Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[This is The End]

Oh and welcome to the JREF phonebook!!

We are happy to have you.

Did you find the JREF solely by this Trayvon Martin thread?

 

[phonebook]

So I gather that your only complaint with Mumbles' quote is the word "refuses"??

The way he put it seemed to imply the dispatcher insisted, commanded, or however you'd like to say it, that GZ wait at a specific location, and GZ specifically said he was not willing to do that. In the context he put it, that's how I would interpret "refuse".

So mumbles' line should read:
"where Z "has second thoughts on the agreement to" meet the police at a definite location."

Yes, I would agree with that, and I feel that implies something different than what he said.

Oh and welcome to the JREF phonebook!!

We are happy to have you.

Did you find the JREF solely by this Trayvon Martin thread?

Thanks

Yes, I actually was referred to this thread from someone on another website and thread that I frequent. That thread has been losing steam lately, so this is just one more outlet that I may use to discuss the case.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

If your evidence that GZ followed TM is the NEN, then that's also your evidence that he he both:
a) stopped following him
b) lost track of him

Right ?

There's no evidence in the NEN call that Zimmerman stopped following Martin.

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
I hilited where he acknowledged the dispatcher and stopped following.

There is evidence that he did continue to follow him in the actual location of the altercation as opposed where Zimmerman claimed it took place.

Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.

And yes, Zimmerman lost track of Martin. Because Martin was running away from him. That's why Zimmerman was following him.

You cannot continue to track someone if you have lost track of them.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So I gather that your only complaint with Mumbles' quote is the word "refuses"??

It should say "reneges" perhaps?? Backs out on??

Isn't that nearly enough synonym for refuse??

The dispatcher suggests a specific location to meet at. Z agrees. (That's the part you left out the first time, coincidentally, I'm sure).

Z then reneges on that plan and asks to instead meet somewhere unspecified and to be determined.

That's not true. He never refused, reneged or backed out. He agreed.
He then offered an alternate suggestion, to which the dispatcher agreed.
None of which involved refusing, reneging or backing out.

 

[johnny karate]

Dispatcher: Are you following him?
Zimmerman: Yeah
Dispatcher: Ok, we don't need you to do that.
Zimmerman: Ok
I hilited where he acknowledged the dispatcher and stopped following.

He acknowledged the dispatcher. You have no idea if he stopped following.

But I do find it amazing that after arguing that the ambiguity in the language of Shellie Zimmerman's testimony and an FBI report makes it impossible for us to glean certain details, you now argue that word "okay" has a definitively discernible meaning.

You have once again made an argument so disingenuous, that I don't believe that even you believe it.

Dispatcher: What's your apartment number?
Zimmerman: It's a home it's 1950, oh crap I don't want to give it all out, I don't know where this kid is.
You cannot continue to track someone if you have lost track of them.

By that same token, I could argue that once you start following someone you cannot stop following them.

See how stupid that sounds?

And of course, these pathetic semantic gymnastics fail to address how Martin's body ended up almost fifty feet further away from Zimmerman's truck then he claimed to be, behind a row of houses, away from any street sign for which he specifically told police he was looking.

 

[Noztradamus]

Of course I do johnny. Here's Noz explaining what he thinks happened:

Originally Posted by Noztradamus
I see the situation as
Party A flees
Party B pursues Party A
Party B shoots and kills Party A
Party B says "it was self defence"

Now there's your problem. I offered a number of items that happened that night, which you choose to view as "a scenario" of George hunting Trayvons.

Now a couple of conclusions may be inferred. Party A fleeing implies a wish to terminate the encounter. Party B then following implies a wish that the event not be thus terminated, but that doesn't give the scenario you draw, only to reject.

It is clear George made a number of poor choices that night, from the time he spotted a teen using a common short cut into Retreat at Twin Lakes by Frank Taffee's house, and assumed he was suspicious. If George han't been that suspicious one and gone on to WalMart, nothing would have happened. And that result applies to every other bad choice George subsequently made.

That's not true. He never refused, reneged or backed out. He agreed.
He then offered an alternate suggestion, to which the dispatcher agreed.
None of which involved refusing, reneging or backing out.

In other words, there was an agreement, which George subsequently renounced and renegotiated. Sounds like refusal to me.

 

[Rare Truth]

He acknowledged the dispatcher. You have no idea if he stopped following.

But I do find it amazing that after arguing that the ambiguity in the language of Shellie Zimmerman's testimony and an FBI report makes it impossible for us to glean certain details, you now argue that word "okay" has a definitively discernible meaning.

You have once again made an argument so disingenuous, that I don't believe that even you believe it.



By that same token, I could argue that once you start following someone you cannot stop following them.

See how stupid that sounds?

And of course, these pathetic semantic gymnastics fail to address how Martin's body ended up almost fifty feet further away from Zimmerman's truck then he claimed to be, behind a row of houses, away from any street sign for which he specifically told police he was looking.

One thing about that still has me puzzled. (well, one of many things, but on the location of the body...)

Not just the body, but the tactical flashlight.

George talks about tapping his flashlight at around the T - he had it out, we know it was in his hand

He tells the officer, in his first rendition, he was cold cocked by TM right up around the T, and went right down.

He later tells (when he realizes he has to make some adjustments to that story) investigators, he pushed him away, or he "stumbled" and next thing TM is on top of him.

Sooo...some 40-45 feet of this "stumbling" has to occur - or they are rolling around that distance - cause TM's body was quite a bit away from that cold cocking.

Now (here's where it gets hinky...) what we would have to believe, is that whole time he was knocked down, rumbling, rolling, being pummeled...he's still holding his flashlight that had been in his hand?

THIS is where it was found:

Evidence list, with marker notation

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In other words, there was an agreement, which George subsequently renounced and renegotiated. Sounds like refusal to me.

re·nounce
/riˈnouns/
Verb
Formally declare one's abandonment of (a claim, right, or possession).
Refuse to recognize or abide by any longer.

I don't think it's important at all, but he didn't renounce the deal. He did not say "no, not going to do it" . And they weren't involved in a negotiation.
What actually happened was he suggested someplace else, to which the NEN dispatcher agreed.

No renouncing, no negotiating, etc.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

He acknowledged the dispatcher. You have no idea if he stopped following.

Sure I do. When shortly after he acknowledged the dispatcher he says he doesn't know where TM is, it follows that he doesn't know where TM is because he stopped following him.

But I do find it amazing that after arguing that the ambiguity in the language of Shellie Zimmerman's testimony and an FBI report makes it impossible for us to glean certain details, you now argue that word "okay" has a definitively discernible meaning.

I'm arguing what I believe OK means in the context it was used in this instance.

You have once again made an argument so disingenuous, that I don't believe that even you believe it.

By that same token, I could argue that once you start following someone you cannot stop following them.

See how stupid that sounds? .

Yes, I do. But what does that have to do with the fact that GZ stopped following TM because he couldn't follow him because he didn't know where he was ?

And of course, these pathetic semantic gymnastics fail to address how Martin's body ended up almost fifty feet further away from Zimmerman's truck then he claimed to be, behind a row of houses, away from any street sign for which he specifically told police he was looking.

This has nothing to do with what GZ said on the NEN call.

 

[johnny karate]

Sure I do. When shortly after he acknowledged the dispatcher he says he doesn't know where TM is, it follows that he doesn't know where TM is because he stopped following him.

Person A runs away from Person B.

Person B follows Person A.

Person B loses track of Person A.

Person B continues to follow and finds Person A again.

According to you the above scenario is impossible, is that correct?

I'm arguing what I believe OK means in the context it was used in this instance.

You're not arguing anything. You're asserting. "Okay" means Zimmerman stopped following Martin because you say so.

Again, you do not know if Zimmerman stopped following Martin just because he said "okay".

Yes, I do. But what does that have to do with the fact that GZ stopped following TM because he couldn't follow him because he didn't know where he was ?

I bolded the portion that is not actually a fact, but rather a bare assertion on your part. I stopped reading the sentence after that first lie.

This has nothing to do with what GZ said on the NEN call.

It's evidence that disproves your baseless hypothesis.

The altercation took place some distance away from where Zimmerman claims to have stopped and returned to his truck. It's also in a location away from any street sign, for which Zimmerman claimed to be looking.

 

[Unabogie]

One thing about that still has me puzzled. (well, one of many things, but on the location of the body...)

Not just the body, but the tactical flashlight.

George talks about tapping his flashlight at around the T - he had it out, we know it was in his hand

He tells the officer, in his first rendition, he was cold cocked by TM right up around the T, and went right down.

He later tells (when he realizes he has to make some adjustments to that story) investigators, he pushed him away, or he "stumbled" and next thing TM is on top of him.

Sooo...some 40-45 feet of this "stumbling" has to occur - or they are rolling around that distance - cause TM's body was quite a bit away from that cold cocking.

Now (here's where it gets hinky...) what we would have to believe, is that whole time he was knocked down, rumbling, rolling, being pummeled...he's still holding his flashlight that had been in his hand?

THIS is where it was found:

[qimg]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/z-crimescene.jpg[/qimg]

Evidence list, with marker notation

I think I figured this part out a little while back. As you say, he was holding the flashlight when he was searching for the "suspect". Putting this together with the other evidence, we come upon this scenario:

George was carrying the flashlight and chasing Trayvon. Trayvon was holding the cell phone. Both items were dropped near each other. This suggests that the items in their hands when the scuffle started were the first things to fall. In other words, they each dropped what they were holding and started to scuffle. This matches what Witness 8 said when she described the phone making sounds like "pushing" and then going dead. The shooting then took place a few feet away from there. In fact, the only item of evidence that is not close to the body is the keychain with the smaller flashlight. Witnesses saw George doing what looked like "patting down" the dead victim. My theory is that it went down like this.

1. They scuffle down by the body. They may have argued elsewhere, but the first contact happened right where both of them dropped what was in their hands.
2. George shot the victim.
3. George searched the victim for a weapon.
4. Not finding a weapon, he holstered his gun and grabbed his keys, turning on the flashlight and moving north along the sidewalk, where he was spotted with his hands up, looking confused. In fact, he was still looking for a weapon.
5. He makes it up close to the T, and that's where the cops arrive. Not wanting to be shot, he drops what's in his hands, which is his keys.

That matches all of the evidence and the debris field.

 

[Noztradamus]

re·nounce
/riˈnouns/
Verb
Formally declare one's abandonment of (a claim, right, or possession).
Refuse to recognize or abide by any longer.

I don't think it's important at all, but he didn't renounce the deal. He did not say "no, not going to do it" . And they weren't involved in a negotiation.
What actually happened was he suggested someplace else, to which the NEN dispatcher agreed.

No renouncing, no negotiating, etc.

Parse it how you will. There was initial agreement to meet at the post boxes.
An agreement George then Renounced, Retracted, Rescinded, Recanted, Repudiated, Rejected, Refused, Refudiated, and Renegotiated.

 

[Unabogie]

I think I figured this part out a little while back. As you say, he was holding the flashlight when he was searching for the "suspect". Putting this together with the other evidence, we come upon this scenario:

George was carrying the flashlight and chasing Trayvon. Trayvon was holding the cell phone. Both items were dropped near each other. This suggests that the items in their hands when the scuffle started were the first things to fall. In other words, they each dropped what they were holding and started to scuffle. This matches what Witness 8 said when she described the phone making sounds like "pushing" and then going dead. The shooting then took place a few feet away from there. In fact, the only item of evidence that is not close to the body is the keychain with the smaller flashlight. Witnesses saw George doing what looked like "patting down" the dead victim. My theory is that it went down like this.

1. They scuffle down by the body. They may have argued elsewhere, but the first contact happened right where both of them dropped what was in their hands.
2. George shot the victim.
3. George searched the victim for a weapon.
4. Not finding a weapon, he holstered his gun and grabbed his keys, turning on the flashlight and moving north along the sidewalk, where he was spotted with his hands up, looking confused. In fact, he was still looking for a weapon.
5. He makes it up close to the T, and that's where the cops arrive. Not wanting to be shot, he drops what's in his hands, which is his keys.

That matches all of the evidence and the debris field.

Reading this back it occurred to me that it could have happened a little closer to what George claimed with two minor alterations.

He was, in fact, met by Trayvon near the T. Only he wasn't looking for an address. He was continuing to search for the suspect. They exchanged words near the T, and then Trayvon ran. He may have popped him once and then ran, but then George ran after him. That's the "stumble walk", only it wasn't to fight off the "attacker" it was to grab the "suspect". He catches up to him 50 feet south and they both drop what's in their hands and they start scuffling.

The two alterations are that George continued chasing him and never sought an address, and that George is the person who moved the fight south, since that's too much distance to cover on the ground, if you go by his version.

And of course the reason he's lying about this is because that puts him at fault for the altercation and negates self-defense.

 

[Rare Truth]

I think I figured this part out a little while back. As you say, he was holding the flashlight when he was searching for the "suspect". Putting this together with the other evidence, we come upon this scenario:

George was carrying the flashlight and chasing Trayvon. Trayvon was holding the cell phone. Both items were dropped near each other. This suggests that the items in their hands when the scuffle started were the first things to fall. In other words, they each dropped what they were holding and started to scuffle. This matches what Witness 8 said when she described the phone making sounds like "pushing" and then going dead. The shooting then took place a few feet away from there. In fact, the only item of evidence that is not close to the body is the keychain with the smaller flashlight. Witnesses saw George doing what looked like "patting down" the dead victim. My theory is that it went down like this.

1. They scuffle down by the body. They may have argued elsewhere, but the first contact happened right where both of them dropped what was in their hands.
2. George shot the victim.
3. George searched the victim for a weapon.
4. Not finding a weapon, he holstered his gun and grabbed his keys, turning on the flashlight and moving north along the sidewalk, where he was spotted with his hands up, looking confused. In fact, he was still looking for a weapon.
5. He makes it up close to the T, and that's where the cops arrive. Not wanting to be shot, he drops what's in his hands, which is his keys.

That matches all of the evidence and the debris field.

That's good, but there is a fly in the ointment there, one by the name of Jon - that's the witness who came out immediately, with a flashlight - as GZ was patting TM down...

That's the witness the Z spoke his first words to and literally SECONDS after he'd killed the kid, he asked that flashlight witness ---> Do I have blood on my face?

Really weird first question to ask.

I think you're close, but number 4 is a <hmmmm>

 

[Unabogie]

That's good, but there is a fly in the ointment there, one by the name of Jon - that's the witness who came out immediately, with a flashlight - as GZ was patting TM down...

That's the witness the Z spoke his first words to and literally SECONDS after he'd killed the kid, he asked that flashlight witness ---> Do I have blood on my face?

Really weird first question to ask.

I think you're close, but number 4 is a <hmmmm>

Are they mutually exclusive? We know he was spotted up near the T after the shooting. I think this explains why the keys were found where they were, and why they are the only item of evidence found so far north.

 

[Rare Truth]

Are they mutually exclusive? We know he was spotted up near the T after the shooting. I think this explains why the keys were found where they were, and why they are the only item of evidence found so far north.

You could be right. I'll have to listen to the flashlight dude again to refresh my memory on how he said it went down.

 

[bookworm]

That would make sense if the content had been changed completely. Did you read the article? It only appears that a bit of inflection, a stronger tone, was added, the content is still as claimed.

You act as if someone changed "black" to "white" or something. An actual change in the polarity of the content. If someone did that, that would indeed be quite dishonest. When in reality "very black" was changed to "super very turbo black". That seems more like a bad joke.

I don't condone it either, but it appears to be an obvious change, only of inflection, and the original link is right there with it.

Why can't you people just admit it was wrong??? Seriously!!!

 

[bookworm]

Rare Truth acknowledged the embellishments before anyone else noticed them, posted the actual document, and provided an explanation for how and why those embellishments were in the quoted text.

You can take or leave that explanation as you wish, but the matter has been resolved and has nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

It's been pointed out that it was not acknowledged until someone else noticed and questioned it. Can't you at least acknowledge that? Why can't you admit that it was just wrong???

 

[bookworm]

Can we change the name of the thread to the "Rare Truth Case"? Because let's focus on what really matters here: the timeline of Rare Truth's posts. What did we know and when did we know it?

Maybe if people would just acknowledge that it was wrong it could be let go?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think I figured this part out a little while back. As you say, he was holding the flashlight when he was searching for the "suspect". Putting this together with the other evidence, we come upon this scenario:

George was carrying the flashlight and chasing Trayvon. Trayvon was holding the cell phone. Both items were dropped near each other. This suggests that the items in their hands when the scuffle started were the first things to fall. In other words, they each dropped what they were holding and started to scuffle.

I bolded the parts that I am not aware that any evidence exists for.

It could just as easily be that the they each had their items in their pocket, and the fell out as they were wrestling on the ground where witness 6 saw them.

Witness 11 backs up GZ claim that words were exchanged near the Tee, then the fight moved south.
Witness 6 backs up GZ claim that TM was on top of him right before he shot him.

Which witness account backs up your version of events ?

This matches what Witness 8 said when she described the phone making sounds like "pushing" and then going dead.

1) witness 8 has discredited herself
2) I doubt that she will be allowed to testify that she "heard the grass" or "heard pushing" or interpret what she heard in any way.