Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[12AX7]

George has some amazing healing powers.

 

[12AX7]

And look at all that broken-nose blood on his jacket. A gusher it was.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes, you did.

Hmm... I don't see where in what you quoted I made this claim:

Upthread johnny karate claimed you had to be a medical expert and conduct tests to determine if the red stuff coming out of a wound was blood.

Also, Duane Allman called. He said to tell you that he's feeling much better.

 

[Cylinder]

And look at all that broken-nose blood on his jacket. A gusher it was.

All broken noses bleed on jackets?

 

[Dancing David]

It's sucks to be hit on the back of your head .. or having it smashed on something hard...

TRUST ME!

Your senses for SELF-SAVIOR and SELF-PROTECTION are multiplied by dozens of times when something like that occurs....

That smashing thing has yet to be established...

 

[12AX7]

All broken noses bleed on jackets?

No, but they bleed (usually quite a bit). And blood has a way of getting on clothing, especially in the amounts associated with broken noses.

Maybe it's the amazing self-cleaning properties of his clothing, because they seem to have also shed the mud and grass stains too.

 

[Dancing David]

And what if this "innocent stranger" was actually a criminal? How is one supposed to distinguish that by ignoring those they find suspicious? GZ made the right move by calling the police. It probably would have ended up being a non-issue had the police arrived, questioned TM, and sent them both on their way.

It also would have been a non issue if GZ had stayed in the car.

 

[Dancing David]

In Boxing or UFC for example it's permitted .. It's NOT an offense to do so there..

cuz it's a SPORT ..and both parties agreed to participate in that kind of past-time

But to just punch someone in the nose IS an OFFENSE

---------

Easier to talk here .. but if someone walked up to you and punched you in the NOSE ... pretty sure you d consider that an OFFENSE ...

And is the usual course of justice for battery a death sentence?

 

[Cylinder]

And look at all that broken-nose blood on his jacket. A gusher it was.

All broken noses bleed on jackets?

ETA: Dupe. My brower was lagging.

 

[Megalodon]

By now we have punches that didn't leave notable injuries or blood in the puncher's hands, but broke a nose. However, that nose didn't swell or need any kind of medical attention. Or bleed that much. This despite having been pressed by the attacker, in an effort to smother poor George. However, the only smudge of blood in his face is a swipe from left to right, consistent with someone wiping his mouth from blood. It also didn't leave blood residues on TM's hands. We have a head bashed against the sidewalk that didn't require stitches, band-aids or iodine. We have someone sliding on the wet grass under an attacker without mud or grass stains.

Nothing of this goes for any of GZ's various versions of the story.

 

[Unabogie]

I must say that this reply to O'Mara's motion for sanctions is one of the snarkier court documents I've ever read.

http://tmwarriors.files.wordpress.c...s-office-for-discovery-violations-3-28-13.pdf

What strikes me most about this is that BLDR seems to really dislike O'Mara on a personal level. I always thought lawyers saw this as all part of the job, but in this case, the prosecutors really don't like these people. He even brought up Robert Zimmerman's racist rant from the other night. BLDR really wants to ream these guys.

I wonder if that will affect any plea bargain negotiations? How can they even start those talks if they hate each other this much? So no, I think this is going to trial, and we're going to see a pissed off SA up there.

Wow.

 

[Cylinder]

By now we have punches that didn't leave notable injuries or blood in the puncher's hands, but broke a nose. However, that nose didn't swell or need any kind of medical attention. Or bleed that much. This despite having been pressed by the attacker, in an effort to smother poor George. However, the only smudge of blood in his face is a swipe from left to right, consistent with someone wiping his mouth from blood. It also didn't leave blood residues on TM's hands. We have a head bashed against the sidewalk that didn't require stitches, band-aids or iodine. We have someone sliding on the wet grass under an attacker without mud or grass stains.

Nothing of this goes for any of GZ's various versions of the story.

Every. Sentence. Wrong.

 

[This is The End]

Every. Sentence. Wrong.

Are you sure about that?

I'd love to see you actually do a breakdown on that post. It looks to be almost all correct, as opposed to "every sentence wrong". So it is very odd that you say that. Perhaps you are looking at facts in this case with some bias?

Or does Megalodon not require the same level of respect that you seem to demand of your own posts:

That's a bit of information, so if anyone has a discussion point, try to cut out that section of the quote. Hitting quote and adding your zinger doesn;t really rate.

 

[This is The End]

I must say that this reply to O'Mara's motion for sanctions is one of the snarkier court documents I've ever read.

Wow indeed.

When the document starts off like this:

Summary of Argument:

The only thing more inflated than Defense Counsel's rehetoric is perhaps the alleged hourly fees cited in a second motion for payment of attorneys' fees and costs.

You know that the prosecution thinks the defense is just a con artist trying to extort money. And if you read the entire .pdf, they make a pretty good case of it!

What is also interesting is the part about Exhibit A. The State seems to think think that the Defense is partially to blame for people on the internet releasing the wrong information and name for Witness #8. The State is also not too happy that the Defense tried to blame the State (and the family of the victim) for not "correcting" it!!

Which puts this comment in context:

Defense Counsel not only himself courts anything resembling a microphone or camera, but there are likewise many statements made by minions of his client, such as this recent gem provided by Defendant's own brother:

Which the State later wraps it up with:

Defense Counsel has consistently attempted to discredit Witness 8 in the public forum. This motion is just another attempt to do so. Others who support the Defendant have made it their mission to identify this teenager and subject her to public ridicule.

Then when we get to the actual argument (read section II. No "Exculpatory" evidence was withheld), it is exactly as I put it when I first saw this:

Wow, that is so sad. It is literally the most minor overlooked thing imaginable. No one kept anything from them, it was nothing! I seriously doubt the judge is going to see anything to this either.

What this actually shows us, in this thread, is clear cut evidence for people who are bias towards the Defense. Anyone who made a post about that implying that there was even remotely possibly anything to it, at all, was clearly either just blinded by their bias or ignorant of what is relative to an actual murder trial.

As the State puts it, there was clearly no "cost" associated with the issue.

Then the State points out that the defense, on the other hand, has actually made true "exculpatory" mistakes. Including the famous "told the court that he was surrendering his client's only passport" back in the bond hearing fiasco.
Also including the famous "my client has no money", also from the bond hearing fiasco.

It should also be pointed out that the State lists this as a fact:

Defendant confronted Trayvon Martin

And the conclusion begins with:

It has been said that "when the facts are against you, argue the law; when the law is against you, argue the facts; and when the facts and law are both against you, call the other lawyer names." Paul Dickinson, The Official Rules (1978).

And then it goes into detail how the Defense has followed that to a T.

1) accuse the family
2) accuse the State
3) accuse at least 1 Judge!!
4) accuse and sue the media

Sure sounds like they have a solid defense!!

All of the above is from:

states response to ds motion for sanctions against state attorneys office for discovery violations 3-28-13

 

[Mumbles]

and please don't twist my words around .... -- I already said what i said .. (that gold teeth, tats etc is simply side detail ... it, in no ways, is evidence ... as to 13 year old .. - i did't say TM was 13 year old ... all i meant was that MSM originally showed innocent pics of Trayvon when he was 13 year old or so, when i reality he didn't look like that .. and was much older / older looking that on those pics.

Yes, many people have accused the media of somehow hiding Martin's age so that we'll think that he was 13. Of course, the media, as they often do for people that are killed, used various poictures of him, and since he was quite young when he was killed, some of those photos were from when he was smaller.

However, the earliest NYT article I could find listed Martin as "17" and "a high school junior". The earliest ABC News report referred to "17-year-old Trayvon Martin". The earliest report on black website The Root lists him as "seventeen-year-old Trayvon Martin". And in fact, I was unable to find a single article that alleged that Martin was any age other than seventeen.

If you have a link to any such source, feel free to share it.

 

[12AX7]

Sure sounds like they have a solid defense!!

They should visit this thread and get some spin ideas from the George supporters here. So many great ideas about why their hero shot and killed an unarmed teenager for apparently no reason (George's "savage, brutal, life-threatening" beating notwithstanding).

 

[Dan O.]

I think it's partly him exerting force to get out of his vehicle at the time, and perhaps partly him getting ready to respond to the dispatcher, perhaps with some contemplation thrown in. I think it's possible we hear the chime because this is when GZ is grabbing the flashlight (wherever it may have been). I think he does actually need to leave the vehicle to answer the dispatcher's question to his own satisfaction (just me trying to put myself into his shoes) as he couldn't really see exactly where the suspect was headed from his current vantage point.

I believe I am hearing the door close when George is saying "neighborhood". When I get back on the computer I'll verify that the chimes have indeed stopped and add the charts to include all the sounds up to the slam.

Somebody might need to visit a car dealer and record the noises from inside a ridge line so we might be able to match up what was recorded on the call.

 

[KatieG]

Wow indeed.

When the document starts off like this:




You know that the prosecution thinks the defense is just a con artist trying to extort money. And if you read the entire .pdf, they make a pretty good case of it!

What is also interesting is the part about Exhibit A. The State seems to think think that the Defense is partially to blame for people on the internet releasing the wrong information and name for Witness #8. The State is also not too happy that the Defense tried to blame the State (and the family of the victim) for not "correcting" it!!

Which puts this comment in context:



Which the State later wraps it up with:





Then when we get to the actual argument (read section II. No "Exculpatory" evidence was withheld), it is exactly as I put it when I first saw this:



What this actually shows us, in this thread, is clear cut evidence for people who are bias towards the Defense. Anyone who made a post about that implying that there was even remotely possibly anything to it, at all, was clearly either just blinded by their bias or ignorant of what is relative to an actual murder trial.

As the State puts it, there was clearly no "cost" associated with the issue.

Then the State points out that the defense, on the other hand, has actually made true "exculpatory" mistakes. Including the famous "told the court that he was surrendering his client's only passport" back in the bond hearing fiasco.
Also including the famous "my client has no money", also from the bond hearing fiasco.

It should also be pointed out that the State lists this as a fact:



And the conclusion begins with:



And then it goes into detail how the Defense has followed that to a T.

1) accuse the family
2) accuse the State
3) accuse at least 1 Judge!!
4) accuse and sue the media

Sure sounds like they have a solid defense!!

All of the above is from:

states response to ds motion for sanctions against state attorneys office for discovery violations 3-28-13

Whoa Nellie! You nailed that one for sure. Congrats, Only Tells Truths.

I seem to remember MO'M saying in the early stages of this case that he would not try the case in the media. Then he turned around and started doing exactly that. I think MO'M was not happy with GZs brother making all those TV appearances and doing interviews. Now we can see why. RZjr isn't doing GZ any favors at this point.

 

[Unabogie]

Are you still using the edited video because on all the video's I've seen, "**** he's running starts between 2:07 and 2:08. Look on the audio picture Dan O. posted. The three clicks and chime of the door occur after the dispatcher finishes his question. The dispatcher finishes "runnin" at 2:09 and the three clicks are at 2:10. The phone apparently picks up everything you want it to hear with zero distortion but if the sound not there, it's because the phone didn't pick it up. Can you acknowledge, at least, the possibility that the phone didn't pick up the sound because it didn't happen?

Here is the audio I have been using
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw

As far as I know that TPM link isn't edited, but the part I linked to shows a 3 second differential between the point where he notices the victim running and the point where I hear the chime of the door opening. In your version, you can hear this at 2:10, as you said. My point was that someone about said it was 7 seconds and that's not accurate. I hear it as 3 seconds from the time he first notices it to the time he's got the door open and is exiting his truck. Remember, we don't even know if he was still driving the truck at this point(still moving). I think it's likely he was (unless you believe the whole circling his truck nonsense) because the NEN seems to start in one place but ends up elsewhere, but either way, it took him just 3 seconds from the time he noticed Trayvon running to the time he was chasing him. And that could include stopping the car, but it does include finding and grabbing the flashlight.

To me, this is clear that he wasn't getting out to look for an address but was reacting to the "suspect" running. I don't see how anyone could read that any other way.

As for your question, yes, I could be wrong about when he picked up the flashlight. But in this case, that can go either way, right? We can't hear everything that happened and if we don't hear something it could mean it didn't happen but it could also be due to noise gates on cell phones. We can only speculate but it seems most likely to me that he wasn't carrying it while he was driving and grabbed it on his way out of the truck.

 

[phonebook]

By now we have punches that didn't leave notable injuries or blood in the puncher's hands, but broke a nose.

He did have one notable injury: the abrasion on his left fourth finger, just below the knuckle (a location where someone making a fist and throwing a punch might receive an injury). I don't think we have enough information to go on to say that he would or wouldn't have specific hand injuries, but he clearly had at least one. His hands weren't immediately preserved the instant he was shot, and in fact his hands were never bagged (from what I've read), so if he had any amount of blood on his hands, it could have been altered at various points before his body made it to the Medical Examiner's office. Also, his "hands" were never tested for blood, only his fingernails clippings.

However, that nose didn't swell or need any kind of medical attention.

It most certainly did swell. One of his neighbors, W11, even said "at first we couldn't even recognize him", when presented with the picture of him sitting in the back of the cop car; his nose is clearly swollen there. The doctor also noted the swelling the following day. The paramedics may have mentioned it too (I'm not certain); they mentioned that it looked like he had a broken nose, so they based that on something.

Or bleed that much. This despite having been pressed by the attacker, in an effort to smother poor George.

Not all broken noses bleed the same. It was diagnosed as a broken nose. I agree that it didn't appear to be a particularly bloody broken nose, and since it didn't bleed much, and GZ was on his back at the time, I don't see why the blood would have been forced out GZ's nostrils (and onto TM's hands), instead of further back into his nasal cavity, or throat.

However, the only smudge of blood in his face is a swipe from left to right, consistent with someone wiping his mouth from blood.

Could have been TM's swipe, could have been GZ's; no way to know at this time, I don't believe.

It also didn't leave blood residues on TM's hands. We have a head bashed against the sidewalk that didn't require stitches, band-aids or iodine.

Again, TM's "hands" were never tested. His lacerations ended up healing fine without stitches. His wounds were treated with peroxide at the scene.

We have someone sliding on the wet grass under an attacker without mud or grass stains.

From the initial police report:

"While l was in such close contact with Zimmerman, I could observe that his back appeared to be wet and was covered in grass, as if he had been laying on his back on the ground."

We've only had a few pictures to base whether or not there were any "grass stains" on the back of GZ's clothing. That clothing was confiscated (I believe), so the degree to which there actually was grass stains, compared to the extent to which that particularly clothing material would be expected to have grass stains (under the conditions described by GZ) might be presented at trial (if there is an observed discrepancy). There was obviously physical evidence that GZ had been on his back, as well as Witness 6's statements that he saw GZ on his back.

Nothing of this goes for any of GZ's various versions of the story.

I think I have an idea of what you're trying to say here, but I'm not certain.