Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Cylinder]

State's 13th Supplemental Discovery

This includes W8's letter to Ms. Fulton - which the state asserts was provided on 3/13/2013.

 

[Unabogie]

In reviewing some of the older discovery docs, and recalling the 'who put the butterfly bandages on' discussion -- I did find confirmation there, it was, as I suspected waaaaaaaaaaaay back when (and was mocked for it) that it was Shellie, his wife, who fixed him up.

She placed the bandages on him. Confirmed.

Which brings back the question of why the defense left off the PA on their witness list. An interesting question will be whether or not she sent George home with no bandages at all and that George and Shellie put 3 bandages on his head in preparation for the walkthrough. I wonder if the prosecution will call people from George's work that day, and what they'll say he had on his head while working.

 

[sgtbaker]

I agree I find both points specious, but when people say something like 'TM if he was this should have gone home', that is as specious as 'TM was suspicious because he was walking slowly'.

This is my personal opinion. Take it for what it's worth. I think in general, a kid walking around in the evening is not suspicious, no matter how slow he is walking or how much he is looking about. I do know, and I said this before, living in an area that was, up until a certain point, relatively crime free and then all of a sudden, any unsecured items were at risk of being stolen did change my perspective on what was suspicious. My oldest daughter's bike was stolen one night, two nights later my other two kid's bikes were stolen. We got a call from the HOA asking us to lock our car doors because there has been a recent spike in thefts from unlocked cars, only (no broken windows). One afternoon, I left my car unlocked expecting to go back out but I forgot. The next morning, my camcorder was gone. A couple of weeks later, I swore I locked my car but I guess I didn't; my MP3 player was stolen. The thing is, my dogs barked at everything; kids riding past on bikes, cars driving by, a squirrel running up a tree. I didn't exactly go running every time they barked at the front door. After being stolen from, four times though, I would bolt for the door every time the dogs even looked in the direction of the door.

People in general, making the claim that walking slowly and looking about is somehow suspicious and justifies GZ's suspicion , I will disagree with. However, people saying that despite similar events going on in that neighborhood, except they were actually breaking into houses and not just stealing unsecured items, I don't find it all that shocking that GZ found that same scenario suspicious.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

In reviewing some of the older discovery docs, and recalling the 'who put the butterfly bandages on' discussion -- I did find confirmation there, it was, as I suspected waaaaaaaaaaaay back when (and was mocked for it) that it was Shellie, his wife, who fixed him up.

She placed the bandages on him. Confirmed.

In context, bolding by me:

But that's not the case here. Zimmerman didn't refuse treatment. He was treated and cleared by EMTs at the scene. But it seems as if the fact he had a broken nose escaped their notice.

Which is my entire point.

I'm not sure it's "nit picking" to argue that his injuries are not consistent with the severity of the assault Zimmerman supposedly suffered.

Would you break your own nose if you thought it would help you avoid 25 years in prison?
There are likely many people who would.

His wife is a nursing student, is she not?

Maybe she took care of his injuries the next day.

 

[phonebook]

I notice that you have missed the continuing basis of my statements regarding the possible arguments about GZ's reasonablesness in leaning the vehicle, at no point have I said anything about rights, do you wish to discuss the basis of the possible discussion of reasonableness? It is likely that the prosecution will frame that in terms of GZ's knowledge and information regarding his attempts to start a neighborhood watch.

I have not mentioned anything about rights in particular regard to this possible line of argument by the prosecution.

Please explain why you keep hammering home this point, about the supposed reasonableness of GZ leaving his vehicle, especially what can be derived from the jury somehow concluding that GZ "should have known better" than to leave his vehicle. How it specifically relates to his right to self-defense, or how it proves murder 2, I'm not really sure the angle you're working with.

 

[Unabogie]

But what did you say?

"But he CLAIMED he was beat within an inch of his life."

Where did he claim that?

Fine, I'll rephrase that:

He claimed to be punched 25-30 times in the face. He claimed that his assailant stopped his breathing by smothering him. He claimed that his assailant bashed his head into the concrete so many times he thought it was going to explode. He claimed that when he was hit, it was so hard that it felt like he had bricks in his hands.

When you combine all of those claims above, you'll end up with George describing a certain quality of assault, and it's not a minor one. A jury will look at this claim and want to compare it to photos and medical reports to see if they are consistent with each other. Several posters have claimed that proof of actual injuries are not required because all the defendant needs to show is fear of death, not actual near-fatal injuries.

I do not agree with this, since George made such specific claims of the nature of the assault that if it appears that he lied about that, a jury will consider this knowledge of guilt, and an attempt to deceive, and hold it against him.

This is such a basic truth that I thought it would be more obvious to everyone. Hopefully this clarifies my point.

 

[phonebook]

In reviewing some of the older discovery docs, and recalling the 'who put the butterfly bandages on' discussion -- I did find confirmation there, it was, as I suspected waaaaaaaaaaaay back when (and was mocked for it) that it was Shellie, his wife, who fixed him up.

She placed the bandages on him. Confirmed.

Confirmed... without links? Confirmed for you maybe.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That certainly adds to the discussion.

I'm sorry you didn't understand it.

It adds at least as much to the discussion, if not more, as when you post your beliefs/opinions that we are not supposed to question simply because they are beliefs/opinions.

 

[Giz]

I notice that you have missed the continuing basis of my statements regarding the possible arguments about GZ's reasonablesness in leaning the vehicle, at no point have I said anything about rights, do you wish to discuss the basis of the possible discussion of reasonableness? It is likely that the prosecution will frame that in terms of GZ's knowledge and information regarding his attempts to start a neighborhood watch.

I have not mentioned anything about rights in particular regard to this possible line of argument by the prosecution.

Because "reasonableness", as you appear to be applying it, is both:
A) being judged in hindsight (GZ probably thought the suspect would exit the area post-haste, exactly as had always happened before).
B) Imposes a duty on the law abiding to do nothing potentially risky that might possibly result in a confrontation, at peril of being held responsible for any injuries that result (i.e. a girl walks home alone at night and is attacked… was it risky? And therefore unreasonable? Are you saying that she should be legally culpable for any injuries sustained by her attacker?)

Culpability should be based on who initiated a violence (or signalled that they were about to become violent). It should not be based on getting out of a truck. Now, if (for example) GZ had tried to grab TM and physically detain him, the GZ is clearly culpable… but not because he got out of the darn truck. (And, for avoidance of doubt, I don't think that we have any hard evidence of who started the confrontation).

 

[Rare Truth]

Which brings back the question of why the defense left off the PA on their witness list. An interesting question will be whether or not she sent George home with no bandages at all and that George and Shellie put 3 bandages on his head in preparation for the walkthrough. I wonder if the prosecution will call people from George's work that day, and what they'll say he had on his head while working.

He went into work the very next morning with the Shellie-applied butterfly/knuckle bandages on.

 

[AlBell]

It may require both.

We can agree to disagree on that.

Without the beating over a two minute period of being restrained, you cannot prescribe a reasonable fear that the gun will be used.

Reaching for my gun would give me reasonable fear it would be used to shoot me, and I wouldn't need an ongoing beating to reach that conclusion. ymmv.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Confirmed... without links? Confirmed for you maybe.

He says in the walk through his wife put the bandages on. I don't have the time marker.

 

[Unabogie]

He went into work the very next morning with the Shellie-applied butterfly/knuckle bandages on.

I seem to recall that. But what did the PA do? Did he walk in with knuckle bandages on and walk out with nothing? And then went home and had his wife put on new bandages?

 

[Unabogie]

He says in the walk through his wife put the bandages on. I don't have the time marker.

So do you agree the PA might be an important witness on this? What if she sent him home without bandages, but prior to the walkthrough, he had his wife apply new bandages? Would that be suspicious to you?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Uh huh. So you're just as much a layperson as he is and you're just slinging that word around in an attempt to poison the well rather than address the actual discussion. I thought so.

I don't have any forensics expertise, nor I did not claim to. Offering up a non-expert opinion on forensic analysis is not going to be useful, no matter who makes it.

A dodge, how unsurprising.

Really, why ?

The point being made, since you appear to need things spelled out, is that six people's opinions are going to decide this case... not an extensive double-blind study that gets peer reviewed. The prosecution will present its case, the defense will cross-examine as they see fit to poke holes in it, and then the defense will present their case while the prosecution does the same. After that, six people will go into a room and decide whether or not George is guilty of second-degree murder.

The point being you needed to spell out how a trial in FL works ?

The additional point here is that I personally am making the effort to view everything through the lens of how it will be presented to the jury, and I think all this piddling around about "prove" and "can't prove" over trivial **** is a bunch of pointless nonsense. The jury is going to hear Witness 8's story, and the defense is going to have an opportunity to impeach her credibility. After that, it's up to whether the jury believes her. Same with all the other witnesses, with the possible exception of George as he has the opportunity to not take the stand (and I think it will sink him if he does and sink him if he doesn't, so he's in real bad shape IMO).

All this dithering over the minute details and whether they're objectively true or not is really losing focus on the big picture. Both sides are going to be heard. It's who manages to be more believable who'll win. :/

OK, then there wasn't really a question to dodge, was there.

 

[Rare Truth]

Confirmed... without links? Confirmed for you maybe.

One thing you should know about me, pb. When I say something is confirmed, it is.

My history and cred of making accurate, factual statements is for regular readers to asses, but a matter of personal pride is that when people read a factual statement from me, they can take it to the bank. Wish it could be point of pride for others as well, alas...

You'll learn. I'll also provide the link when I'm good and ready.

You can be certain, it's confirmed.

Not just in his walk-through comments saying she did either. Another witness account.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So do you agree the PA might be an important witness on this? What if she sent him home without bandages, but prior to the walkthrough, he had his wife apply new bandages? Would that be suspicious to you?

I'll agree with you that if you really want to know what bandages the PA put on his head, you would probably have to ask her.

IDK if she counts as an expert whose name doesn't have to appear on the witness list - until that is cleared up, I don't see the point in worrying about it.

Would his wife the nursing student putting bandages on her husbands head be suspicious to me ? Not really.

 

[Unabogie]

I'll agree with you that if you really want to know what bandages the PA put on his head, you would probably have to ask her.

IDK if she counts as an expert whose name doesn't have to appear on the witness list - until that is cleared up, I don't see the point in worrying about it.

Would his wife the nursing student putting bandages on her husbands head be suspicious to me ? Not really.

You didn't address my question. Would it not be suspicious if the PA sent him home with no bandages, but his wife put bandages on before he met with police several hours later?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You didn't address my question. Would it not be suspicious if the PA sent him home with no bandages, but his wife put bandages on before he met with police several hours later?

C'mon, let's not play games...I answered your question.

So do you agree the PA might be an important witness on this? What if she sent him home without bandages, but prior to the walkthrough, he had his wife apply new bandages? Would that be suspicious to you?

I'll agree with you that if you really want to know what bandages the PA put on his head, you would probably have to ask her.

IDK if she counts as an expert whose name doesn't have to appear on the witness list - until that is cleared up, I don't see the point in worrying about it.

Would his wife the nursing student putting bandages on her husbands head be suspicious to me ? Not really.

 

[phonebook]

He says in the walk through his wife put the bandages on. I don't have the time marker.

He didn't actually specify that. It does appear that might be the case given the exchange below... but I wouldn't say it excludes his doctor (PA) (who he saw ~6 hours previously, that same day) from having applied them.

When Singleton (I believe) comments: "Looks like the swelling went down (referring to bumps on the side of GZ's head she had noticed the night before) 'cause I remember yesterday I remember seeing swelling around right here and I don't see it now. It looks different." then GZ says "My wife is an RN student, so she... went to work (meaning got to work on his injuries)."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_2NeMrGCvg&t=18m54s