Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[triforcharity]

It was pointed out earlier that "LEAN" isn't made with Skittles or Iced Tea. So Trayvon had none of the ingredients for making this drug cocktail.

He had watermelon just cocktail from Arizona. He had skittles. Yeah, because he's making a Manhattan, which requires very specific alcohols.....Or maybe a cake, that requires following the recipe exactly....

 

[ABC10]

That woman sounds extremely confused.
She wanted to find him guilty, claims that he got away with murder and then says it should never have gone to trial.

Good luck to her selling her story, though.
She already sounds like she's going to sue for emotional distress or something, so she might need a little more cash for the legal fees.

Confused and dumb.

 

[Skeletor]

"That's where I felt confused, where if a person kills someone, then you get charged for it," Maddy said. "But as the law was read to me, if you have no proof that he killed him intentionally, you can't say he's guilty."

When asked by Roberts whether the case should have gone to trial, Maddy said, "I don't think so."

"I felt like this was a publicity stunt. This whole court service thing to me was publicity," she said.

So I have to compliment this woman as in some ways the ultimate example of a juror who put aside her emotions and even what she obviously suspected (wrong or not) and ruled on the evidence.

Aside from her feelings towards the case as a whole, whether GZ was guilty of second-degree murder, the real story is right here: "I don't think so." I'm glad she didn't hold out for a mistrial.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Yup. It's fairly telling that a juror so obviously upset about Zimmerman acting in self defense acknowledges that there was no evidence to even bring him to trial, no less convict him.

But guess what headline almost every media outlet in the country is going with? And I don't think this has anything to do with left or right bias, I think it has to do with idiot bias, in which everything without exception has to be reduced to hype.

 

[Dan O.]

Orlando weather for February 26, 2012

"Wind Speed 8 mph (ENE)

Max Wind Speed 16 mph

Max Gust Speed 22 mph"

So brisk wind with gusts to 22 mph, plenty enough to cause wind noise.

Odd you cropped out the building just to the north, which would block any wind from the north.

I happened to have an image of the area around the tee which I created to show the relative locations of the evidence and cropped so as not to burden the JREF server and the readers with an excessively large image. Anyone that wants to explore this area can do so in Google Maps or Google Earth (Earth has a handy tape tool if you also desire to measure distances). I don't even have the area bookmarked as it is easy enough to search for [Twin Trees Lane, Sanford, FL]. The wind as you pointed out earlier is from the ENE so the building to the north is not a significant factor. The fact that there is wind heard on the tape should be sufficient proof of that claim. Or perhaps the buildings are blocking the wind and it is only the fact that George is running that produces the wind noise.

This type of indirect evidence is the best we can do with the limited data we have. A much better source for tracing George's movements that night would be the GPS track log in his cell phone. Does anyone know what happened to George's phone?

 

[Clayton Moore]

It was pointed out earlier that "LEAN" isn't made with Skittles or Iced Tea. So Trayvon had none of the ingredients for making this drug cocktail.

That's nonsense. If it looks like and made in the spirit of lean and works like lean the intent is to have "lean."

Take a boilermaker for instance


Wiki says

A boilermaker is a beer cocktail consisting of a glass of beer and a shot of whiskey.[1] The beer is either served as a chaser or is mixed with the liquor. When the beer is served as a chaser, the drink is often called simply a shot and a beer.

A boilermaker is beer mixed with the liquor. It is not a shot and a beer. There is no specific type of beer or liquor.

Indeed, and looking at the video in question, I'm not seeing much in the way of swaying. Martin does briefly lean agains the counter, but eventually pushes himself upright using his hips.

Not that I think this helps prosecution any - I agree with the notion him being too impaired to stand up straight actually makes the claim that he was some incredible MMA champion fighter mere minutes later sound less likely, not more.

The kid was clearly wrecked. At 3:40 of the video he reaches for the door prematurely because he was loaded. The transaction took way too long and the clerk was watching him after the transaction till he left the store.

 

[Upchurch]

Having worked for 30 years in some of the worst parts of town with lots of attractive tools to steal, I've become quite adept at spotting the thieves from the casual walkers. That's why it's been years since anyone succeeded in stealing any of my tools from the job site. Vigilance goes a long way.

If you can't tell the difference that's your handicap, not mine. A little bit of street smarts goes a long way.

That's classic confirmation bias. If you treat everyone, or nearly everyone, like a potential thief, you'll never be wrong, will you? The ones who don't actually try anything have been thwarted by your constant vigilance. Unless, of course, you have an objective way of measuring your false positives?

And it is, of course, Zimmerman's potential false positive that we're discussing here. We are presuming Martin's innocence, right? All he actually did was walk home from the store, remember. The only evidence to the contrary is the anecdotal evidence whose judgement is in question.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

That's classic confirmation bias. If you treat everyone, or nearly everyone, like a potential thief, you'll never be wrong, will you?

Maybe your confirmation bias is distorting your interpretation of what he said. Where did he say anything whatsoever about treating everyone like a potential thief? Hint: he didn't.

 

[MiloMinderbinder]

For what it's worth:

It's also interesting that she is being described as Puerto Rican by the NY Times and not black. Zimmerman, of course, was referred to as a White Hispanic by the same paper. Moreover, throughout the trial, she was usually referred to as a 'minority' or mixed descent, or usually something other than black.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/us/juror-says-zimmerman-got-away-with-murder.html?_r=0

To my untrained eye, she looks black. And if the Times is going to call Zimmerman a White Hispanic, why isn't she a Black Hispanic?

It seems pretty clear to me that the media is making a big effort not to frame her concerns about the verdict in the context of white vs. black racism, which fits in well with the ongoing narrative that Zimmerman must have profiled Martin by his race while at the same time it's incomprehensible that racial bias works in the other direction.

 

[Dan O.]

That's nonsense. If it looks like and made in the spirit of lean and works like lean the intent is to have "lean."

The nonsense is that you are implicating Trayvon's 13 year old little brother Chad in a conspiracy to produce a drug cocktail based on absolutely no evidence at all.

 

[WildCat]

That's classic confirmation bias. If you treat everyone, or nearly everyone, like a potential thief, you'll never be wrong, will you? The ones who don't actually try anything have been thwarted by your constant vigilance. Unless, of course, you have an objective way of measuring your false positives?

I don't treat everyone as a potential thief, just the ones I find suspicious. Walking a bit too slow, carrying a bag for no reason, asking me for a cigarette when I don't smoke (very common, chased a guy off trying to steal mail last summer who used this ruse), looking a bit too long... there's a lot of subtle clues. The only onjective measurement I have is that I used to lose tools to thieves quite a lot, now it's been years since I lost one.

And it is, of course, Zimmerman's potential false positive that we're discussing here. We are presuming Martin's innocence, right? All he actually did was walk home from the store, remember. The only evidence to the contrary is the anecdotal evidence whose judgement is in question.

There's no harm in a false positive. There's no evidence that Zimmerman chased Martin, or otherwise tried to detain him. Doesn't keep people like you from engaging in evidence-free speculation though.

Speaking of evidence-free speculation, that appears to be all you have. You don't even have a hunch based on years of experience, so tell me who is being presumptuous here?

 

[RepresentativePress]

The kid was clearly wrecked. At 3:40 of the video he reaches for the door prematurely because he was loaded. The transaction took way too long and the clerk was watching him after the transaction till he left the store.

Well I think the oddest thing that stands out is that after buying his items, he doesn't leave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28-UTEFhA0M
Would you agree that in this video, Martin's actions are not the norm? Normally most people leave a store after they buy what they are buying. Do you see what he does? @ 2:31 into the video he turns to leave the store but doesn't. Actually, what is he doing? After he buys his items, he walks back and looks like he goes to pick something up then he looks again at the drinks and then he finally leaves the store. Yet stays in front for almost 5 min.

Also, the time Google maps shows for how long it would take walking to get where he is first spotted by Zimmerman shows that he should have already reached his father's home and been there for about 21 mins before the time Zimmerman even first spotted him. https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=211599187255891576041.0004e23c5ae269e8e1f1b That too does seem odd.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

What happened to George Zimmerman's cell phone?

George had a cell phone with him the night he Shot Trayvon Martin. He was on that phone talking to the NEN dispatcher while running through the neighborhood minutes before the fatal shooting. George has even given the dispatcher the number so the officers can call him when they get in the area:
<snip call>

In George's statement he says he reaches for his cell phone when he encounters Trayvon (or at least that was one of his statements, elsewhere he states he was jumped without warning).

Not true, please provide evidence for your claim.

After the shooting, George is seen by multiple witnesses walking back to the tee at the end of the sidewalk. Joe Manalo testified that he grabbed a flashlight and went out. He met George at a location about 6 feet from the tee.

Which is NOT where GZ key /w flashlight was found, was it ?

Manalo testified that he took the photos with his cell phone that showed blood on Zimmerman's lip and scalp. In that photo, it appears that George has a cell phone up to his ear.

Manalo said Zimmerman asked him to call his wife, Shellie, and tell her that he just shot someone as cops arrived on the scene.

"He had a cell phone in his hand and he tossed it on the ground asking if I could call his wife," Manalo testified. "He gave me her number. I had a connection right away and said, 'Your husband has been involved in a shooting. He's detained by Sanford police.'"​

This is the last reference I have found to George's phone. Joe claims it was tossed to the ground but all that was found on the ground at that location were George's truck key and the attached flashlight.

Here is officer Tim Smiths testimony.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI1fvhXYe6I&feature=player_embedded

Here is a picture of him pointing out where GZ and manalo were when he saw them. Nowhere near the keys and flashlight.



Here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Wh16ZDxzm5Y&t=239
is is his testimony that they were THIRTY FEET south of the Tee intersection, within feet of TMs body !

George himself says he was holding the Tacticle flashlight at the start of the altercation. Multiple witnesses place George at the location where his keys were found when the police first arrive.

Not really. We covered this before. They place him moving towards the Tee an unspecified distance.

Joe Manalo said simply he was walking toward him. The only think he observed in his hands was his cell phone, to his left ear.

As I quoted above, Joe sees George toss something into the grass as the police approach. Joe thinks it was George's flashlight that George tossed. I believe it was the car keys.

Here are Joe Manalos statements, so you can refer to them in the future and be accurate:
https://docs.google.com/folderview?id=0B2tSLwzxzTkmVWV0WTVDVm5nbnc&usp=drive_web

Please let me know where the claim you made that I hilited above occurs ?

If George tossed his cell phone into the grass when the police were approaching, where is that evidenced in the police report? Where are the photos of George's phone in tha grass?

If you take the opposite view, who picked up George's cell phone and hid this evidence from the police?

Joe Manalo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3hkvfvsw3Yc&t=1214

He had his cell phone in his hand, so he tossed it on the ground. Mr. Manolo picked up the phone and put it in GZ pocket. Left Side Pocket.

Your theory that the confrontation didn't start at the Tee would have to overcome all this evidence, and additional witness testimony. And it doesn't come close.

 

[Upchurch]

I don't treat everyone as a potential thief, just the ones I find suspicious. Walking a bit too slow, carrying a bag for no reason, asking me for a cigarette when I don't smoke (very common, chased a guy off trying to steal mail last summer who used this ruse), looking a bit too long... there's a lot of subtle clues. The only onjective measurement I have is that I used to lose tools to thieves quite a lot, now it's been years since I lost one.

My point is that you could and you'd have the exact same results with just as little idea about how many false positives you have. Maybe you only suspect 10% more people than who are actually considering stealing your tools. Perhaps you are merely overly suspicious of people rather than having a good eye for suspicious behavior. You don't know.

Regardless, that is text book confirmation bias. Your description of suspicious behavior could easily describe anyone. You are ignoring or, more likely, merely unaware of how many times you were wrong, but it confirms your belief that you are an accurate judge of suspicious behavior, so you don't question it. As you say, your only objective measurement doesn't actually validate your accuracy.

There's no harm in a false positive. There's no evidence that Zimmerman chased Martin, or otherwise tried to detain him. Doesn't keep people like you from engaging in evidence-free speculation though.

All semantic games aside, Zimmerman admitted to "following" Martin.

In reply to the dispatcher's question, "Are you following him?" Zimmerman responds with, "Yes."

My position in this thread has always been that we don't know who started the physical encounter between the two. We simply have no evidence of what actually happened, despite your claims of evidence to the contrary which you still have yet to produce.

No harm in a false positive? That apparent false positive (there was no indication that Martin had done or was planning to do anything illegal that evening) led to Zimmerman following Martin in the first place.

Speaking of evidence-free speculation, that appears to be all you have. You don't even have a hunch based on years of experience, so tell me who is being presumptuous here?

Hunch? Is that what you are basing your own speculation on? Because, as I said, you still have yet to produce any evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman first.

Let's be absolutely clear here. I'm not the one claiming to know what happened in those unrecorded and un-witnessed minutes in which Martin and Zimmerman began their struggle. I don't know who assaulted whom first. You are the one who claims that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first when we only have Zimmerman's word for that.

If you have something more than a hunch, I'm willing to listen. But hunches?

Maybe your confirmation bias is distorting your interpretation of what he said. Where did he say anything whatsoever about treating everyone like a potential thief? Hint: he didn't.

Likewise, where did I say he did treat everyone like a potential thief? Would you like a similar hint?

 

[Dan O.]

Well I think the oddest thing that stands out is that after buying his items, he doesn't leave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28-UTEFhA0M
Would you agree that in this video, Martin's actions are not the norm? Normally most people leave a store after they buy what they are buying. Do you see what he does? @ 2:31 into the video he turns to leave the store but doesn't. Actually, what is he doing? After he buys his items, he walks back and looks like he goes to pick something up then he looks again at the drinks and then he finally leaves the store. Yet stays in front for almost 5 min.

Also, the time Google maps shows for how long it would take walking to get where he is first spotted by Zimmerman shows that he should have already reached his father's home and been there for about 21 mins before the time Zimmerman even first spotted him. https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=211599187255891576041.0004e23c5ae269e8e1f1b That too does seem odd.

Who would be making such claims without actual evidence in the form of a study of kids in a similar situation. I was once in a 7-11 store when a bunch of adults were hanging around inside the store and not purchasing anything. The clerk was in a vertual panic to the point that she had even called her boss to ask if she could close early. The reason for this mayhem, it was in the middle of a blizzard.


Now, if you actually watch that store video instead of parroting what you read on hate sites, you will see that the clerk is hardly paying attention to trayvon. He turns his back on him a couple of times as he goes about his chores.

Trayvon reaches down an picks up a dime off the floor. There is nothing suspiscious at all about that. It does tell us that he was observant, agile and had fine motor control.

Trayvon takes his time leaving the store and hangs out under the awnings for a bit. This is not surprising. When the three amigos enter the store they have a brief conversation with the clerk about how hard it was raining.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I'm late to the game...what is supposed to be the deal with the 7-11 video?

 

[Dissolution]

Who would be making such claims without actual evidence in the form of a study of kids in a similar situation. I was once in a 7-11 store when a bunch of adults were hanging around inside the store and not purchasing anything. The clerk was in a vertual panic to the point that she had even called her boss to ask if she could close early. The reason for this mayhem, it was in the middle of a blizzard.


Now, if you actually watch that store video instead of parroting what you read on hate sites, you will see that the clerk is hardly paying attention to trayvon. He turns his back on him a couple of times as he goes about his chores.

Trayvon reaches down an picks up a dime off the floor. There is nothing suspiscious at all about that. It does tell us that he was observant, agile and had fine motor control.

Trayvon takes his time leaving the store and hangs out under the awnings for a bit. This is not surprising. When the three amigos enter the store they have a brief conversation with the clerk about how hard it was raining.

Which might be a big part of the reason why GZ found someone hanging about rather aimlessly a little odd.

 

[WildCat]

Hunch? Is that what you are basing your own speculation on? Because, as I said, you still have yet to produce any evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman first.

Let's be absolutely clear here. I'm not the one claiming to know what happened in those unrecorded and un-witnessed minutes in which Martin and Zimmerman began their struggle. I don't know who assaulted whom first. You are the one who claims that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first when we only have Zimmerman's word for that.

If you have something more than a hunch, I'm willing to listen. But hunches?

Why yes I do have "more than a hunch". I watched the court testimony and weighed the evidence. Evidence which includes eyewitnesses and earwitnesses and forensics and medical witnesses.

All of which support Zimmerman's version of events. Then there's the complete lack of motive for Zimmerman to start a fight, Zimmerman, after all, called the police. Martin did not, Martin wasn't going to run from that "creepy ass cracker" and "*****" who was watching him, and he wasn't going to call the police. Nor did he go home despite having ample opportunity to do so, indeed according to the state's own start witness he had gone back to his house, yet the confrontation happened 130 yards away at the "T". Only Zimmerman shows signs of being struck by hands and fists.

The totality of the evidence supports Zimmerman's account of the incident, and he'd have to be either a criminal genius or one hell of a lucky liar to pull that off if that's not what happened.

 

[Kestrel]

That's nonsense. If it looks like and made in the spirit of lean and works like lean the intent is to have "lean."

Or do you call the parents of any kid you see buying candy and a soda and tell them their children are about to make a drug cocktail?

Edited by LashL: 

Moderated thread.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

George got out of his truck to chase after Trayvon. He admitted to this during his phone call to the police. But when he tells the story the next day, he claims it was just to get an address. He claims to have gone to the other street then straight back. But if he did that, he would have been back at the T a couple minutes earlier.

Look at the evidence and it's clear that George kept looking for the "suspect". Most likely going south on the street, then coming back on the path at the back of the condos. Knowing that George didn't want this ******* to get away like all the others, it's likely the George tried to detain Trayvon.

Trayvon's mistake could have been letting George go. He got the upper hand in a fight a creepy guy started by trying to grab him. When Trayvon starts to disengage from the fight, an angry and pissed off George pulls out his concealed handgun and shoots.

First of all he didn't chase him. At no point in the NEN call was the word chase said. Follow is not chase. Follow is not stalking. Follow is follow, in this case to keep visual track of his location until the police arrive and take over. There is no evidence at all that he saw Martin again after he rounded the corned leading south towards where he was staying until seconds before the physical altercation started.

Secondly you are making a whole lot of assumptions with absolutely zero physical evidence to back it up. This is evidenced by your use of weasel words such as: Could have, it's likely and most likely. That is your opinion and it has absolutely no evidence to show that it "may have" happened that way but plenty of evidence (or the lack thereof) to contradict it. If it could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt then you wouldn't need to use weasel words to get to your predetermined conclusion. This is what the prosecution tried and is why Zimmerman was found not guilty. Evidence will always trump speculation and appeals to emotions.