Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[phonebook]

There are no conflicting reports. He did not seek medical treatment and the EMTs let him go without even a band-aid.

I believe I heard both EMTs say they didn't release GZ to police custody, and it isn't certain who gave the final OK for GZ to skip a trip to the hospital.

This is absolutely untrue. George gave 3 accounts of what happened before the "walkthrough" and in each of those he was very specific: Trayvon hit him once, in the nose, and he went down immediately to the ground and never got up. That's in his written report and the initial two verbal interviews. It's a fact and it's big trouble for him.

When did GZ use the term "immediately"? He said he was punched and went down. He didn't say he fell like a sack of rocks, or timbered like a tree. He was NOT very specific. When he was actually at the scene, he was able to recall more of what happened, and gave more details, and that was the one time he WAS more specific about it. First assume he's telling the truth about that blow he took, and then judge if he's likely to remember exactly what happened immediately after being punched in the face so hard it breaks his nose. If you at least first consider he might be telling the truth, his lack of perfect clarity after the fact makes perfect sense. You have failed by not considering his story as possibly true first, and then to consider what he's said and see if what follows makes sense or not.

I don't think she's the star witness and I don't think what she says will be determinative. There are other witnesses and other evidence that will come in before she testifies.

She is absolutely their star witness. If there is any argument to be made that GZ attempted to detain TM, her testimony is the only thing that has given an indication of that. That changes the game completely, so they need her to testify to that.

I just gave you one. The hunting for an address is another. A third is the "circling around his car", which can't have happened where he said it did because the timeline doesn't match. He claims he was beaten against the cement and yet has no evidence of this and Trayvon had none of his blood under his nails or on his sleeves.

Your first one was incorrect. Those aren't "lies", those are things you don't believe. If you listen to all the interview tapes, it's clear that TM circles GZ's car very near the T, and not at the clubhouse. He has no evidence of getting beaten against the cement? How did he get the wounds to the back of his head then? You seem awfully sure it's impossible he got those wounds from concrete. More absolutes I see... it's apparently impossible for TM to have slammed GZ's head into the concrete without gouging his fingernails into the sides of GZ's skull. Were TM's clothes way too big for him? His sleeves, if anything, just come up to his wrists based on the 7-11 footage. It's not like they were wresting on his palms. Also, when GZ was on his back, gravity would have pulled the blood from his internal fracture back into his nasal cavity; it would not have been ejected by some unknown force out his nostrils. Likewise for his head wounds... gravity would have pulled the blood towards the ground, away from TM's hands.

He claims he did. You don't believe it either?

I'm claiming that many things are likely a blur to GZ that evening, and justifiably so. It's clear he doesn't remember exactly how many things went down that evening, and in what order they happened. It doesn't mean he's lying, it means he went through a traumatic experience, and he's being subjected to the unreasonable expectation of him having made a perfect mental documentation of each and every aspect of the even before he even knew it was going to end up the way it did. Plus, he claims to have had ADHD since childhood, which can be verified by old medical records (if necessary), which absolutely has effects on memory. Look it up on Google if you are skeptical.

I never said that. I said he said he new RVC, but he would not have given that address because that would be silly for the reasons I listed.

I just again looked at your "reasons". He never specified "where he'd be", he ended the call with NEN requesting that the responding officer contact him upon arrival, which the dispatcher said "Ok. Yeah, that's fine". The address on RVC would have been the closest address GZ could have provided to where his truck was, not that there would have been any point to the officer meeting him at his truck anyway, as his truck wasn't what the officer was coming to check out.

He didn't wait there (RVC) because by his own story he didn't wait there. Are you following this case at all?

He's giving his best recollection. Based on his comments on the NEN call, and his statements afterward, he wanted to give the responding officer a more appropriate destination than his jumbled attempt earlier. Because he hadn't yet given the dispatcher the address on RVC, I don't believe he had yet made it there. You're right, it doesn't make sense that he would have given the officer an address on RVC only to walk back to his truck across the T, where the officer would have had to get out on foot to reach. Actually, that does make some sort of sense. But, I think GZ likely waited at RVC for at least a few moments, "because he had light over there" (that's from one of the interviews, roughly quoted), and that's where he could have met the officer.

 

[KatieG]

Nope. It wasn't diagnosed, and it also wasn't ruled out... I'm ok with that compromise.



Again, what inconsistencies are significant? Or name a few you feel are significant which have no reasonable explanation other than GZ is lying to cover something up.

That's not a compromise, that's asking someone to prove a negative. Not quite cricket on skeptic board.

 

[phonebook]

Dispatchers are accustomed to dealing with partial information. The house number and the neighborhood name may be sufficient to uniquely identify the house. If not, there are only a couple of possibilities and George's directions to find his truck would be a sufficient discriminator.

Spot on... what you say is probably true. Is it reasonable to expect GZ to have reached those same conclusions, in the heat of the moment, with just a few moments to think about such things? We've had over a year to contemplate things to the ends of the Earth, to discuss things with others, brainstorm, etc., and many people hold GZ to the same standard of logic in his few moments of contemplation that we've had a relative eternity to conclude.

BTW, there appears to also be a 1211 Retreat View Circle, so if he gave just "1211", it wouldn't have likely brought them to 1211 Twin Trees Lane (the house just to the right of the west entrance to the T). Of course, I only know that because I'm sitting in my easy chair, relaxed, looking up stuff online.

 

[This is The End]

If the best argument for Zimmerman having a concussion is that the medical professional who examined him just forgot to check, then we've entered some very silly territory.

Isn't that the same as the argument that M had blood on his hands? The cops didn't check for it or note it. The paramedics didn't check for it or note it. No one down the line checked for it or noted it. To several posters here that means that M did have blood on his hands.

We might as well just assume M had a gun too, just no one checked for it. And a sign that said "I am a burglar". No one specifically wrote it down so it's possible he had that sign.

Let's just think of anything, call it evidence X, that could help Z. If it isn't specifically written down somewhere that evidence X was not found, then that means it must have been there! That's solid logic.

That or we could just concentrate on things that we actually have evidence for...

 

[phonebook]

Zimmerman claimed he immediately went down after Martin punched him , where he remained helplessly pinned. It wasn't until he saw the geographic impossibility of his story that he started adding embellishments about stumbling around.

Show me one interview where GZ used the term "immediately". He never said that. He said he was punched and then fell backward. Does that mean he couldn't have possibly stumbled a few steps before falling? GZ would have already been quite aware of this "geographic impossibility". Do you think he had forgotten where TM's body ended up that night? He certainly knew where the T was in relation to it. If he was willing to lie about anything and everything, even claiming just as he's sat in the back of the police car "I was yelling for someone to help me, but no one would help me", it follows that he would have also lied to cover the obvious distance discrepancy. But no, he didn't, and that's why we have this unexplained, but not unexplainable distance discrepancy. When he was at the scene, no longer relying on the visual image of things in his mind, he was able to recall things more clearly. Maybe even realizing that he couldn't have just fallen down, so filling in things as best as he could. You want to suggest this is indicative that he's lying, but I say it's perfectly in line with someone that was already in fear, who then takes a surprise punch to the fact hard enough to break his nose. It's no wonder that he doesn't have a perfect recollection of his whereabouts exactly after that happened.

Speaking of this, does anybody have something that shows, conclusively, the distance from the T area to where TM's body was found?

In his police interview, he claimed to not have been following Martin, despite the fact that he admitted just that during the NEN call.

I think he was trying to downplay that aspect. I don't think GZ intended to follow TM on foot, but I do believe, and GZ has basically said this, that in addition to getting out of the car to get the address/sign, he was also trying to see where TM went. Remember, GZ didn't shift his car into Park (sounds like that, anyway), and open his door to get out of his vehicle until the instant after the dispatcher says "He's running? Which way is he running?".

 

[12AX7]

Nope. It wasn't diagnosed, and it also wasn't ruled out... I'm ok with that compromise.

They also didn't rule out AIDS, flu, chlamydia, dandruff or toenail fungus. George had no concussion. He also had no laceration large enough to even need a SpongeBob Band-Aid.

Again, what inconsistencies are significant? Or name a few you feel are significant which have no reasonable explanation other than GZ is lying to cover something up.

Wow. So you're one of those "material/immaterial inconsistecy" guys eh?

 

[phonebook]

I thought that part was just in the self defense hearing, which Z canceled.

Nope. Not sure if this is the right link to what I'm looking for, but I do know this link explains, with a legal precedent (I believe that's the correct term), how despite waiving the right to the pre-trial hearing (when/if they officially do that, which they haven't yet, to my knowledge), they can still argue immunity at 3 separate occasions within the jury trial.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/3/6/5418/05480

At the immunity hearing, the defense has to provide a preponderance of the evidence (over 50%, essentially) for the judge to rule in their favor, but in Florida, and Indiana too I believe, at the time of trial, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant could not have acted in reasonably minded self-defense.

 

[phonebook]

It's literally like we are in the first thread, 10 months and 10,000 posts ago.

I don't seriously think you should be required to read both threads, but this has been covered ad nauseum.

Here's a link to the first thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=231831

359 pages. Could you narrow down my search?

Are you saying, beyond people just refusing to believe it's possible that GZ couldn't have known the name of the street, that there is proof he knew of the name of the street at some point? Like him mentioning it previous to the NEN call on 02/26/12? I looked for that months ago, figuring that if it was there, that that might indicate he wasn't being honest, but I haven't come across anything that shows that.

 

[KatieG]

They also didn't rule out AIDS, flu, chlamydia, dandruff or toenail fungus. George had no concussion. He also had no laceration large enough to even need a SpongeBob Band-Aid.






Wow. So you're one of those "material/immaterial inconsistecy" guys eh?

Well, his wife did manage to fix him up with the extra large maxi pads on his head the next day!

 

[phonebook]

He also had no laceration large enough to even need a SpongeBob Band-Aid.

He did have lacerations large enough to warrant stitches though.

Wow. So you're one of those "material/immaterial inconsistecy" guys eh?

You mean like Serino? "I have some inconsistencies that don't amount to much". Yeah, I guess you could say that.

 

[KatieG]

He did have lacerations large enough to warrant stitches though.



You mean like Serino? "I have some inconsistencies that don't amount to much". Yeah, I guess you could say that.

No, he didn't. He didn't get any stitches, either that night or the next day when he went to see the PA. If he needed stitches, they would have done them that night. No responsible medical person would delay stitching up a wound that needed them.

 

[johnny karate]

What are you basing this assertion on? I don't want assumptions without expertise to back them up; I'd like to see links showing similar incidents that resulted in the injuries you describe.

I'm unclear what you're asking for here. You require experts to tell you that impact trauma results in impact injuries?

The first people on scene described him as appearing out of hit, and he was holding his head. It could have been a mild concussion. I'm not saying he DID have a concussion, I'm just saying I don't believe it can be conclusively ruled out.

I'm saying he DIDN'T have a concussion. And the medical documentation backs me up. If that's not enough for your standards, then I cannot be of further assistance to you on this issue.

Who stated that was the case?

That Zimmerman was screaming was indicated as a piece of evidence to corroborate his story by another poster upthread.

I simply pointed out that the mere fact that he was screaming does not support his self-defense claim as it is not possible to judge reasonable fear from a scream.

GZ will not be expected to have known the extent of his injuries in the heat of the moment. He wasn't given a "time out" to have them examined and reassured that they weren't likely to kill him. He suffered a broken nose, and many abrasions on his face. Those injuries, along with the injuries sustained to the back of his head no doubt put him in a great degree of pain. Now, if TM did actually attempt to acquire GZ's weapon, then that absolutely put him in a reasonable fear for his life. I'm under the impression that that might not be revealed to the jury without GZ taking the stand though (unsure about that one). And it won't establish he's lying, it will establish that they aren't consistent. It may have appeared to him must worse than it actually was while in the moment. If they are "marginally consistent" like Serino said, then that won't equate to a total fabrication, or a "lie".

Zimmerman described a very specific assault.

If it can be proven that the injuries he sustained are not consistent with the nature of assault he claimed to have suffered, then it will be established that he was untruthful about the nature of the assault.

It is just that simple.

It's certainly consistent with that story though, and it just so happens that he was seen on top of GZ the one time any witnesses got a really good look at the two of them.

No one is claiming Martin wasn't on top of Zimmerman at some point, so I'm not sure what you think this proves.

Having someone on top of you is not necessarily a life-threatening scenario, so it doesn't do much to bolster his self-defense claim.

The repeated head-slamming and smothering might, but coincidentally those same people who saw Martin on top of Zimmerman didn't happen to catch any of that.

His contradictions are minor, and what fabrications are significant and unequivocal? Serino himself said "I have some inconsistencies that don't amount to much"

First of all, the investigation didn't end with what Serino concluded, so I'm not sure why people keep bringing up his statements from a year ago as if they somehow represent the state of the investigation now.

Secondly, that you think the inconsistencies are minor doesn't really amount to much. It's what the prosecution can do with those inconsistencies in the course of making a case in front of a jury.

And... if those inconsistencies are so minor, you need to ask yourself what's preventing the defense from putting Zimmerman on the stand at an immunity hearing and ending this whole charade.

 

[phonebook]

No, he didn't. He didn't get any stitches, either that night or the next day when he went to see the PA. If he needed stitches, they would have done them that night. No responsible medical person would delay stitching up a wound that needed them.

They were indeed large enough to warrant stitches (according to at least 2 EMT's and GZ's doctor), but they were healing well enough on their own by the following day that it would have actually introduced a greater risk of infection to attempt to stitch them then.

EMTs don't do stitches on-scene, and his wounds had stopped bleeding.

 

[KatieG]

They were indeed large enough to warrant stitches (according to at least 2 EMT's and GZ's doctor), but they were healing well enough on their own by the following day that it would have actually introduced a greater risk of infection to attempt to stitch them then.
EMTs don't do stitches on-scene, and his wounds had stopped bleeding.

Citation please?

 

[johnny karate]

They were indeed large enough to warrant stitches (according to at least 2 EMT's and GZ's doctor)...

That's the opposite of the truth. The direct quote from the medical report is "No sutures needed given well-approximated skin margins".

In layman's terms that means the wound was closed. Wounds that close on their own don't require sutures.

The EMTs on the scene might have thought otherwise, but the doctor overruled them the next day.

And the wound you are now trying to argue might have not been so small was this big: |<-------->|

It's a miracle he didn't bleed to death.

 

[johnny karate]

Show me one interview where GZ used the term "immediately". He never said that. He said he was punched and then fell backward. Does that mean he couldn't have possibly stumbled a few steps before falling?

You seem to be twisting the facts in a rather disingenuous manner.

From Zimmerman's statement:

The suspect punched me in the face. I fell backwards onto my back. The suspect got on top of me.

I don't know how you can interpret that in any way other than Zimmerman immediately went down and onto his back.

 

[sgtbaker]

GZ was a self appointed Neighborhood watch guy. There were only 3 streets in the complex. I seriously doubt GZ didn't know where he was. Nice try, though!

He sounded distracted and like he was having difficulty recalling the name and directions. Do you think his confusion giving directions to the officer was a part of his big conspiracy to commit murder? I believe his answers, at least on the phone with NEN were genuine. At that point, he has no real reason to be dishonest. That was happening in real time, remember.

 

[phonebook]

I'm unclear what you're asking for here. You require experts to tell you that impact trauma results in impact injuries?

I'm asking for you to back up your assertion that the type of attack GZ describes would have "likely" resulted in skull fractures. Are lacerations to the back of the head not potential "impact injuries"? Please back up that assertion too if you intend to make it.

I'm saying he DIDN'T have a concussion. And the medical documentation backs me up. If that's not enough for your standards, then I cannot be of further assistance to you on this issue.

I will concede that it's not likely he had a concussion.

That Zimmerman was screaming was indicated as a piece of evidence to corroborate his story by another poster upthread.

I simply pointed out that the mere fact that he was screaming does not support his self-defense claim as it is not possible to judge reasonable fear from a scream.

It does support his self-defense claim. Again, nobody implied that the screams were the sole determinant in gauging reasonable fear, you're the one that started that one-sided argument.

Zimmerman described a very specific assault.

I don't know if I agree that he described a "very specific assault". He said his head was slammed into the concrete sidewalk, or the "sign" (I guess he means the little utility cover things), multiple times. Sounds a little vague, like he's not even certain what his head was being slammed into.

If it can be proven that the injuries he sustained are not consistent with the nature of assault he claimed to have suffered, then it will be established that he was untruthful about the nature of the assault.

It is just that simple.

I don't think that will be proven, because I don't think there is any sort of injury standard to compare his reported assault to.

(I bailed on the rest of your post... this is getting tedious...)

 

[KatieG]

He sounded distracted and like he was having difficulty recalling the name and directions. Do you think his confusion giving directions to the officer was a part of his big conspiracy to commit murder? I believe his answers, at least on the phone with NEN were genuine. At that point, he has no real reason to be dishonest. That was happening in real time, remember.

What conspiracy? He was on the main street of that complex. He is assuming the role of a watchman. Seems to me it would behoove him to remain calm and observant of his surroundings. None of which GZ did that night or we'd be discussing other miscarriages of justice.

GZ had every reason in the world to be dishonest. Starting from TMs entry into the complex and all the events that happened afterward.

 

[sgtbaker]

What conspiracy? He was on the main street of that complex. He is assuming the role of a watchman. Seems to me it would behoove him to remain calm and observant of his surroundings. None of which GZ did that night or we'd be discussing other miscarriages of justice.

Well, that's you posting from the comfort of your computer and not living in the moment. That doesn't answer my question, though. Regardless of what you think he ought to have done, do you believe his confusion on the phone was honest?