Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

"It sounded like it all started right on the sidewalk by our house there and then maybe like it bent the corner and right there is where the scuffle started and it kinda scooted down [crosstalk] cause it defintely went past the back of our house and then that's where the shot was on this side of our house."

 

[johnny karate]

"It sounded like it all started right on the sidewalk by our house there and then maybe like it bent the corner and right there is where the scuffle started and it kinda scooted down [crosstalk] cause it defintely went past the back of our house and then that's where the shot was on this side of our house."

That's not how Zimmerman described it in his statement to the police:

As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said "You got a problem". I said "No". The suspect said "You do now". As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911, the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled "Help" several times. The suspect told me "Shut the **** up", and I tried to sit upright. The suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell "Help" and then I attempted to sit up. The suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continue to yell "Help". As I slid the suspect covered my nose and mouth and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now-exposed firearm and say "Your[sic] gonna die tonight [expletive deleted]".

Zimmerman says he went immediately to the ground and onto his back with Martin on top of him. And yet witnesses heard the fight move and Martin's body ended up almost 50 feet from where Zimmerman claimed the altercation started.

Some in this thread may not find those to be "material inconsistencies" but Zimmerman's lawyers sure seem to. That's why they're running scared from the immunity hearing.

 

[Unabogie]

"It sounded like it all started right on the sidewalk by our house there and then maybe like it bent the corner and right there is where the scuffle started and it kinda scooted down [crosstalk] cause it defintely went past the back of our house and then that's where the shot was on this side of our house."

So you're saying George lied about going right down to the ground, on his back, and never getting up? Because even your witness says that's not true.

 

[Unabogie]

That's not how Zimmerman described it in his statement to the police:


Zimmerman says he went immediately to the ground and onto his back with Martin on top of him. And yet witnesses heard the fight move and Martin's body ended up almost 50 feet from where Zimmerman claimed the altercation started.

Some in this thread may not find those to be "material inconsistencies" but Zimmerman's lawyers sure seem to. That's why they're running scared from the immunity hearing.

Cylinder's witness, the physical evidence, and even George in subsequent tellings contradicts his sworn statement. So pretty much no one believes the fight took place where George claimed it did. So why should we believe it took place HOW he claimed it did or WHY he claimed it did?

 

[Dan O.]

"It sounded like it all started right on the sidewalk by our house there and then maybe like it bent the corner and right there is where the scuffle started and it kinda scooted down [crosstalk] cause it defintely went past the back of our house and then that's where the shot was on this side of our house."

Do we have to hold our breath waiting for Cylinder to show how this witnesses narative accounts for the physical evidence?

 

[WildCat]

That's not how Zimmerman described it in his statement to the police:


Zimmerman says he went immediately to the ground and onto his back with Martin on top of him. And yet witnesses heard the fight move and Martin's body ended up almost 50 feet from where Zimmerman claimed the altercation started.

Some in this thread may not find those to be "material inconsistencies" but Zimmerman's lawyers sure seem to. That's why they're running scared from the immunity hearing.

Which part of that exacty do you thnk is a material discrepancy? Because I'm not seeing it.

And perhaps you should apply for the $1 million with your psychic abilities to read the lawyers' minds.

 

[WildCat]

Do we have to hold our breath waiting for Cylinder to show how this witnesses narative accounts for the physical evidence?

So you're hanging the entire prosecution on the difference between "scooted" and "slid"?

 

[Dan O.]

So you're hanging the entire prosecution on the difference between "scooted" and "slid"?

Let's see you roll those eyes over coming up with a narative that explains the evidence. This case has practically proved itself and lying boy George is going bye bye for a very long time unless you cut the snark and help him out.

 

[Bob001]

That's not how Zimmerman described it in his statement to the police:

Quote:
As I headed back to my vehicle, the suspect emerged from the darkness and said "You got a problem". I said "No". The suspect said "You do now". As I looked and tried to find my phone to dial 911, the suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me. I yelled "Help" several times. The suspect told me "Shut the **** up", and I tried to sit upright. The suspect grabbed my head and slammed it into the concrete sidewalk several times. I continued to yell "Help" and then I attempted to sit up. The suspect slammed my head into the sidewalk. My head felt like it was going to explode. I tried to slide out from under the suspect and continue to yell "Help". As I slid the suspect covered my nose and mouth and stopped my breathing. At this point I felt the suspect reach for my now-exposed firearm and say "Your[sic] gonna die tonight [expletive deleted]".

Does anybody else think this dialogue sounds like it's from a movie script? If TM had said "You got a problem?" and GZ just said "No," TM's obvious response would be "Then why are you following me?" TM was a teenager facing an unknown, heavier adult man in a neighborhood he was just visiting; for all he knew GZ could have been a neighbor also walking home from the convenience store. Is it plausible he would have jumped on GZ without knowing more about what was going on, unless GZ was flashing his gun or trying to grab him? GZ's account of this exchange by itself raises doubts about everything else he says.

 

[johnny karate]

Which part of that exacty do you thnk is a material discrepancy? Because I'm not seeing it.

These arguments have been made. In great detail. And I have no desire to reiterate them for - or otherwise attempt to convince - a knee-jerk contrarian.

And perhaps you should apply for the $1 million with your psychic abilities to read the lawyers' minds.

I don't have to read minds. I can observe actions.

And I just watched Zimmerman's lawyers cut their client's chances for acquittal in half, and leave him wide open to a civil suit.

Now... according the legal geniuses in this thread, the prosecution has no evidence that can contradict or disprove Zimmerman's story, and any inconsistencies in Zimmerman's stories are insignificant.

So maybe someone can explain to me why the defense - with their strong case for self-defense - doesn't just simply put Zimmerman on the stand at an immunity hearing, have him tell the judge his airtight story, get acquitted and be done with it.

 

[Unabogie]

These arguments have been made. In great detail. And I have no desire to reiterate them for - or otherwise attempt to convince - a knee-jerk contrarian.



I don't have to read minds. I can observe actions.

And I just watched Zimmerman's lawyers cut their client's chances for acquittal in half, and leave him wide open to a civil suit.

Now... according the legal geniuses in this thread, the prosecution has no evidence that can contradict or disprove Zimmerman's story, and any inconsistencies in Zimmerman's stories are insignificant.

So maybe someone can explain to me why the defense - with their strong case for self-defense - doesn't just simply put Zimmerman on the stand at an immunity hearing, have him tell the judge his airtight story, get acquitted and be done with it.

Because George wants to be acquitted by a jury of his peers and not some stuffy, elitist judge. Also, he wants the case to drag out until June and not April, since June acquittals are all the rage these days.

 

[Unabogie]

Does anybody else think this dialogue sounds like it's from a movie script? If TM had said "You got a problem?" and GZ just said "No," TM's obvious response would be "Then why are you following me?" TM was a teenager facing an unknown, heavier adult man in a neighborhood he was just visiting; for all he knew GZ could have been a neighbor also walking home from the convenience store. Is it plausible he would have jumped on GZ without knowing more about what was going on, unless GZ was flashing his gun or trying to grab him? GZ's account of this exchange by itself raises doubts about everything else he says.

This is why I never believed his story, and I've said this many times but it bears repeating again.

You have to believe that Trayvon Martin tried to kill George with absolutely zero provocation. Not fight him, but kill him. In George's version, Trayvon immediately "came over to check him out" with "sumptin in his waistband". That means that Trayvon was already thinking violence before anything had happened. Remember, it's dark. Trayvon's on the phone with a girl. But all he's thinking about is killing this stranger in a truck. Then, George merely walks by. Again, just minding his own business looking for an address, when Trayvon hides in the bushes, jumps out of those bushes, and says "You do now, homie" to a guy who said he had no problem, pops him in the face, and jumps on his and tries to smother him and crush his head. For nothing.

In none of this is there a motive for Trayvon's actions. He doesn't know this guy. He's not drunk. He's not on drugs. He's not mad at anyone. Witness 8 says he was happy on the phone. He's getting ready to watch the All-Star game. Parents are out of the house. Life is good.

But George does have a motive to fight. He sees a kid he thinks is "up to no good" and is "on drugs". He is swearing at Trayvon without ever having spoken to him. Does that not send up red flags? Why is he already angry and some kid walking down the street? *********** punks? These ******** always get away? So he's armed, he's following in his truck, and then he what, gets out and runs, RUNS after the kid while swearing at him?

Ok, so in that dynamic, who is the guy more likely to be itching for a fight? I mean, come on. That's just going by NEN tape and not even looking for lies or inconsistencies on the part of the shooter. So George starts with a trust deficit because he sounded like a crazy guy on the tape but claims he was just looking for an address and was attacked for no reason. So unless the evidence backs him up, he's in deep ****.

And guess what, the evidence isn't backing him up.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Let's see you roll those eyes over coming up with a narative that explains the evidence. This case has practically proved itself and lying boy George is going bye bye for a very long time unless you cut the snark and help him out.

Wow, I didn't know wildcat had that much power !

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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.

Speaking of ridiculous arguments...

Recordings of a highly personal nature demanded by the person who, as far as they are concerned, murdered their son in cold blood and then made up racist dialogue to cover his tracks.

I believe it will not be granted because to me it's abusive, intrusive, and if you already consider the science to be woo, irrelevant.

Here is a copy of the signed subpoena ordering the martin family and witness 8 to produce any audio of TM from the last 3 years.
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0313/order_SDT_voice.pdf

 

[KatieG]

Speaking of ridiculous arguments...



Here is a copy of the signed subpoena ordering the martin family and witness 8 to produce any audio of TM from the last 3 years.
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0313/order_SDT_voice.pdf

What is it that you think this will prove? How will it help GZ look less like a killer? The vocal recordings of a very young teen going back 3 years.

 

[Dan O.]

Wow, I didn't know wildcat had that much power !

MOM is counting on you guys to help him out. I thought you posted that yourself a few pages back. Have you come up with a narative that explains the evidence? All I've seen from your corner is:

 

[12AX7]

Wow, I didn't know wildcat had that much power !

Elvis, can you address this:

So maybe someone can explain to me why the defense - with their strong case for self-defense - doesn't just simply put Zimmerman on the stand at an immunity hearing, have him tell the judge his airtight story, get acquitted and be done with it.

Thanks.

 

[12AX7]

What is it that you think this will prove? How will it help GZ look less like a killer? The vocal recordings of a very young teen going back 3 years.

The Zimmerites* want the scream to be George's. Badly.






*You know, the opposite of "Travon Truthers".

 

[Unabogie]

Speaking of ridiculous arguments...

Here is a copy of the signed subpoena ordering the martin family and witness 8 to produce any audio of TM from the last 3 years.
http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/0313/order_SDT_voice.pdf

This is the second time you've posted this, so I assume you think it's a real zinger?

How is guessing wrongly about a matter of law or a judge's ruling a sign of a bad argument? I still think it's intrusive and abusive. I still think it's irrelevant to what happened that night.

The judge didn't explain in her order any of the legal reasoning behind it so I'll just assume this kind of order is more routine than I thought. That's ok, I don't pretend to be a lawyer.

But you're the one who proclaimed that a voice analysis like this is woo. So if that's true for a recording of screams that were matched against an exemplar that George recorded after the murder, then just how do you think those can be matched to a kid whose voice was changing over the course of 3 years? You obviously can't turn around and argue that comparing old recordings to a recent one is more reliable than comparing it to an exemplar specifically recorded to match the voice print, so I think this is just sophistry on your part. "George win motion, motion good. Har har."

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Now... according the legal geniuses in this thread, the prosecution has no evidence that can contradict or disprove Zimmerman's story, and any inconsistencies in Zimmerman's stories are insignificant.

So maybe someone can explain to me why the defense - with their strong case for self-defense - doesn't just simply put Zimmerman on the stand at an immunity hearing, have him tell the judge his airtight story, get acquitted and be done with it.

I am pretty sure you know you are conflating a "strong case for self defense" and winning an immunity hearing.

However, a lot of good information can be gleaned from this post from Talkleft.

A hearing is held before trial. The burden is on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies.
The judge weighs the facts. If the judge agrees the defendant has shown stand your ground immunity applies by a preponderance of evidence, the charges are dismissed. The defendant can't be prosecuted.

If the judge finds the defendant hasn't met his burden, (including if the disputed evidence is so equal on both sides the judge can't decide one way or the other) the case goes to trial to be decided by the jury. At trial, the defendant can still argue both self-defense and stand your ground immunity -- he only has to establish some evidence of his theory, which can be just his own testimony, that he acted in self-defense.

The prosecution must prove his guilt at the jury trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Which means, if the defendant raises self-defense or stand your ground at trial and gets the jury instruction, the state, which has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, must disprove self-defense. If the jury has a doubt, the defendant must be acquitted.

It's worth reading the whole post.