Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

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

That is false. We know they looked for blood in general, because they listed all the places they found it. We know they did not find it on his hands. You guys just asserted without proof that they never tested his hands. This would be something the defense should have raised hell over, because you can be sure the state will use this fact against poor George at his trial. I wonder why they haven't used this glaring mistake on the part of the Florida labs in their motion to continue? Face it, they didn't find blood on his hands, it wasn't under his nails. That blood should have been there and it wasn't and the jury will hear that.

ETA: They also didn't find George's blood on the LOWER sleeves of Trayvon's hoodie. Meaning, if he were beating a bloody nose or the side of a bloody face, some spray should have gotten some of that blood on his wrists. When he grabbed George's bloody head in his attempt to smash it against the cement, some of that blood should have gotten on his wrists. Grab a basketball with both hands and try and cup it around the back. Notice your wrists touch it? If the basketball were bloody, would your sleeves get wet? But nope. None was there. But you guys keep hoping.

ETA 2: And one last item about the blood. George has scratches on his face that people love to point to as signs of the fight. Those scratches look like something done with fingernails.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02222/face_2222832b.jpg

How did Trayvon manage to scratch his face like that but get nothing under the nails?

 

[Unabogie]

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?

You're going on ignore. If you can learn to stop using ignorant terms insulting other people, maybe we'll have another discussion one day. So long.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That is false. We know they looked for blood in general, because they listed all the places they found it. We know they did not find it on his hands. You guys just asserted without proof that they never tested his hands.

No, you are asserting with no proof that they tested his hands.

Please reference the documents where they tested samples from his hands ?

Should be easy, all the samples are labeled as to where they came from. So you can show us the one from the hands, right ?

Show us anywhere they claim to have swabbed the hands, other than under the fingernails?
Show us anywhere they claim to have bagged his hands ?
Show us where anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

This would be something the defense should have raised hell over, because you can be sure the state will use this fact against poor George at his trial. I wonder why they haven't used this glaring mistake on the part of the Florida labs in their motion to continue? Face it, they didn't find blood on his hands, it wasn't under his nails. That blood should have been there and it wasn't and the jury will hear that..

ETA: They also didn't find George's blood on the LOWER sleeves of Trayvon's hoodie. Meaning, if he were beating a bloody nose or the side of a bloody face, some spray should have gotten some of that blood on his wrists. When he grabbed George's bloody head in his attempt to smash it against the cement, some of that blood should have gotten on his wrists. Grab a basketball with both hands and try and cup it around the back. Notice your wrists touch it? If the basketball were bloody, would your sleeves get wet? But nope. None was there. But you guys keep hoping.

ETA 2: And one last item about the blood. George has scratches on his face that people love to point to and signs of the fight. Those scratches look like something done with fingernails.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02222/face_2222832b.jpg

How did Trayvon manage to scratch his face like that but get nothing under the nails?

The obvious answer would be ... his nails are not what made those scratches, and your assumption is wrong.

 

[Alt+F4]

Until this case comes to trial there is one thing we know for certain....George Zimmermann lied in regard to his financial situation. He is without a doubt a liar.

With that said, how stupid must folks feel who donated to his "defense fund" knowing now that he spent that money paying his BJ's bill?

 

[Cylinder]

Show us where anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

Funny thing about that - and something that hasn't been discussed before - is that I would guess that there was no visible blood on Martin's hands because it wasn't noted in the autopsy. Of course, there's a signifigant difference between visible blood and blood. What's odd in its ommission is the lack of notation of the blood (seemingly) that had to have existed around Martin's chest wound. Both layers of shirts show signifigant blood stains but the ME makes no mention of it in the gross description of the body.

Presumably they took photos of Martin's hands and the GSW, but it is clear that his hands were never tested for the presence of any blood - Martin's or Zimmerman's. In fact, as you allude, there's no evidence that Martin's hands were even processed to protect any evidence that may have existed in the first place.

 

[Unabogie]

No, you are asserting with no proof that they tested his hands.

Please reference the documents where they tested samples from his hands ?

Should be easy, all the samples are labeled as to where they came from. So you can show us the one from the hands, right ?

Show us anywhere they claim to have swabbed the hands, other than under the fingernails?
Show us anywhere they claim to have bagged his hands ?
Show us where anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

You are asserting with no proof that they NEVER tested his hands. I also pointed out how there's no blood under the fingernails, which would be there if he smothered a bloody nose, and no blood on the sleeves, which would be there if he grabbed a bloody head while wearing a hoodie. There's no blood there, which will be brought up at trial and George will have to come up with an answer for it. Too bad he wasted $300,000 in donations on living high on the hog.

The obvious answer would be ... his nails are not what made those scratches, and your assumption is wrong

.

Then what made those scratches on his face? Was his face already beat up? Did he run into something, like a tree? And if those wounds weren't made by his fingers, then why is it off limits to wonder if his other wounds were made by things other than Trayvon? Or is it that any wound that isn't helpful to George just gets whisked away while any wound that helps him has to be taken at face value?

 

[Unabogie]

I will suggest that we table this discussion until trial, when we will all know for sure the exact extent of what was tested, what wasn't and why, and then remove this conjecture. For now we're going to go around in circles and neither side will be convinced with the available public evidence.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I will suggest that we table this discussion until trial, when we will all know for sure the exact extent of what was tested, what wasn't and why, and then remove this conjecture. For now we're going to go around in circles and neither side will be convinced with the available public evidence.

I can agree with that.

But I have to say - I am NOT asserting that his hands were not tested. I am asserting the only things that I know were tested were the things specifically listed as tested.

That his hands were tested is a positive claim.

How in the world would I prove the negative claim of 'his hands weren't tested' ? All I can do is say his hands weren't tested because no evidence exists they were.

 

[Unabogie]

I can agree with that.

But I have to say - I am NOT asserting that his hands were not tested. I am asserting the only things that I know were tested were the things specifically listed as tested.

That his hands were tested is a positive claim.

How in the world would I prove the negative claim of 'his hands weren't tested' ? All I can do is say his hands weren't tested because no evidence exists they were.

Fair enough. We'll come back to this then as I'm sure it will be a key part of the trial.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Until this case comes to trial there is one thing we know for certain....George Zimmermann lied in regard to his financial situation. He is without a doubt a liar.

With that said, how stupid must folks feel who donated to his "defense fund" knowing now that he spent that money paying his BJ's bill?

What specific lie did GZ tell, and to whom ?

 

[johnny karate]

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.

I've done that. Repeatedly.

Every time we do this song and dance, it ends the same way. I give you a version of events I find to be more plausible than Zimmerman's outlandish story, but you never hold up your end of the bargain.

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.

No one is claiming Zimmerman "set out" to murder Martin. That's why he's charged with second degree murder, not first degree. As far as the "depraved mind" bit, let's look at the full definition:

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.

If Zimmerman's self-defense claim is dismantled, then how else would you describe the killing?

And please... stop asking me to prove a negative. Of course I can't prove Martin didn't beat Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk. But since there's no evidence to substantiate that claim, I don't have to.

 

[johnny karate]

What specific lie did GZ tell, and to whom ?

This had been covered. Zimmerman lied by proxy when he allowed his lawyer to file a claim of indigency while Zimmerman was sitting on a big pile of cash.

That we didn't hear the lie come directly from him is immaterial.

 

[Unabogie]

This had been covered. Zimmerman lied by proxy when he allowed his lawyer to file a claim of indigency while Zimmerman was sitting on a big pile of cash.

That we didn't hear the lie come directly from him is immaterial.

He also allowed his wife to commit perjury and allowed his lawyer to tell the court that he'd surrendered his only passport when he knew he had a more recent, valid passport in a safe deposit box.

 

[Alt+F4]

What specific lie did GZ tell, and to whom ?

How many passports do you have? How much money in your bank accounts?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

This had been covered. Zimmerman lied by proxy when he allowed his lawyer to file a claim of indigency while Zimmerman was sitting on a big pile of cash.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/17/2898502/jail-call-says-defense-attorney.html

n a phone call recorded April 14 between Zimmerman and brother-in-law Scott Wilson, the two discuss the new defense lawyer and the attorney’s vision for an upcoming bond hearing. Zimmerman twice said that he told O’Mara that he tried to transfer $37,000 from his online legal defense fund site, but could not complete the transaction because PayPal rules prevent transfers larger than $10,000.

But in court later at Zimmerman’s bond hearing, O’Mara told the judge his client was broke.

O’Mara told The Herald that he does not recall the conversation Zimmerman referred to and would not risk his law license lying to the court.

“He said he’s going to have me declared indigent,” Zimmerman told Wilson on the call. “I told him I didn’t think that would be possible, because there was one sizable transfer I tried to make. It got stopped. You know, $37. He said: ‘Well that doesn’t matter. Right now you’re not working. You’re not providing an income for your family. You’re probably not going to be employable for the rest of your life.’”

That we didn't hear the lie come directly from him is immaterial.

I disagree. I think if your lawyer knows about your finances and tells you that you are indigent anyway, then you listen to your lawyer.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

How many passports do you have? How much money in your bank accounts?

That didn't answer my question. Who did GZ lie to, specifically, and when ?

 

[Alt+F4]

I think if your lawyer knows about your finances and tells you that you are indigent anyway, then you listen to your lawyer.

I'd find another lawyer, after all that lawyer isn't go back to jail when my bail is revoked.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I've done that. Repeatedly.

You have given a vague, undetailed synopsis of what you think happened.

Every time we do this song and dance, it ends the same way. I give you a version of events I find to be more plausible than Zimmerman's outlandish story, but you never hold up your end of the bargain.

Surely you can link to this bargain, and where you held up your end but I didn't ?

No one is claiming Zimmerman "set out" to murder Martin. That's why he's charged with second degree murder, not first degree. As far as the "depraved mind" bit, let's look at the full definition:


If Zimmerman's self-defense claim is dismantled, then how else would you describe the killing?

And please... stop asking me to prove a negative. Of course I can't prove Martin didn't beat Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk. But since there's no evidence to substantiate that claim, I don't have to.

But the state does have to. That's their problem though, right ?

 

[johnny karate]

He also allowed his wife to commit perjury and allowed his lawyer to tell the court that he'd surrendered his only passport when he knew he had a more recent, valid passport in a safe deposit box.

Well, I didn't want to open that whole "perjury" can of worms.

But the legal system has rendered its judgement on George's dishonesty.

That's why he's stuck in Seminole County with an ankle monitor, and with the court holding onto almost $100,000 of his money.

 

[Alt+F4]

That didn't answer my question. Who did GZ lie to, specifically, and when ?

Read this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dam/dailybeast/2012/6/1/Zimmerman-Motion-to-Revoke-Bond.pdf