Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Dan O.]

Leaving out the previous fantasy scenario that appears to bear very little relationship to the evidence, I think you'll find that you're attempting to shift the burden of proof.
If you think that this is what happened, then you need to support it with evidence.

Your bias is showing.

My post was in response to the unfounded allogation that Giz made regarding Trayvon's actions that were not witnessed except by George. If you were being even handed you would have challenged Giz to show proof of his statement.

As for your attempt to attack my scenario, you have offered no points from which it is incompatible with the evidence.

And speaking of burden of proof, shouldn't you be demanding thar George prove the scenario that he offered?

 

[Dissolution]

George claimed that he walked straight across the T, then walked back. The noises on the tape are more consistent with him running. He claimed to have walked straight back, but the recording shows he took an immense amount of time to cover that short distance. He claims that Trayvon jumped him at the T, but we know that Trayvon was on the phone when the fight began and that phone was found about 50 feet south of the T and a fair distance south of Trayvon's body. George said that Trayvon slammed his head against the sidewalk time after time, but George's injuries are too minor for that to be the case.

Dan's proposal for what happened fits the evidence a lot better than George's story.

The noise on the tape is consistent with what Zimmerman claimed right from the off: it was windy and he wasn't running.
I'm pretty sure that he didn't claim to have walked straight back, either.
He said that he was still looking for a street sign, IIRC.

We don't know that Martin was on the phone when they 'met'.
We have the testimony of an awful witness who made some claims that she admitted she couldn't support (grass sounds, Martin being struck) and lied about a variety of things.

The forensic pathologist testified that all of the evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's account.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

(replying to discussion of facts in this case from another thread)
Only two people were witness to the full interaction between George and Trayvon that night. George killed the other one and anything he says can be presumed to be self serving.

We can hypothesize an alternate scenario that is consistent with the known evidence. Continuing from my earlier post where I looked at the wind noise as George crossed The cut-through to Retreat view circle, George says he is looking for a street sign. Anyone that lives and drives in that neighborhood would know that the street signes are at the intersections of the roads and the nearest intersection is to the south. George is still on the phone as he is walking south along RVC where there are many nearby hiding places where someone could overhear as he starts to give out his home address. George asks the operator to have the officer call him. By the time the NEN call ends, George would be nearing the intsection. There he would read the street sign so he would have a reference to tell the officer where he was and he would look around for the suspect.

He didn't say he was looking for a sign, he said he was looking for an address.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X_2NeMrGCvg#t=497s

From there, George would begin returning to his truck. If he retraces his steps on RVC or stays on Twin Trees Lane there would never have been an encounter so we can presume that George walks back on the path between the houses.

Trayvon who had run East from the Mailboxes and into the cut-through turned south at the tee and once out of sight stopped to catch his breath. He is near his father's house and if he sees the stranger comming down the path he can easily run home. He continues his talk with Rachael as he watches the path to the north.

Unless, of course, TM sees GZ walking across the path to RVC, and decides to approach him. What evidence ruled this scenario out ?

Trayvon tells Rachael "now he's behind me". While Trayvon had been watching the path to the north, George had circled around and was comming up the path from the South cutting off Trayvon's retreat home. As George approaches Trayvon asks "why are you following me" and George demands: "what are you doing here?" Rachael tells Trayvon to run. Trayvon says he is not going to run, that he is going to walk fast. George runs and catches Trayvon, grabbing him from behind and Rachael hears the bump as Trayvon's headset is dislodged. With George on his back, Trayvon says "get off, get off" and swings from side to side trying to dislodge the unwanted passenger. The swinging throws Trayvon's cell phone from his pocket and Trayvon gets his arms free and swings his elbows towards George's head. The blows land and George is thrown backwards landing his head on the hard concrete.

Why don't you compare your fictional dialogue to what RJ actually said ?

http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/deedeestatetranscript.pdf

You are intentionally changing the order of events. She doesn't tell TM to run after he as already confonted GZ.

The ground fight is uneventful. Trayvon sits on top of George and controls George's arms so he cannot try to punch him. Trayvon would call for help but George is already doing that. Finally a resident comes out saying "cut that out, I'm calling 911". This is Trayvon's cue that the fight is over so Trayvon releases George and begins to get up.

Because GZ is screaming for help, he doesn't need to yell for help ?

So, that is my reading of what could have happened. A 17 year old kid minding his own business, walking home from the store, talking to his girl on the phone. And a hothead packing a pistol out to stop those ******** that always get away. Trayvon did absolutely nothing wrong. He tried to avoid conflict by running, talking and walking away and when assaulted he returned a measured response to stop the assault and waited for help to defuse the situation. George on the other hand did everything to escalate the situation. He followed, chased, continued to hunt, demanded, physically attacked and in the end drew his pistol and fataly shot Trayvon.

Until you can prove that it didn't happen this way, your claim that Trayvon was at fault is unfounded.

The jury found that GZ shooting was justified. That means TM was at fault.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

George claimed that he walked straight across the T, then walked back. The noises on the tape are more consistent with him running. He claimed to have walked straight back, but the recording shows he took an immense amount of time to cover that short distance. He claims that Trayvon jumped him at the T,

Again, also 3 witnesses who say the altercation started at the Tee. GZ key chain and flashlight was at the Tee. Why is it you keep ignoring the evidence ?

but we know that Trayvon was on the phone when the fight began and that phone was found about 50 feet south of the T and a fair distance south of Trayvon's body.

37 feet is not "about 50" and how far is a "fair distance" ? 2 feet ? 5 ? 10?

George said that Trayvon slammed his head against the sidewalk time after time, but George's injuries are too minor for that to be the case.

That's not what all the experts testified to, though. Whose opinion should we believe, yours or the experts ?

Dan's proposal for what happened fits the evidence a lot better than George's story.

Not really.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That story was debunked several months ago in the original thread.

Here's a hint, if your link goes to TCT, it's very likely been debunked and quite probably proven to be racist.

No hand waving, actual link please.

Here's a hint, if you didn't provide the link, it's usually because it doesn't actually exist.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I have a question for all the "TM supporters". Imagine the following imaginary scenario.

1. The man GZ spotted that night was not TM, but rather a violent white murderer who served 10 years for the crime of beating a man to death, and was now out of jail on parole. He was returning from buying a beer at the convenience store, and was legally staying at a house in the community, so he had "every right to be there".

2. Everything else unfolds exactly the same way, GZ gets out of the car, ultimately a struggle happens and GZ shoots the murderer, you get to see pics of GZ's injuries, but otherwise we'll never know every detail etc. ALL that has changed is who the victim is.

A. Would you feel differently about who would you assign the majority of blame to?

B. Would you identify GZ as the party that bore the vast amount of the blame because "if he hadn't have gotten out of the car it wouldn't have happened".

C. Would you, as you argued the case, state again and again that the murderer had "every right to be there"? Or would it not occur to you to make that argument and would you look upon that as largely irrelevant?

D. Would you argue that even IF the murderer was the one who attacked first, that they had every right to do so because GZ was the one being provocative?

F. Would you perhaps, and I'm just guessing here, tend to look upon GZ getting out of the car and following the murderer as risky behavior more with regard to his own safety than anyone elses?

 

[triforcharity]

George said that Trayvon slammed his head against the sidewalk time after time, but George's injuries are too minor for that to be the case.

Why do you keep repeating this? There has been EXPERT testimony on this, from a forensic pathologist. An EXPERT with an MD, said it is absolutely consistent with his claims. Why is his opinion wrong, but your opinion is correct? Can you explain why you hold this position even with clear testimony from an actual MD to the contrary?

Dan's proposal for what happened fits the evidence a lot better than George's story.

No, it doesn't. Not even close.

 

[Dissolution]

Your bias is showing.

My post was in response to the unfounded allogation that Giz made regarding Trayvon's actions that were not witnessed except by George. If you were being even handed you would have challenged Giz to show proof of his statement.

As for your attempt to attack my scenario, you have offered no points from which it is incompatible with the evidence.

And speaking of burden of proof, shouldn't you be demanding thar George prove the scenario that he offered?

Giz's claim was consistent with the evidence and has been accepted in a court of law.
Yours wasn't. It was purely speculation.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

triforcharity, maybe I am "misremembering", but I seem to think that long ago you thought GZ was likely guilty of murder or manslaughter. Did you change your opinion or is my recollection faulty?

 

[Dan O.]

The noise on the tape is consistent with what Zimmerman claimed right from the off: it was windy and he wasn't running.
I'm pretty sure that he didn't claim to have walked straight back, either.
He said that he was still looking for a street sign, IIRC.

I covered the timing of the crossing in an earlier post.

Are you saying that George was soo stupid that he didn't know where the street signs were in his own neighborhood? The sign is right there on the corner at the end of the block where the streets cross. It's an easy walk and there is plenty of time so george doesn't even have to rush. Plus, he's walking with the wind so no more wind noise in the phone. If George were just standing there on the sidewalk like a potted palm with nowhere to go, he would be turning around occasionally and we would hear the wind again. No wind sounds means that he must be walking south.

We don't know that Martin was on the phone when they 'met'.
We have the testimony of an awful witness who made some claims that she admitted she couldn't support (grass sounds, Martin being struck) and lied about a variety of things.

We also have the time from the telephone log.

The forensic pathologist testified that all of the evidence was consistent with Zimmerman's account.

Consistent with doesn't say that is exactly what George's face would look like if it were being pounded on for a full minute. Without setting up the experiment for a demonstration that is. Nobody wants to do that though. I am satisfied with comparing George's face to those of actual beating victims and noting that George is relatively unscathed.

 

[triforcharity]

triforcharity, maybe I am "misremembering", but I seem to think that long ago you thought GZ was likely guilty of murder or manslaughter. Did you change your opinion or is my recollection faulty?

No, your recollection is not faulty. That's correct. But the more and more I looked at the law, and looked objectively at the evidence, and more evidence became available, I adjusted my position accordingly.

While IMO, he shouldn't have gotten out of the truck, as I feel that ethically, he was putting himself in a situation where he MIGHT have had to use his gun. Me personally, I'm never going to intentionally put myself in a situation where I may need to use my weapon, unless I absolutely have to to defend my family.

But, that still doesn't absolve Zimmerman of his right to defend himself from a very clear threat to his life.

Sometimes, based on limited information, we make an opinion, and defend that position, but have to adjust that opinion based on more information.

 

[triforcharity]

Consistent with doesn't say that is exactly what George's face would look like if it were being pounded on for a full minute. Without setting up the experiment for a demonstration that is. Nobody wants to do that though. I am satisfied with comparing George's face to those of actual beating victims and noting that George is relatively unscathed.

And yet, the EXPERT, an actual forensic pathologist, disagrees with you. Which opinion is more likely to be accurate? The doctor whom studies these types of injuries, had an MD, and is HIGHLY respected in the field, or an anonymous poster on a message board?

No offense intended Dan O. but I'm going with the actual expert on this one.

 

[phillyboy]

That seems to be the consensus. He screwed up by getting out of the truck. He set everything in motion with that one act.

Thank you. This whole thread has been a learning experience for me.

 

[Dan O.]

He didn't say he was looking for a sign, he said he was looking for an address.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X_2NeMrGCvg#t=497s

There are addresses on every house. He didn't even need to get out of his truck. He had more than sufficient time to have gotten over to the other street and read the address while the dispatcher was still on the phone. The claim that he was looking for an address is thus demonstraitably bogus. The cut-through is a wide open space. If George was there he would be able to see that there was no one in earshot to overhear him giving his address to the dispatcher if he talked softly. George therefore was in another place where someone could be hiding close by like walking south on RVC where there are parked cars.

Unless, of course, TM sees GZ walking across the path to RVC, and decides to approach him. What evidence ruled this scenario out ?

George is walking south on RVC as evidenced by the wind. Trayvon saying "now he's behind me" Implying a switch in orientation. The location of Trayvon's phone and George's flashlight marking the start of the confrontation well south of the tee.

Why don't you compare your fictional dialogue to what RJ actually said ?

http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/deedeestatetranscript.pdf

You are intentionally changing the order of events. She doesn't tell TM to run after he as already confonted GZ.

That makes no difference.

And you really should have that eye condition checked, it could be serious.

Because GZ is screaming for help, he doesn't need to yell for help ?

Trayvon cannot tell us who was calling for help. It's possible that they both were. George of course must say that he was the only one calling for help. Any sign that trayvon was seeking help wouldd break George's story.

The jury found that GZ shooting was justified. That means TM was at fault.

All I can say is WOW! Total logic fail on your part.

 

[Dan O.]

Giz's claim was consistent with the evidence and has been accepted in a court of law.
Yours wasn't. It was purely speculation.

The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's theory. They did not find as a fact that George's version was correct.

 

[newyorkguy]

...

Trayvon tells Rachael "now he's behind me". While Trayvon had been watching the path to the north, George had circled around and was comming up the path from the South cutting off Trayvon's retreat home. As George approaches Trayvon asks "why are you following me" and George demands: "what are you doing here?" Rachael tells Trayvon to run. Trayvon says he is not going to run, that he is going to walk fast...

...
Why don't you compare your fictional dialogue to what RJ actually said ?

Link

You are intentionally changing the order of events. She doesn't tell TM to run after he as already confonted GZ.
...

That's it? She told Trayvon to run before the confrontation? The rest seems pretty close to what Rachel Jeantel testified to.

Jeantel says she heard Martin talking to Zimmerman in the background of the call.

"He said, 'Why are you following me for?' And I heard a hard-breathing man say, 'What you doing around here?'" said Jeantel.

Jeantel also said she heard a bump from Martin's headset hitting something and "wet grass sounds."

"I start hearing a little bit of Trayvon saying, 'Get off, get off!'" said Jeantel.

Link

Please note if her version is truthful then it means George Zimmerman's account was false. If Zimmerman's account is true than Jeantel's version is false.

They both have a reason to lie. Jeantel wants to see the man that killed her friend go to jail. Zimmerman is facing a murder charge and needs to prove he had no alternative to shooting Trayvon Martin. I don't see the evidence is adequate to really let you know which of the two is being truthful.

At first -- I mean back in March 2012 when this case first made the news -- I believed Zimmerman. The more I read the more doubts I had. The real problem I have with Zimmerman is, remember how is former co-worker described him?

“Usually he was just a cool guy...But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.

We'll never know for sure.

 

[Noztradamus]

He didn't say he was looking for a sign, he said he was looking for an address.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X_2NeMrGCvg#t=497s

Unless, of course, TM sees GZ walking across the path to RVC, and decides to approach him. What evidence ruled this scenario out ?

~~~~

George says a lot of stuff that don't make sense. Didn't know the names of three (two?) streets? Hadn;t realized that street signs in RTL are on the intersections? (What community marks its streets like that?)

At leasr Dan's unlikely scenario explains George taking the time to find a street sign.

Zimmerman: No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left...uh, you go straight in, don't turn, and make a left. ****, he's running [background noises, possibly car door open warning chimes, heard].
Dispatcher: He's running? Which way is he running?

[notquote]
Zimmerman: By the corner house. It's 1211 ... don't know the street but it's the one that crosses Retreat View Circle by the clubhouse. I'll wait for the police here

All information Zimmerman had without following/walking in the same direction as Martin. Do I really have to post the link to the 1211 Twin Trees photo again?

~~
Are you saying that George was soo stupid that he didn't know where the street signs were in his own neighborhood? The sign is right there on the corner at the end of the block where the streets cross.
~~~

It's a possibility.

 

[RepresentativePress]

It only matters because the media MADE it matter. There's no objective reason Martin's murder should be more important than the hundreds of other black youths who get murdered every year, except that the media chose to turn it into an event. And they did so in large part through lies (do you not remember the initial editing of Zimmerman's 911 call that made it sound like he stated Martin's ethnicity spontaneously rather than in response to a direct question?). And that media malfeasance (and don't kid yourself that it was anything else) really does matter.

That's right about the media and what people need to understand about this case is how the media was pitched the false narrative in the first place and that was done by a PR firm with an agenda. People need to know the calculated campaign to make it about race can be traced to a PUBLIC RELATIONS FIRM which pitched the Zimmerman/Martin story to news outlets with those out of date photos of Martin & the false narratives of a "white Zimmerman"! "A pivotal, if little-known, figure in the Martin story’s development was Ryan Julison, an Orlando public relations executive who began working with the Martin family at the behest of its attorneys, Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson." Julison's faceboook boasts he worked with the media & links to stories he pushed with initial false claims of "Zimmerman is white." "Worked with CBS This Morning on the story of Trayvon Martin," he declares as he links to his accomplishments at spinning the story.

This became what it is because of Julison's initial media pitches. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/...artin-story-george-zimmerman-unarmed-teenager

 

[Cylinder]

Alternate Juror E-54 appearing on Hannity Monday, July 22:

 

[eirik]

The court found reasonable doubt in the prosecution's theory. They did not find as a fact that George's version was correct.

That's right. It's not their job to do so. That would imply that people are guilty until proven innocent.