has been brought forward to invalidate it so it remains valid.

Spin spin spin. "It seems to me" is now a get out of jail free card for being wrong.

It's not a valid speculation because the OS does not write cell.cache in the manner you described. I really don't understand what 'evidence' you need.
You want me link to the source code for android 2.2 ?

Wrong in what sense?
wrong in the sense of being incorrect in your statements.

I did a search for [android gps tracking] and found several apps with recent updates including one authored by google. There's is an implied speculation that the GPS data in question was produced by such an app because without the app there would be no GPS tracking data. That statement remains true.

The OS itself creates the cell.cache file. Not an app.
So when you say " it appears that tracking is not an internal function of the android OS" , you're wrong.

Is it? Those Android phones are remarkably similar to the Apple iPhone in form and function. Are you saying that this is just a coincidence?

No, I am saying what apple does is irrelevant because the phone in question runs android.

On the contrary, it is you that make it painfully obvious that you haven't got a clue about any of this.

Well, you have certainly failed to explain why you think so. I keep giving you factual information and examples of why you are wrong.

You keep responding "nuh-uh you are"

First you need to show that you will be able to understand the answer. Go back to that link you provided for the app that dumps the location caches. If you follow that link you can find a page that shows a sample output. Describe what the fields in this data are and where the values come from.

You are being incredibly condescending, but I'll play along for a little longer...

Below are the fields:
# x bytes UTF string (key)
# int accuracy
# int confidence
# double latitude
# double longitude
# long reading time

The values come from cell.cache file located at /data/data/com.google.android.location/files
Put the by the OS using the location.data API

 

[Unabogie]

How do you imagine it works?

Zimmerman can spin any fanciful tale of ambush and murder attempts that he wants, and as long as it generally, sort of fits the framework of self-defense he gets acquitted? Regardless of any inconsistencies and lies?

I don't think you understand how important his version of events is in this case, and just how much the prosecution is going to focus on tearing it to shreds.

If Zimmerman claims that he didn't exhibit any threatening behavior towards Martin, the prosecution is going to have field day using his own words against him.

I know you don't care if Zimmerman lies and embellishes his story, but a jury might.

What other way does a prosecutor ever convict someone of murder if their story is self-defense? The only POSSIBLE way, unless there are witnesses, is to poke enough holes in the defendant's explanation until a jury agrees that the defendant is lying about what happened. In this case, they don't need to prove pre-mediation, just that George wasn't really in fear for his life and wasn't really attacked in the way he says he was. The way you do that is point out how his testimony conflicts with known facts or with other testimony (especially previous statements from the defendant himself).

 

[Unabogie]

You are being incredibly condescending, but I'll play along for a little longer...

Below are the fields:
# x bytes UTF string (key)
# int accuracy
# int confidence
# double latitude
# double longitude
# long reading time

The values come from cell.cache file located at /data/data/com.google.android.location/files
Put the by the OS using the location.data API

I'm not sure if I've just got you wrong here, but an API is not data being stored by the OS. It's a way for a program to retrieve the current values for those fields based on the current location. The app can display those values or store them itself, but I doubt many apps store them unless they are designed specifically to track your GPS routes.

ETA: By the way, when you write an app for Android, you have to specify which permissions you'll need as part of the descriptor.xml file. So if you install an app that asks for location information but doesn't have a really good reason to need it, you may want to think twice about installing it.

 

[Dan O.]

You are being incredibly condescending, but I'll play along for a little longer...

Below are the fields:
# x bytes * * * * * * UTF string (key)
# int * * * * * * * * accuracy
# int * * * * * * * * confidence
# double * * * * * * *latitude
# double * * * * * * *longitude
# long * * * * * * * *reading time

The values come from cell.cache file located at /data/data/com.google.android.location/files
Put the by the OS using the location.data API

There is some sample data in this the readme.md file [https://github.com/packetlss/android-locdump here]. The location of the sample location data is interesting. Is that a coincidence or is that karma? (viewers would also need to recognize Elvis's avatar to get the connection)


I asked: Where does the data come from. A hint can be found in a comment in the source code above where it talks about the timestamp being used to tell when the record needs to be refreshed from the server.

I asked you to describe the fields of the data to show your understanding. You spit out some definitions that a compiler might care about but nothing that shows an understanding of what the data is.

The key is what the application that uses this data knows when it searches for the record. In the first cache file, I'm sure nobody has any difficulty recognizing this key as a MAC address. Specifically, these are the globally unique MAC addresses of wireless routers. The location service inside the phone can listen on it's wireless network and when it hears a broadcast from a router, it can ask Google's server: "What can you tell me about the router with MAC address xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx?" and the server will respond: "That router was last known to be at latitude yy.yyyy and longitude xx.xxxx. The accuracy is nnnn (meters) and the confidence that this is it's actual location is cccc."

To save bandwidth, time and to keep from overloading the server, the location service will store the information it receives in a cache file to use when it sees the same router again.

The second cache file is identical to the first except that it has a different key. Cell tower id's are not as well known as MAC addresses but they are also globally unique identifiers that are broadcast by the tower. The structure of the cell tower id is usually (country) (provider) (region) (network) (tower). I say usually because providers can choose their own format for breaking up their portion of the code. What each id identifies is a particular frequency and sector of a specific tower. Towers typically have a triangular arrangement of antennas so each antenna covers about 120 degrees and each antenna would service three frequency blocks. This means that there can be 9 tower id's assigned to the same physical tower. Because the cell tower antennas are directional, their coverage area is always on one side of the tower. To give the best possible location for the location service to use, Google's server will report the center of the coverage area instead of the physical tower location.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There is some sample data in this the readme.md file [https://github.com/packetlss/android-locdump here]. The location of the sample location data is interesting. Is that a coincidence or is that karma? (viewers would also need to recognize Elvis's avatar to get the connection)


I asked: Where does the data come from. A hint can be found in a comment in the source code above where it talks about the timestamp being used to tell when the record needs to be refreshed from the server.

I asked you to describe the fields of the data to show your understanding. You spit out some definitions that a compiler might care about but nothing that shows an understanding of what the data is.

The key is what the application that uses this data knows when it searches for the record. In the first cache file, I'm sure nobody has any difficulty recognizing this key as a MAC address. Specifically, these are the globally unique MAC addresses of wireless routers. The location service inside the phone can listen on it's wireless network and when it hears a broadcast from a router, it can ask Google's server: "What can you tell me about the router with MAC address xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx?" and the server will respond: "That router was last known to be at latitude yy.yyyy and longitude xx.xxxx. The accuracy is nnnn (meters) and the confidence that this is it's actual location is cccc."

To save bandwidth, time and to keep from overloading the server, the location service will store the information it receives in a cache file to use when it sees the same router again.

The second cache file is identical to the first except that it has a different key. Cell tower id's are not as well known as MAC addresses but they are also globally unique identifiers that are broadcast by the tower. The structure of the cell tower id is usually (country) (provider) (region) (network) (tower). I say usually because providers can choose their own format for breaking up their portion of the code. What each id identifies is a particular frequency and sector of a specific tower. Towers typically have a triangular arrangement of antennas so each antenna covers about 120 degrees and each antenna would service three frequency blocks. This means that there can be 9 tower id's assigned to the same physical tower. Because the cell tower antennas are directional, their coverage area is always on one side of the tower. To give the best possible location for the location service to use, Google's server will report the center of the coverage area instead of the physical tower location.

You are correct, and I was way off base. I did not look closely at the files, assuming I was right, although the answer was already correct in my first link.

http://forensics.spreitzenbarth.de/2...he-wifi-files/
As everybody knows, Android is maintaining two cache files with location information. One is cache.wifi (a wifi router database with MAC and GPS of the router) the other is cache.cell (a database with mobile communication cells and their GPS).

Your laughing dog was appropriate.

Google is using that data and sending your current location in order to improve their cell tower location database, but they are not storing your location in the file.

I agree, if that's the file MOM he is going to be disappointing. Good thing I am not his technical advisor.

I apologize to you for my attitude and posts on this matter, it's quite embarrassing now.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What other way does a prosecutor ever convict someone of murder if their story is self-defense? The only POSSIBLE way, unless there are witnesses, is to poke enough holes in the defendant's explanation until a jury agrees that the defendant is lying about what happened. In this case, they don't need to prove pre-mediation, just that George wasn't really in fear for his life and wasn't really attacked in the way he says he was. The way you do that is point out how his testimony conflicts with known facts or with other testimony (especially previous statements from the defendant himself).

This is different than proving who did the murder, we know who pulled the trigger. The problem is, GZ was legally allowed to pulled the trigger if he was being attacked and in fear of his life.

And the way the law is written, he just has to show possibility that he was acting in self defense, and then it becomes the prosecutors job to prove beyond a reasonable doubt he wasn't.

So it's completely different than proving beyond a reasonable doubt who pulled the trigger. In comparison, I think that sounds much easier.

One of the problems I see is that you making the case then, that if he lied about anything, therefor he lied about everything ?

The conclusion of "I am not sure I believe his story is entirely accurate" is not "therefore it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of his life when he shot TM"

 

[johnny karate]

The conclusion of "I am not sure I believe his story is entirely accurate" is not "therefore it has been demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that he was not in fear of his life when he shot TM"

This isn't about accuracy, it's about honesty.

If the prosecution can make a convincing case that Zimmerman is a liar, what reason does a jury have to believe he is telling the truth when he says he was in fear for his life?

You seem to think it doesn't matter if Zimmerman tells the truth, or simply manufactures details about the altercation. As if somehow it doesn't matter if the guy who claimed to have killed someone in self-defense is a liar.

And I have no idea why you think that.

 

[sgtbaker]

This isn't about accuracy, it's about honesty.

If the prosecution can make a convincing case that Zimmerman is a liar, what reason does a jury have to believe he is telling the truth when he says he was in fear for his life?

You seem to think it doesn't matter if Zimmerman tells the truth, or simply manufactures details about the altercation. As if somehow it doesn't matter if the guy who claimed to have killed someone in self-defense is a liar.

And I have no idea why you think that.

If I were to speculate (and it's just a hypothesis), if it comes down to proving GZ is a liar, it's going to be the prosecution calling them lies and the defense calling them inconsistencies in memory. If I were a defense attorney, in this situation, I would focus on GZ's floundering to recall the exact events during the walkthrough and have memory experts on the stand. I would probably call on the variations and changes in other eyewitness statements and how they changed over time, as well. That is where I think the prosecution is going to have the most difficulty.

What do you think the prosecution would be focusing on?

 

[WildCat]

What amuses me is that the Trayvon Truthers think Zimmerman being off a few feet on his location or misremembering where his cell phone is or not knowing how long it took to go from location A to location B makes him a lying murderer. Those are not material inconsistencies, and it's the exact same kind of misremembering minor details that make 9/11 truthers scream inside jobby job.

If that's really what the prosecution is hanging its case on Zimmerman walks.

And then the true wingnuts think a picture of a gun superimposed on Zimmerman's head proves his guilt, a whole new dimension of stupid.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What amuses me is that the Trayvon Truthers think Zimmerman being off a few feet on his location or misremembering where his cell phone is or not knowing how long it took to go from location A to location B makes him a lying murderer. Those are not material inconsistencies, and it's the exact same kind of misremembering minor details that make 9/11 truthers scream inside jobby job.

If that's really what the prosecution is hanging its case on Zimmerman walks.

And then the true wingnuts think a picture of a gun superimposed on Zimmerman's head proves his guilt, a whole new dimension of stupid.

Trayvon truthers is no better than the Z team.

 

[Unabogie]

If I were to speculate (and it's just a hypothesis), if it comes down to proving GZ is a liar, it's going to be the prosecution calling them lies and the defense calling them inconsistencies in memory. If I were a defense attorney, in this situation, I would focus on GZ's floundering to recall the exact events during the walkthrough and have memory experts on the stand. I would probably call on the variations and changes in other eyewitness statements and how they changed over time, as well. That is where I think the prosecution is going to have the most difficulty.

What do you think the prosecution would be focusing on?

I think if you listen to Serino's interview you can get a sense of what they'll focus on. Two main areas stand out, and are related to the question of whether or not George chased Trayvon or merely looked for an address and was assaulted on his way back to his truck. The state will say that if George chased Trayvon, then why would it be unreasonable for Trayvon to fight back? And if George chased him, then how can he claim SYG? So to prove this, they will use the timeline and the location of the body. The timeline doesn't match the story of walking to the opposite side of the walkway and then doubling back. If it's off by a few seconds, sure, no one is perfect. But if there's a couple of minutes of unaccounted for time, then this is where the defendant will have trouble. The second is the location of the body. If it can be shown that the body was in a place that demonstrates a chase, then again George will have trouble. The state will also show other ways in which George lied to the police regarding what Trayvon said, ways in which George changed his story, ways in which his story doesn't fit the facts.

I'm not sure what else people think is needed. People are convicted on these grounds all the time. I've said what I believed the real situation was all along. George profiled Trayvon for looking suspicious and called the cops (as he is wont to do). Then instead of waiting for the cops, he foolishly chased the "suspect" because "these ******** always get away". He wasn't trying to kill him, he was trying to catch him. So then he finds him, he tries to grab him, they tussle, he starts losing the fight and panics, and shoots him. When the police arrive he claims self defense, which in his mind may even make sense, but the law says if he chased him he's on the hook, so he lies to cover up that part of the story. There aren't enough good witnesses to say otherwise, so police initially let him go. But if you take his story apart, it doesn't hold up.

 

[Unabogie]

Trayvon truthers is no better than the Z team.

Thank you.

 

[sgtbaker]

I think if you listen to Serino's interview you can get a sense of what they'll focus on. Two main areas stand out, and are related to the question of whether or not George chased Trayvon or merely looked for an address and was assaulted on his way back to his truck. The state will say that if George chased Trayvon, then why would it be unreasonable for Trayvon to fight back? And if George chased him, then how can he claim SYG? So to prove this, they will use the timeline and the location of the body. The timeline doesn't match the story of walking to the opposite side of the walkway and then doubling back. If it's off by a few seconds, sure, no one is perfect. But if there's a couple of minutes of unaccounted for time, then this is where the defendant will have trouble. The second is the location of the body. If it can be shown that the body was in a place that demonstrates a chase, then again George will have trouble. The state will also show other ways in which George lied to the police regarding what Trayvon said, ways in which George changed his story, ways in which his story doesn't fit the facts.

I think that's where the state would have the most difficulty. Right before Zimmerman gets out of the car, the dispatcher asked which way he went. We have a recording, unfolding as it happens, Zimmerman saying he doesn't know where Trayvon went. When the dispatcher says, "we don't need you to do that," Zimmerman says, "Okay." I believe he was on the phone for another minute and a half (at least), still not knowing where Trayvon was. From the moment of him getting off the phone until the moment the calls started coming in, we still have a gap of unknown activity. If we've seen all the state's evidence on this, I don't think I would be able to vote guilty.

I'm not sure what else people think is needed. People are convicted on these grounds all the time. I've said what I believed the real situation was all along. George profiled Trayvon for looking suspicious and called the cops (as he is wont to do). Then instead of waiting for the cops, he foolishly chased the "suspect" because "these ******** always get away". He wasn't trying to kill him, he was trying to catch him. So then he finds him, he tries to grab him, they tussle, he starts losing the fight and panics, and shoots him. When the police arrive he claims self defense, which in his mind may even make sense, but the law says if he chased him he's on the hook, so he lies to cover up that part of the story. There aren't enough good witnesses to say otherwise, so police initially let him go. But if you take his story apart, it doesn't hold up.

People are not convicted on suspicion, "all the time." Re: Casey Anthony. There is currently zero evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."