TheL8Elvis
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 8,276
No, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case
- Thread starter Cylinder
- Start date
- Status
No, but I don't know what that has to do with anything.
AlBell
Philosopher
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,360
Like has been and is being done by Trayvon Truthers for thousands of posts now? But DD's lies are immaterial?
You are joking, right?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
What on earth makes you think the prosecution won't be going over Zimmerman's testimony with a fine tooth comb?
But they better have something better than "ZOMG he was off by a few feet about where the fight started and therefore he's guilty". And I'm pretty certain they won't be presenting a photoshopped pic of a gun on Zimmerman's head to "prove" that he pistol whipped himself, or claim the broken nose was because he ran into a tree or because his wife beat hm up that night.
Last edited:
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Do you two understand the difference between material and immaterial inconsistencies?
It's a rhetorical question, because it's obvious you don't.
12AX7
Banned
Why don't you explain it to us?
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Thank you for admitting you don't understand the difference.
Not my job to teach you what your educaton has failed to do.
12AX7
Banned
Nah, you're not getting off that easy. Here ya go. Start here:
Tell us the material/immaterial differences between (paraphrasing johnny karate here) the details of a deadly altercation and the presence/absence of a person at his funeral.
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
In determining the facts of the case? Yes.
Her lies would merely render her a witness who lacks credibility. The facts of the case can be gleaned from numerous other sources.
And as far as how that affects the strength of the prosecution's case, it should be pointed out that during the same hearing in which the defense dropped this "bomb shell", they also passed on a free chance to give their guy a walk.
So apparently even the defense recognizes that DeeDee's testimony isn't all that important.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
And you do realize that just because you assert something is immaterial, the rest of us who actually bother to make arguments and have an understanding of the evidence are under no obligation to accept your assertion?
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Yeah, I guess you just rattled off a random assortment of trivia about Trayvon Martin with absolutely no intended negative connotations.
Unabogie
Philosopher
Things that lack materiality to the case would not be allowed in court. Does anyone truly doubt that inconsistencies in George's statements, or in relation to physical evidence are IMMATERIAL to the case against him? And will therefore be EXCLUDED from the trial? Really?
I can't believe anyone here would argue something so ridiculous.
I can't believe anyone here would argue something so ridiculous.
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
And if anyone understands that, it's the defense.
That's why despite claiming to have a strong case for self-defense, and seriously undermining the credilbility of the state's supposed "star witness" they still passed up on the chance to avoid a lengthy and expensive trial and protect Zimmerman from a potential civil suit.
Anything to keep Zimmerman off the stand and have his flimsy story torn to shreds under cross-examination.
Material discrepancy, not material evidence.
That's an accepted term of art that describes a discrepancy with some moment - one that cannot be reconciled with the other bits of evidence. A material discrepancy is when Zimmerman claims he was assaulted near his truck and the fight moved east down the top of the T but W11 atates she heard the altercation began near the top of the T and move south. One of those people are lying or mistaken.
An immaterial discrepancy is where Zimmerman claims he was assaulted near the top of the T and the altercation moved south and stopped at some place, while W11 says she heard the altercation begin at the top of the T and move south, W6 first hears the altercation north of his house and move south and stop at some place. All three witnesses can choose different spots where the altercation ended but nothing about that discrepancy alters or obviates their overall narratives. Someone (or more than one someone) is wrong in a detail, but the story can survive that mistaken detail.
Last edited:
johnny karate
... and your little dog too.
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 18,821
Apparently the defense didn't get the memo, because they're doing everything they can to keep the prosecution from having a crack at challenging that story.
Unabogie
Philosopher
George doesn't claim that. He claims he was hit once, went immediately down on the ground on the grass, and in fact fell backwards, further away from the location where he shot Trayvon Martin. Then he claims he never got up again and just laid there while Martin tried to murder him.
This puts him 50 feet away from the farthest piece of evidence.
Oh, right, that's just his first two times telling the story. Later on he completely changed that to include stumble walking 50 feet. But that's obviously not a MATERIAL inconsistency.
Unabogie
Philosopher
I hadn't heard this before, but here is witness 8 talking to Crump over the phone.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/hear-phone-conversation-18622033
Her story tracks very well with the know evidence, all the way down to what the weather was like, how Trayvon adjusted his hoodie, and a description of the phone being knocked down at the start of the fight (which again, matches the flashlight's location, which supports the idea that the fight started where Trayvon was murdered). And unlike George, she wasn't even there and had never been to those houses in her life. Yet she describes the scene very well.
Interestingly, she speaks much better in this recording than when she was talking to BLDR. I suspect she gets very nervous around authority.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/video/hear-phone-conversation-18622033
Her story tracks very well with the know evidence, all the way down to what the weather was like, how Trayvon adjusted his hoodie, and a description of the phone being knocked down at the start of the fight (which again, matches the flashlight's location, which supports the idea that the fight started where Trayvon was murdered). And unlike George, she wasn't even there and had never been to those houses in her life. Yet she describes the scene very well.
Interestingly, she speaks much better in this recording than when she was talking to BLDR. I suspect she gets very nervous around authority.
That's just not true. Zimmerman describes trying to fight back and trying to slide out from under Martin. He never estimated any distance that the altercation moves until the re-enactment - at which time he described what the witnesses saw and heard with his distance seemingly off by around 10 feet. In his re-enactment, he seems to have W6 coming out of W11's patio door.
That's where one can judge materiality. You seem to posit that the altercation started further down the dogwalk - Zimmerman failing to describe the distance travelled being material to that. In other words, his story is inconsistent because of the distance from the T to the bulk of the discarded evidence. When you weigh his claim against the actual evidence, you find that W11 was sitting around 30 feet from where Zimmerman claims the altercation started with her windows open. She describes hearing first words, then a struggle, then yells for help starting near the T and moving south. W6 backs her up on this - yells for help starting near W11 and moving south at which point he sees Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Unabogie
Philosopher
I know he changes his story during the re-enactment, but in his initial story, he went down 50 feet from the phone AND his own flashlight. Sliding out from underneath the murderous kid accounts for 50 feet of movement? That's hilarious.
It's also inconsistent with itself. He gave a whole new version of it on the third try. First he went straight down, in one punch, and never got up. Then he somehow moved quite a distance. Remember, he was just heading back to his truck and had no reason to head south 1, 10, or 50 feet for any reason. Yet he did.
Neither of them saw the initial fight, but witness 18 did, and she claims they were further down where they found most of the evidence as well as the dead body who George shot and killed. In fact, the only evidence even near the T is George's keys, and a witness saw him walk away from the victim after shooting him and came "closer" to her, which puts him right where his keys fell. I've already shown that he must have been carrying his bigger flashlight before the fight (and the murder) and then possibly carried his keys afterwards looking for a weapon or something he could use to justify the fact that he just killed someone, since those keys had a small flashlight. Then the police spotted him, so it seems likely to me that he dropped his keys when they arrived so they wouldn't think he had a weapon. That fits the evidence way more than George's version. Unless you cherry pick bits from each of the 3 versions in order to choose the ones that best help George.
ETA: Oh, and we've already discussed here the idea that we shouldn't put too much into any of the initial witness statements until the trial. Some of them, like Witness 6, have already altered their stories, so it'd be wise to not put too much stock in what you think they'll say on the stand.
Last edited:
- Status