Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

You need to lok at FBI crime stats for homicide data, where you will find that abouit 6% of all homicides involve no weapons at all, just hands, feet, etc.

And considering how many people are exposed to thunderstorms as opposed to getting in fights, the risk of death from a punch in a fight is far higher than getting struck by lightning.

We just examined all of that various data, the exact same links, the page before your post. Read the thread!

 

[Megalodon]

Seeing that the mods found it fit to keep Wildcat insulting ramblings, while AAHing my (admitedly caustic) replies to them, I will bow out of the thread. I would like to thank PhantomWolf for the short discussion, and point out that he's still wrong

Wildcat can go spit.

 

[johnny karate]

They provide corroboration that the incident started near the Tee. Or you have to have GZ immediately plotting to put them back at the Tee with the police on the way, etc. As I said before, I personally find that much less believable or likely.

I don't see how this helps Zimmerman.

Either he lied about where the fight started (to hide the fact that he was in fact pursuing Martin rather than looking for a street sign) or he lied about the fight not moving (to hide the fact that he wasn't actually immediately immobilized and helpless).

 

[Unabogie]

I don't see how this helps Zimmerman.

Either he lied about where the fight started (to hide the fact that he was in fact pursuing Martin rather than looking for a street sign) or he lied about the fight not moving (to hide the fact that he wasn't actually immediately immobilized and helpless).

Seriously, Johnny, this is progress. We're now really grasping as a group that the location of the fight and body and debris suggests that the story of the attack at the T isn't plausible, which means that the address story isn't plausible, which means that the "jumped out of the bushes as I was walking back to my truck" story isn't plausible. If the testimony from witnesses comes out and just further confirms this, then we'll be able to assess how this changes things. But notice that almost nobody is still claiming that the fight went down how George told it in his first version. This is what I've been talking about when I said that his story would crumble under scrutiny. As you said, once these basic facts are accepted, people will be forced to choose between various reasons why George lied to the police. I don't see how any of them help him.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Up for court next Tuesday, march 5:

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0313/noh_3-5-13.pdf

Motion for specific discovery FDLE
Motion for specific discovery 3 videos
Motion for subpeona duces tecum witness 8

Also, new article on gzlegal:
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pr...rder-on-amended-demand-for-specific-discovery

REGARDING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S OBJECTION TO ORDER ON AMENDED DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY

We understand the FBI is following proper procedure in this matter, and we will continue to work with them to gain appropriate access to information that may be relevant to our case. Unfortunately, we may not have the time to fight for access to additional documents before trial begins in less than 100 days.

It reads to me like MOM expects that getting this information from the FBI will be a long process, and I read it into it that this will result in the judge having to grant a delay in the start of the trial.

 

[johnny karate]

Up for court next Tuesday, march 5:

http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0313/noh_3-5-13.pdf

Motion for specific discovery FDLE
Motion for specific discovery 3 videos
Motion for subpeona duces tecum witness 8

Also, new article on gzlegal:
http://gzlegalcase.com/index.php/pr...rder-on-amended-demand-for-specific-discovery

REGARDING UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S OBJECTION TO ORDER ON AMENDED DEMAND FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY

We understand the FBI is following proper procedure in this matter, and we will continue to work with them to gain appropriate access to information that may be relevant to our case. Unfortunately, we may not have the time to fight for access to additional documents before trial begins in less than 100 days.

It reads to me like MOM expects that getting this information from the FBI will be a long process, and I read it into it that this will result in the judge having to grant a delay in the start of the trial.

I fail to see what crucial information the FBI could have regarding this case. Smells like a stall tactic to me.

 

[Unabogie]

I fail to see what crucial information the FBI could have regarding this case. Smells like a stall tactic to me.

They've already had a year to prepare for this and already lost their motion for continuance. I don't think they'll be able to stall anything no matter what they pull. I think maybe this is laying grounds for appeal should George be convicted. He can claim that he "wasn't given time to prepare."

Regarding what evidence the FBI could possibly have, I remember back last year, when the whole case revolved around George's broken nose and cuts.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161

According to all the people who took this stance, all George needed to do was show he had cuts and bruises and he would easily walk. In fact, it wasn't even appropriate for him to be charged at all. So what changed? Why is it necessary to stall for time when they can just post those bloody photos and send George off with a hale and hearty fare thee well?

I guess his lawyers see something there that worries them.

 

[This is The End]

Smells like a stall tactic to me.

If the defense tries various ways to delay the trial, just a few weeks after the judge denied them a delay, the judge is going to see right through it and be furious with them on top of that.

I guess his lawyers see something there that worries them.

Even if it does not conclusively show that his lawyers are not that confident (though it could very well be), it does tell us that the defense thinks this is much more complicated than many of the posters in this thread have made it out to be.

 

[Unabogie]

Even if it does not conclusively show that his lawyers are not that confident (though it could very well be), it does tell us that the defense thinks this is much more complicated than many of the posters in this thread have made it out to be.

I agree. Reading that column from Dershowitz, it reminded me how the early days of this case were predicated around the defense side of things. Namely, was George injured or not? Then the PC hearing happened, and the State tipped their hand that their case was based around breaking down George's story to prove that (a) George continued pursuing Trayvon beyond what he's admitted to, and (b) that even when he caught up with him, he didn't identify himself or act to cool off the situation, and (c) his injuries weren't very serious and didn't show a life threatening assault. This suggests to me that they will argue something similar to what we've been saying, which is that George caused the confrontation by pursuing Trayvon, got in a fight, and then recklessly shot him when he started losing the fight even though he wasn't in any real danger.

I think we can see how that's a more complex case to resolve and I think says a lot about the circumstantial evidence that contradicts the defendant's story.

 

[Mumbles]

I don't know if I totally agree with this. There are many people who find the basic plot of George's story plausible. I know that you and I don't, but there's lots of people who tend to think young black males are on a hair trigger at all times just waiting to commit violence. And of course with super human "natural" athleticism which lets a 155 lb teenager run roughshod over a 205 lb man carrying a gun. While I find his entire tale laughable on its face, I think there are others who need to see that George is a liar in order to wrap their heads around the truth of the matter.

Here's my issue - Zimmerman's reenactment, when combined with the police call, would require that Martin "casually walk" 900 feet (from the place where Zimmerman claims to have first seen Martin, to the T-junction) in under one minute, and that's simply impossible. In fact, some playing around with Google Maps shows that, in one minute, Martin would only have made it to roughly the clubhouse, which is where Zimmerman claims to have parked, when Zimmerman started claiming that Martin was "coming to check [him] out". I also found that Martin could not have made it to the T-junction by the time Zimmerman notes that Martin was running.

I think it's much more likely, assuming that Zimmerman first spotted Martin by the shortcut, that Martin walked by him at the clubhouse, that Zimmerman then began following Martin in his car, that Martin ran behind the houses once he noticed this, and that Zimmerman never entered the T-Junction at all until after his police call ended.

Yes, I'm very aware of the "young black man = thug" stereotype, but I'm stating that this is not logical.

Hmmm...that wasn't very well written.

What I was specifally getting at is how well Shellie's perjury case demonstrates this bias. My prediction is that the state's case will consist of BLDR systematically demonstrating all the ways in which George lied about what happened that night, and how his self-serving lies add up to an attempt to excuse an act of murder. As these lies are exposed, a rational person would understand that the defense's case is crumbling, brick by brick, into something that is no longer plausible. But to get a sense of how well that will work on George's supporters, you only need to look at how they refuse to even admit that Shellie lied, when we have recordings, bank documents, and her own words to prove it. How will they react when George's lies are exposed by such things as timelines, physical locations, and common sense?

On that, we definitely agree.

 

[Unabogie]

Here's my issue - Zimmerman's reenactment, when combined with the police call, would require that Martin "casually walk" 900 feet (from the place where Zimmerman claims to have first seen Martin, to the T-junction) in under one minute, and that's simply impossible. In fact, some playing around with Google Maps shows that, in one minute, Martin would only have made it to roughly the clubhouse, which is where Zimmerman claims to have parked, when Zimmerman started claiming that Martin was "coming to check [him] out". I also found that Martin could not have made it to the T-junction by the time Zimmerman notes that Martin was running.

I think it's much more likely, assuming that Zimmerman first spotted Martin by the shortcut, that Martin walked by him at the clubhouse, that Zimmerman then began following Martin in his car, that Martin ran behind the houses once he noticed this, and that Zimmerman never entered the T-Junction at all until after his police call ended.

Yes, I've also noted how the walk through and the NEN call don't match up and refute such things as the "circling the car" story. I believe that they'll show that the "coming to check me out" part could not have happened at the place where George says he parked by the T. However, I'm not sure we can decipher what the truth is there. I contend it will be enough to show that the events didn't happen the way he said it did. If it's just physically impossible for him to be telling the truth, then a jury will punish him for that.

Yes, I'm very aware of the "young black man = thug" stereotype, but I'm stating that this is not logical.

Hmmm...that wasn't very well written.

I get what you mean.

On that, we definitely agree.

I think people will come around once the trial starts rolling. I don't think the defense is going to do well.

 

[Noztradamus]

Here's my issue - Zimmerman's reenactment, when combined with the police call, would require that Martin "casually walk" 900 feet (from the place where Zimmerman claims to have first seen Martin, to the T-junction) in under one minute, and that's simply impossible. In fact, some playing around with Google Maps shows that, in one minute, Martin would only have made it to roughly the clubhouse, which is where Zimmerman claims to have parked, when Zimmerman started claiming that Martin was "coming to check [him] out". I also found that Martin could not have made it to the T-junction by the time Zimmerman notes that Martin was running.

I think it's much more likely, assuming that Zimmerman first spotted Martin by the shortcut, that Martin walked by him at the clubhouse, that Zimmerman then began following Martin in his car, that Martin ran behind the houses once he noticed this, and that Zimmerman never entered the T-Junction at all until after his police call ended.

^this

Pretty much what i'm thinking. Which means that when Z is making his NEN call on Two Trees he is actually timeshifting the truth and describing the confrontation earlier in the clubhouse car park.

Has to be that way because to see the details (button on shirt) on Two Trees with no close street lighting, moon low in Western sky behind Martin, George would have had to, after the car park confrontation, followed Martin in his little red truck, then turned around so he had his headlights illuminating M during the NEN. Then when M ran, got out and walked in the same direction to find a house number (which he could have found, brightly illuminated, on the corner house before the walkway T)

Now I don't think Scenario 2, which makes George look like a really nasty threatening stalker, actually occurred, just the George tends to modify the truth.

 

[quadraginta]

So unless someone's been in a street brawl they're not qualified to comment on this incident?

I've been in street fights. Coal miners' bars where I grew up in West Virginia. Baltimore's Fell's Point in the early 70's, before it got all upscale and Yuppie, back when it was just the waterfront district that white collar types stayed away from after dark. NW DC around the same time, when the cops wouldn't even drive though there unless there was two of them in the car.

I've still got the scars on my knuckles to prove it. And a couple fingers that won't ever be exactly straight again.

Oh. Wait.

That can't be true, can it. An internet tough guy martial arts maven said so. No one ever gets a cut knuckle in a street fight.

Must be imaginary scars.

 

[PMR30]

Well, I've read most every post of this thread and the first one. I've just got to say I'm glad I won't be a juror in this case. I think it will be difficult for the state to prove that GZ wasn't in fear of great bodily harm or death at the instant he shot Trayvon. I'm not sure that it matters what George or Trayvon did up until the confrontation. I'm not even sure that it matters who actually confronted whom. Or who threw the first punch. I think this case comes down to what George thought when he pulled the trigger.

You can argue this is a terrible law until it is you who has to make the decision.

 

[This is The End]

I'm not sure that it matters what George or Trayvon did up until the confrontation.

As far as I understand it, if they can prove Z committed a felony that will "matter". That's why that other forum constantly talks about various pieces of evidence that might prove that Z had his gun out long before M supposedly reached for it in Z's pants. Not that that would in and of itself be a felony, I believe they would have to have some evidence of assault as well.

 

[Dan O.]

I think this case comes down to what George thought when he pulled the trigger.

It's unfortunate that you won't be available for the jury. According to you, the state is going to have to find a jury of 12 psychics that can read George's mind.

 

[Unabogie]

It's unfortunate that you won't be available for the jury. According to you, the state is going to have to find a jury of 12 psychics that can read George's mind.

This is such an odd position that they have. I keep going back to this other case that's currently in the news, since it demonstrates the extreme version of their argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Travis_Alexander

The trial against Jodi Arias began on January 2, 2013, in Maricopa County Superior Court with the Hon. Sherry K. Stephens presiding.[14][15] Prosecutors sought the death penalty for Arias.[29] Tanisha Alexander Sorenson, Alexander's sister, has been vocal in her desire to see Arias sentenced to death.[30]

Arias is represented by appointed counsel L. Kirk Nurmi and Jennifer Willmott. Her counsel is arguing that Alexander's death was a justifiable homicide committed in self-defense. The defense asserts that Alexander became enraged and attacked Arias after she dropped the camera.[31]

Now certainly there are no eye witnesses to the murder. So are people really suggesting that unless they can prove that Arias absolutely, beyond a reasonable doubt, wasn't in fear for her life she won't be convicted? That all of the other evidence - forensic and otherwise - that proves her account is implausible won't be considered by the jury? That her previous lies aren't going to be held against her?

If not, what differentiates the two cases, exactly?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I fail to see what crucial information the FBI could have regarding this case. Smells like a stall tactic to me.

The personal incredulity of a non-lawyer speculating the outcomes in legal matters related to this case is as compelling as ever.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

They've already had a year to prepare for this and already lost their motion for continuance. I don't think they'll be able to stall anything no matter what they pull. I think maybe this is laying grounds for appeal should George be convicted. He can claim that he "wasn't given time to prepare."

Perhaps Judge Nelson should have ruled as she discussed in November (?) that the State should turn over all of the documentation it received from the FBI instead of thinking she can order the FBI to do things.

Regarding what evidence the FBI could possibly have, I remember back last year, when the whole case revolved around George's broken nose and cuts.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/drop-george-zimmerman-murder-charge-article-1.1080161

According to all the people who took this stance, all George needed to do was show he had cuts and bruises and he would easily walk. In fact, it wasn't even appropriate for him to be charged at all. So what changed?

The state bypassed the grand jury and appointed a special prosecutor to over-charge him in hopes that he would take a plea deal ... or something along those lines. IOW the case became a giant political football.

That's of course, assuming you aren't just arguing against a strawman, and people really did make the argument that GZ just had to have cuts and bruises and he would walk.

Why is it necessary to stall for time when they can just post those bloody photos and send George off with a hale and hearty fare thee well?

I guess his lawyers see something there that worries them.

That's one possible conclusion, I suppose, although I am not sure how you came by it.

 

[Unabogie]

Perhaps Judge Nelson should have ruled as she discussed in November (?) that the State should turn over all of the documentation it received from the FBI instead of thinking she can order the FBI to do things.



The state bypassed the grand jury and appointed a special prosecutor to over-charge him in hopes that he would take a plea deal ... or something along those lines. IOW the case became a giant political football.

That's of course, assuming you aren't just arguing against a strawman, and people really did make the argument that GZ just had to have cuts and bruises and he would walk.



That's one possible conclusion, I suppose, although I am not sure how you came by it.

Did you not read the article I posted?

A medical report by George Zimmerman’s doctor has disclosed that Zimmerman had a fractured nose, two black eyes, two lacerations on the back of his head and a back injury on the day after the fatal shooting. If this evidence turns out to be valid, the prosecutor will have no choice but to drop the second-degree murder charge against Zimmerman — if she wants to act ethically, lawfully and professionally.

I'm curious how you think that can be read any differently than "if he has cuts and bruises, he must be set free"?