Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[johnny karate]

That is a straw man. I can say with certainty that TheL8Elvis has not said he believed him. Neither have most of the participants who've argued against your position. It has always been about the belief that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to prove he is guilty. There is a difference between the two positions.

There's one way to find out.

TheL8Elvis, when you stated the following:

Frankly, I don't know that I believe that TM said that. I think that is more than likely GZ thinking he needed to really justify his self defense, and saying 'oh yeah, and he said I was going to die'.

I don't think it really matters. The evidence that exists seems to me to be in agreement with the important elements of GZ story - TM was beating him and he was afraid and couldn't get away and so GZ shot him.

... was the bolded portion an expression of your belief?

 

[Unabogie]

That is a straw man. I can say with certainty that TheL8Elvis has not said he believed him. Neither have most of the participants who've argued against your position. It has always been about the belief that there doesn't seem to be enough evidence to prove he is guilty. There is a difference between the two positions.

But we've also seen passionate denials that Shellie Zimmerman lied when she claimed to have no money on a day she deposited $74,000 in her private account in increments <$10k.

It's that kind of bias that says the standard of "enough evidence" is absurdly high when discussing what level of dishonesty is acceptable from this particular defendant.

 

[sgtbaker]

But we've also seen passionate denials that Shellie Zimmerman lied when she claimed to have no money on a day she deposited $74,000 in her private account in increments <$10k.

It's that kind of bias that says the standard of "enough evidence" is absurdly high when discussing what level of dishonesty is acceptable from this particular defendant.

I guess it is a matter of interpretation because I saw a less than passionate argument that proving someone lied is a difficult task.

 

[Unabogie]

I guess it is a matter of interpretation because I saw a less than passionate argument that proving someone lied is a difficult task.

Do you agree that Shellie Zimmerman lied?

 

[sgtbaker]

There's one way to find out.

TheL8Elvis, when you stated the following:


... was the bolded portion an expression of your belief?

H
That seems to be more supportive of what I said, than in controvert. The whole first paragraph admits to the possibility to GZ lied about TM's statement. He is clearly discussing evidence in the second paragraph.

 

[sgtbaker]

Do you agree that Shellie Zimmerman lied?

Based on my lack of following that particular part of the case, I will say she probably did lie. I've only read quote snips, posted here, though.

 

[Unabogie]

Based on my lack of following that particular part of the case, I will say she probably did lie. I've only read quote snips, posted here, though.

It's in that context that people are frustrated with those saying that there's no evidence that George lied or that those lies have been "disproved". Those same people swear that Shellie didn't lie, was asked some sort of vague question, or that we can't possibly know if she "knowingly" lied.

Yes, it's difficult to prove that someone lied. But that's what forensics is for. And in George's case, he foolishly gave three interviews to the police and one more to Hannity and we also have his NEN call. When the SA plays the NEN call and matches it up to the walkthrough, they won't match. And the forensics won't match. And the depiction of Trayvon Martin won't match. I contend that piece by piece, it will become harder and harder to accept his version of events. But at this point, we're arguing in circles so I would prefer to wait until the trial starts when we can all look at the evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

There's one way to find out.

TheL8Elvis, when you stated the following:

Frankly, I don't know that I believe that TM said that. I think that is more than likely GZ thinking he needed to really justify his self defense, and saying 'oh yeah, and he said I was going to die'.

I don't think it really matters. The evidence that exists seems to me to be in agreement with the important elements of GZ story - TM was beating him and he was afraid and couldn't get away and so GZ shot him.

... was the bolded portion an expression of your belief?

The evidence that exists seems to me to be in agreement with the important elements of GZ story - TM was beating him and he was afraid and couldn't get away and so GZ shot him.

Why do you dismiss the first part, which sets up the context for the statement ? Based on the evidence, it seems GZ claim of being beaten and couldn't get away seems true. It's an expression of what I believe the evidence supports.

Maybe you should have bolded this part about what I believe:
Frankly, I don't know that I believe that TM said that.

That is, I don't know if I believe GZ claim that TM told him "you gonna die tonight".

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The distance he's off may be as much as 50 feet. If the prosecution can prove that, the importance lies in disproving Zimmerman's claim that he stopped his pursuit of Martin and was returning to his truck when he was attacked.

Proving the altercation took place 50 feet farther way from his truck than he claimed could be one piece of evidence the prosecution uses to argue that Zimmerman continued to pursue Martin, and was in fact the aggressor in the altercation.

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/evidence-field/

I don't see 50 feet there. Maybe you could walk me through the math of how you get 50 feet ?

 

[Unabogie]

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/evidence-field/

I don't see 50 feet there. Maybe you could walk me through the math of how you get 50 feet ?

Yes. In your link, it shows 37ft from the edge of the sidewalk to the body. George claimed he was standing in the middle of the sidewalk, so add 3 feet. He claims he fell backward, away from the body, so add 3 more feet. That's 43 feet. The cell phone, IIRC, was found about 7 feet to the south of the body. That's 50 feet.

By the way, we know that the cell phone appeared to be knocked down at the START of the fight, when Witness 8 claims to have heard a scuffle and a "get off me" and then the phone went dead. That's when I think that phone was dropped. But I'm waiting to hear what the investigators think is the sequence of events with some visual aids. The debris field is very strange.

ETA: I notice that the two things that are furthest south are the flashlight and the cell phone. This fits the idea that the fight happened there and not at the T, since according to Witness 8, they scuffled. If George was walking around with his flashlight and then they started to fight, they'd both drop what they had in their hands. George had his flashlight, Trayvon had his phone. I still say that George dropped his keys during the time he went walking away from the body. Witnesses saw him "frisking" the body and I wonder if he was looking on the ground for a weapon or something else to justify his murder.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Yes. In your link, it shows 37ft from the edge of the sidewalk to the body.
1)George claimed he was standing in the middle of the sidewalk, so add 3 feet.

Evidence that he was in teh middle of the sidewalk ?

2) He claims he fell backward, away from the body, so add 3 more feet.

Evidence for which direction he was facing when he was hit ?

That's 43 feet. The cell phone, IIRC, was found about 7 feet to the south of the body. That's 50 feet.

Since we already determined how faulty memory can be, let's not rely on it. Evidence ?

By the way, we know that the cell phone appeared to be knocked down at the START of the fight, when Witness 8 claims to have heard a scuffle and a "get off me" and then the phone went dead.

Therefor the phone was knocked down ? How do you know what TM didn't just hang up ?

That's when I think that phone was dropped. But I'm waiting to hear what the investigators think is the sequence of events with some visual aids. The debris field is very strange.

What exactly is strange about it ? That location of the body is after GZ moved it and the paramedics moved it, for all we know.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

ETA: I notice that the two things that are furthest south are the flashlight and the cell phone. This fits the idea that the fight happened there and not at the T, since according to Witness 8, they scuffled. If George was walking around with his flashlight and then they started to fight, they'd both drop what they had in their hands. George had his flashlight, Trayvon had his phone. I still say that George dropped his keys during the time he went walking away from the body. Witnesses saw him "frisking" the body and I wonder if he was looking on the ground for a weapon or something else to justify his murder.

Evidence that GZ walked all the way back to the Tee to "plant his keys" before the police arrived ?

 

[Unabogie]

Evidence that he was in teh middle of the sidewalk ?

He said so in the walkthrough.

Evidence for which direction he was facing when he was hit ?

He said so in the walkthrough.

Since we already determined how faulty memory can be, let's not rely on it. Evidence ?

You just posted a link. Did you not read your own link? Look at where the cell phone is and do the math.

Therefor the phone was knocked down ? How do you know what TM didn't just hang up ?

Because it was on the ground and not in his pocket? Right near George's flashlight?

What exactly is strange about it ? That location of the body is after GZ moved it and the paramedics moved it, for all we know.

The location of two of their belongings is south of the body, almost 50 feet from where he claims they fought. It's weird that you don't find that weird.

 

[Unabogie]

Evidence that GZ walked all the way back to the Tee to "plant his keys" before the police arrived ?

If you look at the debris field, the ONLY thing that far north is his keys. Everything else is clumped around the body. A witness saw him get up and walk that direction after he murdered Trayvon. Can we use ANY deductive reasoning here?

 

[PhantomWolf]

If you look at the debris field, the ONLY thing that far north is his keys. Everything else is clumped around the body. A witness saw him get up and walk that direction after he murdered Trayvon. Can we use ANY deductive reasoning here?

You actually mean make assuptions not in evidence, and so the answer is no, not unless you can prove it.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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 said so in the walkthrough.

He is standing at the very edge of the sidewalk when he says the fight. They ask him "right here" and he says " right around here, to be honest with you, I don't remember exactly."

So I'm sorry, but you just saying 'He said so in the walkthrough.' doesn't cut it, becuase it's contrary to what I am watching him say...

He said so in the walkthrough.

He said nothing about facing a particular direction, but gestures to the south when he describes which direction he stumbled.

You just posted a link. Did you not read your own link? Look at where the cell phone is and do the math.

I will.

Because it was on the ground and not in his pocket? Right near George's flashlight?

And that proves he didn't hang up the phone at the tee how ?

The location of two of their belongings is south of the body, almost 50 feet from where he claims they fought. It's weird that you don't find that weird.

I don't find wierd, I find it interesting. It does open up the possibility that things didn't happen just like GZ said.

But it's not proof, and it doesn't materially affect his story of having his head bashed in the sidewalk and then shooting.

 

[sgtbaker]

It's in that context that people are frustrated with those saying that there's no evidence that George lied or that those lies have been "disproved". Those same people swear that Shellie didn't lie, was asked some sort of vague question, or that we can't possibly know if she "knowingly" lied.

Yes, it's difficult to prove that someone lied. But that's what forensics is for. And in George's case, he foolishly gave three interviews to the police and one more to Hannity and we also have his NEN call. When the SA plays the NEN call and matches it up to the walkthrough, they won't match. And the forensics won't match. And the depiction of Trayvon Martin won't match. I contend that piece by piece, it will become harder and harder to accept his version of events. But at this point, we're arguing in circles so I would prefer to wait until the trial starts when we can all look at the evidence.

There is no context because they are two different cases. Bringing that up in response to another discussion about a different case, one where an individual is expected to recount a chain of events, multiple times, over the course of days, and another where a person is being asked direct questions.

Again, if you have to reword the position to make it fit your argument, you are being dishonest. The position is not that George never lied. The position is not that Georges version of events is nothing but truth or that he is believable. The position is; there is evidence that George took a beating. Eye witness accounts, as it was unfolding and immediately after, put George on the bottom, one witness even stated, that night and the morning after, to have seen George calling for help. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe he was in fear for his life, at that moment.

 

[sgtbaker]

He is standing at the very edge of the sidewalk when he says the fight. They ask him "right here" and he says " right around here, to be honest with you, I don't remember exactly."

So I'm sorry, but you just saying 'He said so in the walkthrough.' doesn't cut it, becuase it's contrary to what I am watching him say...



He said nothing about facing a particular direction, but gestures to the south when he describes which direction he stumbled.



I will.



And that proves he didn't hang up the phone at the tee how ?



I don't find wierd, I find it interesting. It does open up the possibility that things didn't happen just like GZ said.

But it's not proof, and it doesn't materially affect his story of having his head bashed in the sidewalk and then shooting.

The question was regarding an inconsistency about distance where the shooting occurred. Now it seems we are adding the distance of scattered debris to buffer the distance that GZ supposedly lied about. Color me a believer if you must but possessions getting scattered in a fight is not all that uncommon.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If you look at the debris field, the ONLY thing that far north is his keys. Everything else is clumped around the body. A witness saw him get up and walk that direction after he murdered Trayvon. Can we use ANY deductive reasoning here?

Not if that 'deductive reasoning' is that immediately after he shot a person dead, the clever and nimble George Zimmerman quickly got up and walked back up to the "Tee" so he could plant his keys there and claim the fight started there, but then cleverly provide no narrative of how the fight moved to where it ended up.

How much towards the Tee did this witness see GZ walk ? All the way to the Tee ? Just a few feet ? Weren't the police and the 'flashlight man' already headed down the sidewalk towards GZ at that point ?

 

[bookworm]

Translation: I can't be bothered reading and learning the science.



Nice strawman, beat it frequently do you? Try, that we should not hold anyone's witness testimony, no matter who's it is to an exacting standard and demand a perfect reciting of events, because the science says that simply does not happen. It's funny that you are happy to accept and in fact jump with glee on the fact that a number of eye-wittneses changed their versions of what they saw over time, but when it comes to George changing his a story you view that as a clear sign of guilt. Why do they get to change their stories but not him? Why do they get to remember things, realise they got things wrong, and modify their statments, but his must be frozen in time? Can you not see your double standard here?

In reality it is normal human behaviour, we remember things differently as time goes by, sometimes we recall things we didn't in the heat of the moment, other times the memory changes as we replay the incident in our minds to the point of losing the original memory altogether.



No, you go to prison because the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that you are guilty. Even if George's story was shot through with holes, the Prosecution still has to prove their case. In a court of law there is a bar that the prosecution has to reach. Consider the Casey Anthony trial. Her story was so full of holes that you could drive a truck through them, but the prosecution failed to actually prove that she was responsible for her daughter's death. In the same way it doesn't matter whether the Jury believe George's story or not, the Prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he actually murdered Trayon, that he was not actually in fear of his life at the moment he pulled the trigger. If they can't do that, he should walk, that is the law.



I'm advocating that we treat witness testimony scientifically and understand that it is faulty and can never be taken at face value, that picking it apart for inconsistancy is very easy to do since memory is extremely faulty and as such often wrong when compared to other forms of physical evidence, and it is well known that all memory changes over time.

I am advocating that a defendant in a trial is found guilty or not guilty by the evidence, primarily the physical evidence that tells the story and doesn't change and not because of eye-witness testimony (even their own) or confessions since in this day and age we know from extensive studies that those are the worse two forms of evidence there are and that more false convictions occur based on them than any other form of evidence.

I am advocating that the prosecution actually has to do its job to get a conviction, that they have to show that what they claim is correct beyond a reasonable doubt. Not that they have shown that it is possible, not that they have poked holes in the defense's claims, and not that their claim is more likely, but that their claims are true beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is the legal standard, and if you find that to be evil, well then I reject your rejection.

Excellent post, PhantomWolf. Thank you. These are the standards that more people need to advocate because frankly, the way things are now, it's not that far-fetched that most people will see someone they know or love falsely accused and convicted of a crime in their lifetime. We all need to take a step back and look at things with the thought of how we would want others to process information if it were ourselves or someone we love who was accused instead of being so quick to jump on the bandwagon and condemn people.

Once again, thank you.