Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

Maybe you should choreograph what you think happened. See if you can get all the moves to fit together without tripping yourself.

It's so amusing to me. In the walkthrough, he stumbled forward, walking, waving his arms, describing how he was pushing and fighting back.

In the initial interview, he explicitly claims he DIDN'T fight back because he never saw the first punch coming, since it was so dark. Then he said he fell backwards and hit the ground, at which point Trayvon jumped on his chest and began to try and murder him.

Clearly, those two versions are not the same. They don't remotely resemble each other. Yet we're supposed to just pick and choose details that match our best hope for George? And ignore how his initial story doesn't match the location of the fight?

Boggles the mind.

 

[johnny karate]

Maybe you should choreograph what you think happened. See if you can get all the moves to fit together without tripping yourself.

Yes, I'd also like to see someone defending Zimmerman make the attempt to create a cohesive narrative out of Zimmerman's ever-evolving story.

Did he fall right to the ground?

Or did he somehow "stumble" almost 50 feet in the direction from which he was supposedly attacked?

Failing that, I'd love to see an explanation for why any aspect of Zimmerman's story that isn't conclusively corroborated should be believed.

I'll be over here holding my breath.

 

[This is The End]

Until you win the Rand Million Dollars for mind reading, trying to tell me what I meant is extremely rude. As the author of my posts, I, and not you, am the authority on what the post meant. Your claim to know what I meant is what is laughable, you don't have a clue not matter how you want to try and twist it.

Good thing you cant go back and edit the posts now.

unless the Prosecution is hiding something, they simply don't have enough in this case to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt

Now ask yourself. Did you type that before or after the start of the trial?

You were clearly trying to suggest that we know everything and you know it.

Or perhaps you don't know what the word "unless" means...

Perhaps by "unless" you meant "we know that". You already admitted that (supposedly) by "hiding" you just meant they have not told us everything. (Which is hilarious in and of itself. Sure, you just accidentally called it "hiding".)

So according to PhantomWolfs current goalposts that post said:

unless we know that the Prosecution is hiding has not told us everything, they simply don't have enough in this case to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt

Do you see how ridiculous the 2nd half your your claim now reads if we are to believe you about what you really meant??

You seriously need to check to see if your goalpost clarifications made the original claim nonsensical before you type something like this:

Until you win the Rand Million Dollars for mind reading, trying to tell me what I meant is extremely rude. As the author of my posts, I, and not you, am the authority on what the post meant. Your claim to know what I meant is what is laughable, you don't have a clue not matter how you want to try and twist it.

 

[This is The End]

Now to your credit, you changed the post when called on it, though it took a little debate to do so

That is a lie.

You can tell by the timestamps that I changed it immediately after typing my responses to your posts that called it out.


PhantomWolfs posts were at XX:43 and XX:45. I saw them both at the same time.

I typed responses to those posts XX:46 and XX:50 and then immediately edited my original post XX:52 which cross posted with your XX:52 post.

Unless you are now going say that by "a little debate" you meant "immediate response and correction".

After your other goalpost moves in this thread I would not be surprised if you claim that is what you meant. We would have to be Million Dollar challenge psychics to know for sure...

 

[This is The End]

it'd seem strange that they'd withhold real dynamite that would make the case a slam dunk for them.

Again, do you really read this stuff you type.

You think it would be strange for prosecutions to give the defense information that they do not have to give them?

Prosecutor: Hey. You know that dynamite evidence that we didn't have to give to the defense yet because of the discovery laws? Let's go ahead and give that to them anyway!!

 

[This is The End]

It's so amusing to me. In the walkthrough, he stumbled forward, walking, waving his arms, describing how he was pushing and fighting back.

In the initial interview, he explicitly claims he DIDN'T fight back because he never saw the first punch coming, since it was so dark. Then he said he fell backwards and hit the ground, at which point Trayvon jumped on his chest and began to try and murder him.

Clearly, those two versions are not the same.

Don't forget, you have living room experts in this thread who watched a TV show about memory loss once and claim that it is a cover all and applies to all changes in story, no matter how extreme.

He must have been punched pretty hard to forget all that.

It's possible though. Way more possible that the claim that we will learn nothing in the trial...

 

[PhantomWolf]

Good thing you cant go back and edit the posts now.

I don't need to go back and edit them, and even if I could I wouldn't, but thank you for being so rude as to suggest that I would.

Now ask yourself. Did you type that before or after the start of the trial?

You were clearly trying to suggest that we know everything and you know it.

Or perhaps you don't know what the word "unless" means...

If I was trying to convey that we already knew everything then why would I state that it is possible that we don't?

Perhaps by "unless" you meant "we know that". You already admitted that (supposedly) by "hiding" you just meant they have not told us everything. (Which is hilarious in and of itself. Sure, you just accidentally called it "hiding".)

I'm not overly sure exactly what your issue is here. Would "hiding" not be an appropriate term for the keeping secret information they have as opposed to showing it? Would you perfer "withholding"?

They pretty mean very similar things, though I still thing that Hide is more apt.

To Hide:

1. To put or keep out of sight; secrete.
2. To prevent the disclosure or recognition of; conceal

To Withhold:

2. To refrain from giving

So according to PhantomWolfs current goalposts that post said:

Thank you for re-writting my post in your nonsensical understanding. Try instead.

On the possiblity that the Prosecution has released everything vital, they simply don't have enough in this case to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt

And yes, I will state it again for the record, it is possible they have. We have no way of knowing if they have or not, unless you know what the prosecution knows. To say otherwise is a total guess. To assume that the Prosecution is withholding evidence that will blow the case wide open without any evidence to back up that belief but guesswork is silly and totally non-skeptical. I have seen too many cases were people have claimed that there must be something more, and that the Prosecution will have more at trial, only to find that nope, the important parts of the case were already out and the Prosecution had nada to be willing to blindly believe in hidden evidence that the Prosecution will bring out in trial.

Do you see how ridiculous the 2nd half your your claim now reads if we are to believe you about what you really meant??

You seriously need to check to see if your goalpost clarifications made the original claim nonsensical before you type something like this:

Perhaps one day when your bias and lack of understand wear off, you might get it.

 

[PhantomWolf]

That is a lie.

You can tell by the timestamps that I changed it immediately after typing my responses to your posts that called it out.


PhantomWolfs posts were at XX:43 and XX:45. I saw them both at the same time.

I typed responses to those posts XX:46 and XX:50 and then immediately edited my original post XX:52 which cross posted with your XX:52 post.

Unless you are now going say that by "a little debate" you meant "immediate response and correction".

After your other goalpost moves in this thread I would not be surprised if you claim that is what you meant. We would have to be Million Dollar challenge psychics to know for sure... [qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif[/qimg]

No it's not a lie. If it's wrong, it's simply wrong, because I have no way of telling whether you edited your post before or after I posted my rebutal to your reply. As you note, both are XX:52. Can you prove that you actually edited it before reading my post? Can you show that I could know that you read it after you edited your post? If the answer to either of those is "no" then your accusations are invalid, and since this is getting us all nowhere fast and you seem to be far more interested in poisoning the well and accusing people of dishonesty, I see no point in further discussions with you.

 

[johnny karate]

This is addressed to no one in particular (and certainly doesn't exclude me), but could we collectively dial things down a bit?

I'd hate to see the thread go back to moderated status.

 

[sgtbaker]

This must be your first sunshine state trial.

That is not how it works at all.

Your statement should say:

The discovery phase is finished, and yet there should still be no new evidence at the trial that was not covered under the sunshine laws and therefore was not required to be disclosed.

There can be plenty of new evidence we have not seen.

Just one example is the expert findings. For instance, if they fingerprinted that supposed "partial chamber check" we would not know about it. All we would know is that one of the witnesses they have told the defense about.

Also, your claim is inherently wrong because if there is a breakthrough in the case, and the prosecution plans on using it in the trial, they still have time to let the defense know about it.

According to you if someone came forward with a video recording of the entire 90 seconds, they can't use it in the trial because "discovery phase is over".

The fingerprint would be the evidence already disclosed. The expert's testimony would be a matter of presentation of the case which would not be a part of discovery, although the expert would be on the witness list. Yes if new evidence came up, it would be submitted but the conversation was talking about evidence the state currently has. Remember, hiding something? It's not like on TV shows where the prosecution ambushes the defense.

No it's not my first Fl trial. I've watched multiple cases from beginning to end, back when I had the free time.

 

[Cylinder]

Yet no blood was found on Trayvon's hands.

They never looked for blood on Martin's hands, so it's not particularly suprising that it wasn't found.

 

[This is The End]

The fingerprint would be the evidence already disclosed.

No it wouldn't.

They did not have to disclose the opinions or findings of their experts.

If they required that the state would just delay their experts until closer to trial date.

 

[sgtbaker]

No it wouldn't.

They did not have to disclose the opinions or findings of their experts.

If they required that the state would just delay their experts until closer to trial date.

I had to go back and reread my post to make sure I didn't make a mistake. I didn't. You just said, "no, it wouldn't," and the rewrote exactly what I said.

 

[This is The End]

I had to go back and reread my post to make sure I didn't make a mistake. I didn't. You just said, "no, it wouldn't," and the rewrote exactly what I said.

You do realize that we're talking about an audio fingerprint analysis. That would be a finding by the expert. There's not some fingerprint somewhere... It's a metaphor.

Technically the prosecution doesn't even have to have that yet.

All they had to disclose was an audio expert.

The audio expert takes the stand and they ask them the question.

I would also point out that you are nit-picking a random example. Remove that random example from my post and it still stands.

If you want to make the claim that we will not find out anything new at the trial just do it and quit dancing around.

If you have really "watched multiple fl cases from beginning to end" then you know there are always surprises.

 

[sgtbaker]

You do realize that we're talking about an audio fingerprint analysis. That would be a finding by the expert. There's not some fingerprint somewhere... It's a metaphor.

Technically the prosecution doesn't even have to have that yet.

All they had to disclose was an audio expert.

The audio expert takes the stand and they ask them the question.

I would also point out that you are nit-picking a random example. Remove that random example from my post and it still stands.

If you want to make the claim that we will not find out anything new at the trial just do it and quit dancing around.

If you have really "watched multiple fl cases from beginning to end" then you know there are always surprises.

If they are submitting the audio finger print as evidence, they have to disclose it to give the defense a chance to counter any expert opinions with their own expert opinions. I would appreciate it if you would stop changing the parameters of the discussion. I said no new evidence, not learning something new. I hope you understand the difference. The discussion was about evidence. You can throw a thousand different examples of evidence and it will be the same conclusion, the state has to turn it over to the defense.

The only real surprises are witness testimony, again, not considered evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It's so amusing to me. In the walkthrough, he stumbled forward, walking, waving his arms, describing how he was pushing and fighting back.

In the initial interview, he explicitly claims he DIDN'T fight back because he never saw the first punch coming, since it was so dark. Then he said he fell backwards and hit the ground, at which point Trayvon jumped on his chest and began to try and murder him.

Clearly, those two versions are not the same. They don't remotely resemble each other. Yet we're supposed to just pick and choose details that match our best hope for George? And ignore how his initial story doesn't match the location of the fight?

Boggles the mind.

Yes, I'd also like to see someone defending Zimmerman make the attempt to create a cohesive narrative out of Zimmerman's ever-evolving story.

Did he fall right to the ground?

Or did he somehow "stumble" almost 50 feet in the direction from which he was supposedly attacked?

Failing that, I'd love to see an explanation for why any aspect of Zimmerman's story that isn't conclusively corroborated should be believed.

I'll be over here holding my breath.

I'll be happy to wait for those of you who don't believe GZ to put together a narrative of what you think really really happened.

Hopefully it includes proving how GZ set out to murder TM with a depraved mind, and disproves his claim of TM on top of him, beating his head against the sidewalk, etc.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If they are submitting the audio finger print as evidence, they have to disclose it to give the defense a chance to counter any expert opinions with their own expert opinions. I would appreciate it if you would stop changing the parameters of the discussion. I said no new evidence, not learning something new. I hope you understand the difference. The discussion was about evidence. You can throw a thousand different examples of evidence and it will be the same conclusion, the state has to turn it over to the defense.

The only real surprises are witness testimony, again, not considered evidence.

There are some things in discovery we haven't seen - the complete cell phone records, the actual information recovered from the phone, the social media information gathered on witness 8, TM school records.

Some of that may be released in the 12th (?) supplemental discovery.

But we have read the eyewitness statements, heard the SPD and FDLE interviews of the eyewitnesses, so really there should not be anything surprising there, should there ?

That leaves expert witness interpretation and/or synthesis of the evidence, and the prosecution presenting it in a neat package.

It's possible they could be surprisingly adept it, or present it in an astonishing way ... but when I keep asking for examples, I get nothing.

 

[WildCat]

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.

Nope, still not seeing the relevance. You're expecting people in stressful situations to have photographic memories, just like the 9/11 truthers do when they pick apart every eyewitness account for the slightest inconsistencies.

OMG, this witness said the plane flew north of the Citgo!!!!1 Inside job!1!!!!1!OMGWTF!!!!11!!!

 

[WildCat]

Again, do you even read the stuff you type?

Claiming they have released everything is crazy. Claiming we will learn nothing at the trial at all is crazy.

Under FL law they have to release everything, they're not allowed to keep it secret. Now, they may interpret said evidence in some new and illuminating way but they certainly can't introduce evidence at trial they haven't already released.

 

[WildCat]

They never looked for blood on Martin's hands, so it's not particularly suprising that it wasn't found.

Unabogie is well aware of this, it's been discussed ad nauseam in this thread.

But when did truthers ever let facts get in the way of their claims?