Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

People are not convicted on suspicion, "all the time." Re: Casey Anthony.

The difference is that we know for a fact George did it. He's made the claim that it was self defense and I contend that his story will be easy to knock down. I'll certainly be disappointed if the state does a poor job of that.

There is currently zero evidence that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after the dispatcher said, "We don't need you to do that."

I disagree. There's three pieces of evidence. There's the location of the body, which shows that somehow they ended up far away from where George claims he was walking "just to find an address". There's the amount of time between when he hung up the phone and when witnesses heard the first commotion. And there's the person on the phone with Trayvon who says George was walking up to him.

I will add this, though. I looked up the success rate for people invoke SYG, and it's pretty disheartening.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...da-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378

It does say the more arrests you have, the lower your likelihood is to get off, but even on those cases, the outcome is 50/50 for the defense. That's a lot of killers getting off.

Tavarious China Smith was a drug dealer with multiple arrests who killed a man during an 2008 argument over drug territory in Manatee County. He claimed self-defense and went free. Less than three years later, he was back in front of prosecutors for a different homicide, this one the result of a shoot-out outside a nightclub. Smith once again went free by claiming stand your ground.

What an unbelievably horrible law this is.

 

[sgtbaker]

The difference is that we know for a fact George did it. He's made the claim that it was self defense and I contend that his story will be easy to knock down. I'll certainly be disappointed if the state does a poor job of that.



I disagree. There's three pieces of evidence. There's the location of the body, which shows that somehow they ended up far away from where George claims he was walking "just to find an address".

I didn't think the body location was so far off that it would decimate the defense.

There's the amount of time between when he hung up the phone and when witnesses heard the first commotion

But what happened in that time between the end of the call and the confrontation? Did he get off the phone and magically find Trayvon? On the phone he said he didn't know where he went. Was that a set up? Did he really know where he was at that point? Remember, on the phone, he was talking as though he assumed Trayvon was gone.

And there's the person on the phone with Trayvon who says George was walking up to him.

The person who was on the phone claims that George responded to Trayvon's, "Why are you following me?" by asking, "What are you doing here?" Then without waiting for an answer, attacked him. Given all the other weirdness about that witness, you don't think that sounds a little off?

I will add this, though. I looked up the success rate for people invoke SYG, and it's pretty disheartening.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts...da-stand-your-ground-law-have-history/1241378

It does say the more arrests you have, the lower your likelihood is to get off, but even on those cases, the outcome is 50/50 for the defense. That's a lot of killers getting off.



What an unbelievably horrible law this is

You may be even more disheartened to know that the same day as the last court appearance, Fl lawmakers concluded that the SYG law is just fine and no changes need to be made.

 

[WildCat]

Trayvon truthers is no better than the Z team.

When they stop with the speculative nonsense unsupported by any facts or evidence I'll stop using the term.

But when they post pics of a gun superimposed on Zimmerman's head to "prove" he pistol whipped himself, or claim he ran into a tree, or that they can determine a sound they hear on tape is a "chamber check", or that voice analysis of the 911 call by charlatans and frauds are scientific proof, and other such absolute nonsense well if the shoe fits wear it.

 

[WildCat]

I disagree. There's three pieces of evidence. There's the location of the body, which shows that somehow they ended up far away from where George claims he was walking "just to find an address".

And thank you for the wonderful illustration of my last post.

Did you hear how Rumsfeld claimed the nose cone of Flight 93 penetrated the C-ring at the Pentagon??? Inside job!1!!1!!!!1!!!!

The claim that Zimmerman is guilty because lied about the location of the body is just bizarre. What possible advantage would that be to his case? Everyone knows where the body was found, it's not something he could get away lying about. It doesn't help his case at all, just like Rumsfeld's nose cone comment didn't advance the 'official story' one bit, yet that's what truthers hang their hat on.

 

[johnny karate]

The claim that Zimmerman is guilty because lied about the location of the body is just bizarre. What possible advantage would that be to his case? Everyone knows where the body was found, it's not something he could get away lying about.

So unless it was lie Zimmerman could get away with, it wasn't a lie at all? How is that any kind of reasonable standard?

And if you think it applies in this case, you might want to review the transcripts of Zimmerman's bond hearings. He's already established a penchant for engaging in deceptions that are easily disproved.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So unless it was lie Zimmerman could get away with, it wasn't a lie at all? How is that any kind of reasonable standard?

It's more reasonable than the idea that if he lied about anything, therefor he lied about everything.

 

[WildCat]

So unless it was lie Zimmerman could get away with, it wasn't a lie at all? How is that any kind of reasonable standard?

And if you think it applies in this case, you might want to review the transcripts of Zimmerman's bond hearings. He's already established a penchant for engaging in deceptions that are easily disproved.

Was it a lie when Norm Manetta got the times wrong in his 9/11 testimony, and therefore there was a stand-down order from Cheney?

 

[johnny karate]

It's more reasonable than the idea that if he lied about anything, therefor he lied about everything.

You've already expressed your comfortability with Zimmerman telling lies and embellishments. However, there are those who think that someone who lies isn't trustworthy.

Was it a lie when Norm Manetta got the times wrong in his 9/11 testimony, and therefore there was a stand-down order from Cheney?

I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm still befuddled by your insistence that no one ever lies if it can easily be disproved.

 

[Unabogie]

So unless it was lie Zimmerman could get away with, it wasn't a lie at all? How is that any kind of reasonable standard?

And if you think it applies in this case, you might want to review the transcripts of Zimmerman's bond hearings. He's already established a penchant for engaging in deceptions that are easily disproved.

I don't understand why people deny the location of the body and the debris field are so important. Forensics is always about using science to contradict what people say and to show that their narrative isn't possible.

So what else could it mean that the body is 40' to the south and the debris field goes about 50' to the south? Isn't that something that makes a key part of George's story impossible? He says that Trayvon came out of the bushes (in one telling) and attacked him by breaking his nose and knocking him down (backwards). From there, the fight never moved. This puts him about 45' from the body. Yet there is debris all the way down to 50' from that location. In his next telling, he fell, but stumbled a bit, but that still doesn't help explain why the final shot was so far south if they were on the ground and Trayvon was simply pummeling him while he lay helpless.

Isn't is much more plausible, judging by the evidence, that either they started the fight elsewhere, which would mean George followed him after claiming he hadn't, or that Trayvon did punch him once at the T, did pop him in the nose, and then ran? As he ran, George followed him and caught him 20 feet south, and then they tumbled to the ground where the final shot was fired? If so, that fits the facts much better than George's story, but that puts him in a position where he can't claim he stood his ground. This explains the lie, it explains the evidence, and it's a pretty reasonable claim to sell at trial. If the jury agrees, he'll be convicted. That's why I said the state will spend a lot of time talking about George's many versions of the story and the location of the body and debris field.

 

[johnny karate]

I don't understand why people deny the location of the body and the debris field are so important. Forensics is always about using science to contradict what people say and to show that their narrative isn't possible.

So what else could it mean that the body is 40' to the south and the debris field goes about 50' to the south? Isn't that something that makes a key part of George's story impossible? He says that Trayvon came out of the bushes (in one telling) and attacked him by breaking his nose and knocking him down (backwards). From there, the fight never moved. This puts him about 45' from the body. Yet there is debris all the way down to 50' from that location. In his next telling, he fell, but stumbled a bit, but that still doesn't help explain why the final shot was so far south if they were on the ground and Trayvon was simply pummeling him while he lay helpless.

Isn't is much more plausible, judging by the evidence, that either they started the fight elsewhere, which would mean George followed him after claiming he hadn't, or that Trayvon did punch him once at the T, did pop him in the nose, and then ran? As he ran, George followed him and caught him 20 feet south, and then they tumbled to the ground where the final shot was fired? If so, that fits the facts much better than George's story, but that puts him in a position where he can't claim he stood his ground. This explains the lie, it explains the evidence, and it's a pretty reasonable claim to sell at trial. If the jury agrees, he'll be convicted. That's why I said the state will spend a lot of time talking about George's many versions of the story and the location of the body and debris field.

I'm not sure I get it either. It's not like this is some minor, insignificant nitpick. Determining where the altercation took place in relation to where Zimmerman claims it did is a pretty important detail.

 

[PhantomWolf]

I don't understand why people deny the location of the body and the debris field are so important. Forensics is always about using science to contradict what people say and to show that their narrative isn't possible.

So what else could it mean that the body is 40' to the south and the debris bushes (in one telling) and attacked him by breaking his nose and knocking him down (backwards). From there, the fight never moved. This puts him about 45' from the body. Yet there is debris all the way down to 50' from that location. In his next telling, he fell, but stumbled a bit, but that still doesn't help explain why the final shot was so far south if they were on the ground and Trayvon was simply pummeling him while he lay helpless.field goes about 50' to the south? Isn't that something that makes a key part of George's story impossible? He says that Trayvon came out of the

Isn't is much more plausible, judging by the evidence, that either they started the fight elsewhere, which would mean George followed him after claiming he hadn't, or that Trayvon did punch him once at the T, did pop him in the nose, and then ran? As he ran, George followed him and caught him 20 feet south, and then they tumbled to the ground where the final shot was fired? If so, that fits the facts much better than George's story, but that puts him in a position where he can't claim he stood his ground. This explains the lie, it explains the evidence, and it's a pretty reasonable claim to sell at trial. If the jury agrees, he'll be convicted. That's why I said the state will spend a lot of time talking about George's many versions of the story and the location of the body and debris field.

Or maybe after Trayvon appeared and challenged him they both walked towards each other taking them from the T, Travyon hit George, and In the scuffle the followed George tried to get away moving futher from the T until Travyon knocked him down, beat him, the gun got pulled and bang.

Really, the number of options on what happened is almost infinite and since only two people were there and saw the whole thing, we'll likely never really know. Memories are not computerized digital recording devices. With adrenaline going, in the dark, fists coming at you, and fighting for your life, your brain isn't in the act of recording what is happening, it's focused on getting you out alive. Almost anything could have happened, and the odds of George, or for that matter Travyon had he lived, recalling it exactly, is about Nil. Eyewitness testimony is the worse form of evidence there is, often filled with errors caused by preception, emotional state and pure assumptions. It is even worse when it is from people directly involved in the incident rather then spectators. To be so totally focused in on testimony and saying "this doesn't match" so they must be lying shows a complete ignorance of memory and recall and trumatic events. The fact that there are still arguments about this months and months and months later from people who should know the science a heck of a lot better is totally unbelievable.

 

[johnny karate]

Or maybe after Trayvon appeared and challenged him they both walked towards each other taking them from the T, Travyon hit George, and In the scuffle the followed George tried to get away moving futher from the T until Travyon knocked him down, beat him, the gun got pulled and bang.

Really, the number of options on what happened is almost infinite and since only two people were there and saw the whole thing, we'll likely never really know. Memories are not computerized digital recording devices. With adrenaline going, in the dark, fists coming at you, and fighting for your life, your brain isn't in the act of recording what is happening, it's focused on getting you out alive. Almost anything could have happened, and the odds of George, or for that matter Travyon had he lived, recalling it exactly, is about Nil. Eyewitness testimony is the worse form of evidence there is, often filled with errors caused by preception, emotional state and pure assumptions. It is even worse when it is from people directly involved in the incident rather then spectators. To be so totally focused in on testimony and saying "this doesn't match" so they must be lying shows a complete ignorance of memory and recall and trumatic events. The fact that there are still arguments about this months and months and months later from people who should know the science a heck of a lot better is totally unbelievable.

And if Zimmerman gave some kind of groggy, detail-anemic version of events, you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

The story Zimmerman tells is very detailed and very specific, right down to the things Martin suposedly said to him during the altercation.

 

[Unabogie]

And if Zimmerman gave some kind of groggy, detail-anemic version of events, you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

The story Zimmerman tells is very detailed and very specific, right down to the things Martin suposedly said to him during the altercation.

You beat me to it. George was completely detailed, and each detail told an exacting story of a brutal attack made with no provocation. An attack in which he had no time to run. An attack in which he was hit one time and went straight down to the ground and never once got in a counter blow. Never once had a chance to run away.

George had multiple chances to tell this story, and never once did he tell it in such a way that Trayvon chased him or that the fight moved. He was very specific about where the fight happened because he was aware of the requirement that he "stood his ground" instead of chased Trayvon, which is what all evidence says he was doing. So he claimed to have looked for an address before doubling back. Yet he never told the dispatcher any address. He claimed to be heading back to his truck, yet he told the dispatcher to call him back later so he could give him his location then. He claimed to have been walking back to his truck when Trayvon, for no reason at all, attempted to murder him for going for his phone. And so little details will surely matter, unless you think that a person explaining how they shot and killed an unarmed kid are allowed to claim both self-defense and a foggy memory, such that they don't even have to tell a plausible story and just walk free.

That's ridiculous. If you shoot someone, you better have a damn good reason and your story better hold up under scrutiny.

 

[PhantomWolf]

And if Zimmerman gave some kind of groggy, detail-anemic version of events, you might have a point. But he didn't, so you don't.

The story Zimmerman tells is very detailed and very specific, right down to the things Martin suposedly said to him during the altercation.

Your point? Just because the memories appear clear and detailed, don't mean they are right. Memories associated with trauma often appear clearer as they make a deeper impression on us emotionally, and we recall the ideas of what was occurring, and yet they are more likely to be filled with mistakes and change over time all the same because we don't actually recall the details of what was happening, our brains fill those in for us after the fact based on what it did record.

We had a case here a while back about a police shooting. I read all the witness statements. One of the witnesses was quite clear and detailed about what had happened right down to the clothing that the suspect was wearing. He also claimed that the suspect was unarmed when he was shot.

The truth, while the witness described the suspect wearing a blue shirt with a silver stripe, he was actually wearing a solid blue shirt and carrying a silver basebat bat, in the observing of what was happening, the witness super imposed the basebat bat as part of the suspect’s shirt. Did he lie?

The Police officer in the case was adamant that after the shooting he had not moved. It was shown conclusively that he did move, he had taken a number of steps backwards from the suspect after the shooting based on where the cartridges fell. Did he lie? He was also sure that he and the officer he was with were alone at the time and there was no back up. There was a third officer watching from a distance (the partner to the second officer), one whom he had talked to over the radio prior to the shooting. Did he lie about not knowing she was there?

The reality of it is that in truth our brain fails to record a lot of what happens when we are undergoing major stress, it focuses on the threat in what is called tunnel memory, and then it fills in the gaps afterwards and hopes we don't notice. Witnesses often sound coherent and give detailed information, that's how our brains work, we expect to have that information, but in truth, a lot of the peripheral stuff is filled in by assumptions. Someone comes out of the shadows, later the brain adds in bushes because that is what makes sense to it. We aren't HD recording devices, no matter how well we'd like them to be. Think about what you discussed with your work colleagues at morning break today. Can you repeat the conversations verbatim, or do you rather have a "general" idea of what was said? And that’s something that happened in a non-stressful environment.

Singular eye witness testimony, no matter who it is from, isn't worth the paper it is written on. Collectively it gives a reasonable idea of what might have occurred, but even then it takes effort to haul the truth out of the mix. When you only have a single version of a highly emotional or traumatic event, from the very start you need to take it with a large grain of salt because the science tells us that even if the person believes that they are being 100% truthful and sounds clear and detailed, the odds are that they are going to be wrong about many of the details in it. Yes it's very useful for a getting a general idea of what happened, but pulling it apart and going over every inconsistency is just pointless because no matter who you use as a witness, there will be a lot of inconsistencies in their statements.

Go and read the eye-witness accounts of what happened on 9/11 and compare them with what really happened. Those inconsistencies and often just plain wrong facts have been a hot bed for 9/11 truthers for over ten years now, but in reality are prime examples of memory and recall of traumatic events.

There are plenty of papers on this sort of thing.

Consistency of Memory for Combat-Related Traumatic Events in Veterans of Operation Desert Storm

Steven M. Southwick, M.D., C. Andrew Morgan III, M.D., Andreas L. Nicolaou, Ph.D., and Dennis S. Charney, M.D.

There were many instances of inconsistent recall for events that were
objective and highly traumatic in nature. Eighty-eight percent of subjects changed their responses on at least one of the 19 items, while 61% changed two or more items. There was a significant positive correlation between score on the Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder at 2 years and the number of responses on the trauma questionnaire changed from no at 1 month to yes at 2 years.

Memory for traumatic events

Sven-åke Christianson , Elizabeth F. Loftus

This research compares memory for traumatic events with memory for non-
traumatic versions of the same event. In Experiment 1, subjects watched an event depicted in slides while focusing and rehearsing the central detail of each slide. They were tested after a short or a longer retention interval (20 min or 2 weeks). Subjects who watched the traumatic version were better able to recall the central details that they had rehearsed, but were less well able to recognize the specific slides that they saw. Better recall for the traumatic group did not occur because the words used to describe the recalled details were inherently more memorable, as shown in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, subjects watched either a traumatic or non-traumatic version of a filmed event and about 6 months later they were asked to remember the essence of the film. Subjects who saw the traumatic version were better able to recall the essence of the film. A similar finding was obtained with a group of subjects from Experiment 1 who were also contacted about 6 months after their initial participation. These results suggest that some information (the essence, the theme) of a traumatic event might be relatively well retained in memory, while memory is impaired for many of the specific, and especially peripheral, details.

Emotional events tend to be recalled with more frequency and clarity than memories not associated with extreme emotions. Typically traumatic events, such as physical attack or sexual abuse, are interrelated with strong negative emotions, causing these memories to be very strong and more easily recalled than memories not associated with similar emotions, or even those connected to positive emotions. Emotion's strong connection with memory also has to do with how much attention or focus an individual has on the event. If they are heavily emotionally involved in the event, a lot of their attention is directed at what’s happening, rendering it a stronger memory. It is also the case with emotionally aroused situations that even if attention is limited, it is more likely that a memory associated with the strong emotion will remain as opposed to some neutral stimulus. Chemically, this is because the emotional and physical stress caused by traumatic events creates an almost identical stimulation in the brain to the physiological condition that heightens memory retention. It excites the neuron-chemical activity centers of the brain that affects memory encoding and recollection. This reaction has been enforced by evolution as learning from high-stress environments is necessary in "fight or flight" decisions that characterize human survival.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028103111.htm

If you look there are far more which talk about the disorganisation of memory with traumatic events and recall issues, but unfortunately most are in heavy psychology language and are pay for view.

 

[Unabogie]

Your point? Just because the memories appear clear and detailed, don't mean they are right. Memories associated with trauma often appear clearer as they make a deeper impression on us emotionally, and we recall the ideas of what was occurring, and yet they are more likely to be filled with mistakes and change over time all the same because we don't actually recall the details of what was happening, our brains fill those in for us after the fact based on what it did record.

We had a case here a while back about a police shooting. I read all the witness statements. One of the witnesses was quite clear and detailed about what had happened right down to the clothing that the suspect was wearing. He also claimed that the suspect was unarmed when he was shot.

The truth, while the witness described the suspect wearing a blue shirt with a silver stripe, he was actually wearing a solid blue shirt and carrying a silver basebat bat, in the observing of what was happening, the witness super imposed the basebat bat as part of the suspect’s shirt. Did he lie?

The Police officer in the case was adamant that after the shooting he had not moved. It was shown conclusively that he did move, he had taken a number of steps backwards from the suspect after the shooting based on where the cartridges fell. Did he lie? He was also sure that he and the officer he was with were alone at the time and there was no back up. There was a third officer watching from a distance (the partner to the second officer), one whom he had talked to over the radio prior to the shooting. Did he lie about not knowing she was there?

The reality of it is that in truth our brain fails to record a lot of what happens when we are undergoing major stress, it focuses on the threat in what is called tunnel memory, and then it fills in the gaps afterwards and hopes we don't notice. Witnesses often sound coherent and give detailed information, that's how our brains work, we expect to have that information, but in truth, a lot of the peripheral stuff is filled in by assumptions. Someone comes out of the shadows, later the brain adds in bushes because that is what makes sense to it. We aren't HD recording devices, no matter how well we'd like them to be. Think about what you discussed with your work colleagues at morning break today. Can you repeat the conversations verbatim, or do you rather have a "general" idea of what was said? And that’s something that happened in a non-stressful environment.

Singular eye witness testimony, no matter who it is from, isn't worth the paper it is written on. Collectively it gives a reasonable idea of what might have occurred, but even then it takes effort to haul the truth out of the mix. When you only have a single version of a highly emotional or traumatic event, from the very start you need to take it with a large grain of salt because the science tells us that even if the person believes that they are being 100% truthful and sounds clear and detailed, the odds are that they are going to be wrong about many of the details in it. Yes it's very useful for a getting a general idea of what happened, but pulling it apart and going over every inconsistency is just pointless because no matter who you use as a witness, there will be a lot of inconsistencies in their statements.

Go and read the eye-witness accounts of what happened on 9/11 and compare them with what really happened. Those inconsistencies and often just plain wrong facts have been a hot bed for 9/11 truthers for over ten years now, but in reality are prime examples of memory and recall of traumatic events.

There are plenty of papers on this sort of thing.

Consistency of Memory for Combat-Related Traumatic Events in Veterans of Operation Desert Storm

Steven M. Southwick, M.D., C. Andrew Morgan III, M.D., Andreas L. Nicolaou, Ph.D., and Dennis S. Charney, M.D.

There were many instances of inconsistent recall for events that were
objective and highly traumatic in nature. Eighty-eight percent of subjects changed their responses on at least one of the 19 items, while 61% changed two or more items. There was a significant positive correlation between score on the Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related Posttraumatic Stress Disorder at 2 years and the number of responses on the trauma questionnaire changed from no at 1 month to yes at 2 years.

Memory for traumatic events

Sven-åke Christianson , Elizabeth F. Loftus

This research compares memory for traumatic events with memory for non-
traumatic versions of the same event. In Experiment 1, subjects watched an event depicted in slides while focusing and rehearsing the central detail of each slide. They were tested after a short or a longer retention interval (20 min or 2 weeks). Subjects who watched the traumatic version were better able to recall the central details that they had rehearsed, but were less well able to recognize the specific slides that they saw. Better recall for the traumatic group did not occur because the words used to describe the recalled details were inherently more memorable, as shown in Experiment 2. In Experiment 3, subjects watched either a traumatic or non-traumatic version of a filmed event and about 6 months later they were asked to remember the essence of the film. Subjects who saw the traumatic version were better able to recall the essence of the film. A similar finding was obtained with a group of subjects from Experiment 1 who were also contacted about 6 months after their initial participation. These results suggest that some information (the essence, the theme) of a traumatic event might be relatively well retained in memory, while memory is impaired for many of the specific, and especially peripheral, details.




http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081028103111.htm

If you look there are far more which talk about the disorganisation of memory with traumatic events and recall issues, but unfortunately most are in heavy psychology language and are pay for view.

tl;dr version: we shouldn't hold George Zimmerman to any sort of exacting standard after he shot and killed an unarmed kid because eye-witnesses are unreliable? That's crazy. The only thing that's stopping people from claiming self-defense in EVERY murder is that their story has to pass the smell test. If scrutiny causes the whole thing to collapse you go to prison.

I can't believe you're actually advocating a standard in which a person can kill someone, claim self-defense, tell a story that falls apart under scrutiny, but still walk since memory is fallible. I reject your standard as, frankly, evil.

 

[Unabogie]

Here's another related case: a woman is claiming self-defense, but the state is destroying her credibility.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/prosecutors-slam-jodi-arias-credibility-article-1.1240311

Eventually, she confessed to police that she killed him, but did so in self-defense after he allegedly became angry she damaged his camera.

While the two had already broken up, they continued to share sexual trysts. Arias’ defense attorneys are trying to portray him as an abusive “sexual deviant,” who managed to control her and have her perform sex acts despite their shared Mormon faith.

I don't think there's anything controversial about saying that a person on trial for murder needs to get their story straight or they are cooked. This case is extreme in that Arias' story was easier to break down, but does anyone think she'll have much success arguing that human memory is fallible so since the state can't PROVE that it wasn't self-defense and can't PROVE that she wasn't being attacked, then reasonable doubt demands she be let go?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You beat me to it. George was completely detailed, and each detail told an exacting story of a brutal attack made with no provocation. An attack in which he had no time to run. An attack in which he was hit one time and went straight down to the ground and never once got in a counter blow. Never once had a chance to run away.

George had multiple chances to tell this story, and never once did he tell it in such a way that Trayvon chased him or that the fight moved. He was very specific about where the fight happened because he was aware of the requirement that he "stood his ground" instead of chased Trayvon, which is what all evidence says he was doing.

Do you not know, or are you just being dishonest ?

Below is the link to where he is describing how the fight moved
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X_2NeMrGCvg#t=635s
(I'm not going to embed the video because I added the starting time right where he describes how the fight moves.)

He wasn't 'very specific about where the fight happened' as you claim.

Witness 6 also describes how the fight moved from teh grass to the sidewalk as he watched it !

So he claimed to have looked for an address before doubling back. Yet he never told the dispatcher any address.

And this proves what ? Again, he explained that also.

He claimed to be heading back to his truck, yet he told the dispatcher to call him back later so he could give him his location then. He claimed to have been walking back to his truck when Trayvon, for no reason at all, attempted to murder him for going for his phone.

O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.

TM attacked him, For no reason at all ? Didn't you and JK both say that TM had a case for self defense ? I thought following TM and then reaching into his pocket justified him in assaulting GZ in your mind ? That's not a reason for TM to attack GZ ?

And so little details will surely matter, unless you think that a person explaining how they shot and killed an unarmed kid are allowed to claim both self-defense and a foggy memory, such that they don't even have to tell a plausible story and just walk free.

That's ridiculous. If you shoot someone, you better have a damn good reason and your story better hold up under scrutiny.

He is allowed to claim self defense because he claims TM was beating his head into the sidewalk.
And where did witness 6 see TM on top of GZ ? Why, right near the sidewalk. Where witness 6 saw GZ screaming for help. And even the SPD agreed that GZ suffered injuries "are marginally consistent with a life threatening violent episode."

THAT is why he can claim self defense.

 

[Unabogie]

Do you not know, or are you just being dishonest ?

Below is the link to where he is describing how the fight moved
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X_2NeMrGCvg#t=635s
(I'm not going to embed the video because I added the starting time right where he describes how the fight moves.)

This is his third telling of the events. Also note that he says they stumbled but then went down to the ground. In no way does this explain the location of the body, and it's a change in his earlier version of what happened.

He wasn't 'very specific about where the fight happened' as you claim.

Yes he was. He said he was just past the T, that Trayvon broke his nose, he "fell backwards" and went "immediately" down to the ground. What seems missing there?

Witness 6 also describes how the fight moved from teh grass to the sidewalk as he watched it !

We know it moved. But we also know that George didn't describe the truth. George had the whole thing happening somewhere else. Surely you can't be unable to see this?

And this proves what ? Again, he explained that also.

It's just another piece of his story that doesn't add up. Each piece will crumble until there's nothing left. How do you imagine it works?

O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?
GILBREATH: No.

Good luck with that at trial.

TM attacked him, For no reason at all ? Didn't you and JK both say that TM had a case for self defense ? I thought following TM and then reaching into his pocket justified him in assaulting GZ in your mind ? That's not a reason for TM to attack GZ ?

There's that dishonesty again that AlwaysTellsTruths pointed out. No one said TM was justified for George reaching into his pocket. You just made that up. George profiled, followed, and got out of his car and yelled "What are you doing here!" to TM. THEN he reached into his pocket. At night. Without identifying himself. Stop with the hackery on that point.

He is allowed to claim self defense because he claims TM was beating his head into the sidewalk.

Unless his story doesn't add up.

And where did witness 6 see TM on top of GZ ? Why, right near the sidewalk. Where witness 6 saw GZ screaming for help. And even the SPD agreed that GZ suffered injuries "are marginally consistent with a life threatening violent episode."

Witness 6 changed his story and it no longer supports George nearly as much. It also doesn't change the fact that George created this whole situation with his racist profiling and idiotic decision to chase a "suspect" while carrying a gun.

THAT is why he can claim self defense.

And his LIES are why he won't get away with it.

 

[Unabogie]

And where did witness 6 see TM on top of GZ ? Why, right near the sidewalk. Where witness 6 saw GZ screaming for help. And even the SPD agreed that GZ suffered injuries "are marginally consistent with a life threatening violent episode."

THAT is why he can claim self defense.

I just want to back up here and cut you some slack on this. I think none of us really know how any of these witnesses will play out at trial. We've heard sketches of what they saw, but they'll get on the stand. They'll be asked questions. And only then will we be able to assess which side they'll help most.

I think that Witness 6 will more likely claim that he just isn't sure what he saw and can't make any definitive claims, which won't help the defense, but I don't KNOW that. I don't even think HE knows that.

I'll try and check myself on this point as this discussion goes on.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This is his third telling of the events. Also note that he says they stumbled but then went down to the ground. In no way does this explain the location of the body, and it's a change in his earlier version of what happened.

I don't understand why that is a material difference to his story. He explained he stumbled and/or was pushed and doesn't recall exactly what happened. Which is reasonable after just being hit in the face hard enough to break his nose ?

His keys are right there, at the Tee. He obviously knows where the fight ended up, he was there. If he was lying about chasing TM - riddle me this ... why not just lie and say the fight moved around all over the place ? Wouldn't that be simple ? And it would explain where he was. If he was cognizant enough to lie about other things, as you claim, why not that simple lie ? "He hit me so hard I flew across the grass and fell down very far from where I started".

Yes he was. He said he was just past the T, that Trayvon broke his nose, he "fell backwards" and went "immediately" down to the ground. What seems missing there?

That was only the written narrative. He omitted other details from that as well.

Witness 6 also changed his first written narrative. Do you have a problem with that ?

We know it moved. But we also know that George didn't describe the truth. George had the whole thing happening somewhere else. Surely you can't be unable to see this?

Surely you understand that he described that he fight moved form the Tee ?

It's just another piece of his story that doesn't add up. Each piece will crumble until there's nothing left. How do you imagine it works?

Good luck with that at trial.

How so ? You think since then they have some physical evidence that they didn't include in discovery ?

Yes, I look forward to the state explaining how they didn't have evidence, but then changed thier story ?

There's that dishonesty again that AlwaysTellsTruths pointed out. No one said TM was justified for George reaching into his pocket. You just made that up.

I said following him and reaching into his pocket.

George profiled,

Not according to the SPD

followed, and got out of his car

And then lost track of and stopped following

and yelled "What are you doing here!" to TM.

"Trayvon say what you are following me for. Then the man say what you doin' round here. Someone push Trayvon because the headset just fell."

If you use that, then you bring in DeeDee. And her lies are ging to make GZ look like the most honest person on the planet.

THEN he reached into his pocket. At night. Without identifying himself. Stop with the hackery on that point.

He says after he made up "yelled" out of thin air

Unless his story doesn't add up

Witness 6 changed his story and it no longer supports George nearly as much.

All the witnesses who saw the fight report GZ on he bottom and TM on the top.

It also doesn't change the fact that George created this whole situation with his racist profiling

Both the SPD and the FBI say he is not a racist, and the SPD says he did not profile TM based on race.

I guess the state is going to contradict GZ, the SPD, AND the FBI.

and idiotic decision to chase a "suspect" while carrying a gun.

The NEN call taker told GZ to " let us know if he does anything"

And his LIES are why he won't get away with it.

You haven't proven he lied in any material way.