Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Sam.I.Am]

Yeah, she's not using murder in the legal sense but in the synonymous with "killing" way. Which is incorrect.

I think that her being a native of Chicago since the age of five had something to do with her feelings about this case. Three years ago (she moved to Florida ~5 years ago) only the police, a limited number of civilians whith jobs that required the carrying of a handgun and criminals up to no good had handguns on their person while outside of their homes. This can confuse someone who is used to seeing things in that light which is probably why she had to have the law explained to her in terms that a layperson can understand (O'Mara spent a good portion of his time on closing breaking down the law and what they are required to consider and where the lines are regarding reasonable doubt).

 

[Sam.I.Am]

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.

The nonsense is that you think that Chad was his brother. Hint, he wasn't. He was his dads fiance's son. No relation to Martin at all. Not by blood and not by marriage. He was at best a friend foisted upon Martin through circumstance.

 

[Upchurch]

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.

Of course, there is no other account of the event because the only other witness to the start of of the altercation is dead.

But please, do provide the evidence that supports your claim that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first remembering, again, that assault could be as simple as grabbing someone, which wouldn't necessarily leave physical injury.

As for motive, can you think of no motive a wannabe cop might have for keeping a "criminal" from getting away before the cops arrived? But, really, motives are meaningless and mostly mind reading. Do you have any evidence of what actually happened in those few minutes before other witnesses were available? If so, what is it?

(At this point, I doubt there is anything you haven't already presented or else you would have presented that, too. Can we just skip to the realization that what you "know for a fact" is, in itself, the opinion you've formed by listening to the trial defense and not reviewing the evidence from a context outside the trial? After all, both the prosecution and defense have the job of persuading people about the guilt or non-guilt of Zimmerman, not determining what actually happened. As I've said, the verdict only shows there is a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the assault. It doesn't prove he didn't do it or that Martin did.)

 

[Dan O.]

The nonsense is that you think that Chad was his brother. Hint, he wasn't. He was his dads fiance's son. No relation to Martin at all. Not by blood and not by marriage. He was at best a friend foisted upon Martin through circumstance.

That is an immaterial distinction. The issue is that Chad claimed that Trayvon had gone to the store and was bringing the skittles back for himself. Some hate site on the Internet is pushing a claim that Trayvon went to purchase ingredients to make a drug cocktail. This claim now necessarily involves Chad because Chad had knowledge of the activity. Are you supporting the hate campaign against Trayvon and Chad?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

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

I believe the protocol is that it is only raining hard if it convenient for TM, not if it is convenient for GZ.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

<snip>
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.
...
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.

On one hand, we have GZs version of what happened.

And on the other hand, we don't even have the prosecutions version of what happened.

You would think if GZ was chasing TM around with a gun, for that matter even just plain chasing him around, we would know that from RJ. So I think we can rule that out.

Dan O is about the only one who has been able to offer an alternate a semi-plausible narrative that differs from GZs, and it is still contradicted by much of evidence we have.

If you would like to propose a plausible narrative where something happens other than TM confronts GZ at the Tee and a fight ensues, feel free.

Other than that, I feel comfortable enough that GZ versions of events, which may not be entirely accurate in every detail, still paints the best picture and agrees with the evidence.

 

[Kestrel]

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.

Zealots are always certain regardless of the evidence. An honest skeptic will use words like possible or most likely when the evidence fits more than one possibility.

Outside of George's claim, there is no evidence that Trayvon started the physical altercation. If we look into George's history, we find he has launched himself into fights. But for some reason, George's supporters find it impossible to accept that George may have started the altercation.

There is good evidence that Trayvon was on the phone when the fight started, but somehow we must accept that it started at the T where George said it did instead of near where Travon's phone was found. We have to ignore the witness who saw the fight move from South to North. It somehow isn't possible that George could be wrong.

George has a reason for claiming the fight started at the T. George wants to be seen as a passive victim. By the next day, he didn't even admit he got out of the truck to follow Trayvon. It was just to find a house address, when in fact there was an address visible on the house right in front of where his truck was parked. We have to believe that George went to the other street and stood idle for a couple of minutes before starting back to his truck.

There is clear evidence that George exaggerated his injuries, yet his description of the fight is taken as the literal truth. No other possible explanations are allowed.

 

[Cylinder]

There is good evidence that Trayvon was on the phone when the fight started, but somehow we must accept that it started at the T where George said it did instead of near where Travon's phone was found.

This isn't exactly uncharted territory.

Three people, each unknown to the other, describe the altercation beginning with a three exchange confrontation. Two of those people claim the confrontation started at the T. The third was 250 miles away. Zimmerman claimed he had a small flashlight out when he was attacked. Coincidentally, that flashlight was found where another witness claims she heard the altercation begin.

We have to ignore the witness who saw the fight move from South to North.

No witness claimed to have seen the fight move south to north. No witness claims to have seen anyone south of T at any time prior to the altercation. The night of the incident, one witness claimed to have seen "arms flailing" near the spot where Zimmerman claimed the attack continued. Coincidentally, this spot was directly between where another witness claims to have heard the altercation begin and a third witness saw it seconds before it ended. That draws a line north to south from the T to the body. Coincidentally and not knowing the others' statement, just how Zimmerman described. He probably learned that at community college as the state claimed.

Selene Baladoor, who had been interview at least 6 times before, first claimed to have heard some "movement" south-to-north the very day she testified. Well, actually, she claimed to have told her sister about it the night of the incident, never put it in any report, statement or interview and then repeated the first time again that very day. Let's suspend disbelief for moment. How does that suddenly become Zimmerman? Baladoor didn't see it, she couldn't tell if it was even a person. She certainly didn't know it was two people or two anything for that matter. That's just as easily Martin turning south-to-north to confront Zimmerman as Ms. Jeantel asserted he did.

Baladoor was lying and doing a poor job of it - even her lie doesn't evidence your claim or conflict with Zimmerman's narrative.

There's a reason Zimmerman wasn't charged, that the two detectives involved supported Zimmerman's narrative and the jury acquitted and is has nothing to do with repurposed pillowcases.

 

[Upchurch]

On one hand, we have GZs version of what happened.

And on the other hand, we don't even have the prosecutions version of what happened.

It doesn't matter what their version is. What matters is what can be proven. It's not like Zimmerman's version is true by default.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Zealots are always certain regardless of the evidence. An honest skeptic will use words like possible or most likely when the evidence fits more than one possibility.

Ahh, the no true honest skeptic fallacy.

Outside of George's claim, there is no evidence that Trayvon started the physical altercation.
If we look into George's history, we find he has launched himself into fights. But for some reason, George's supporters find it impossible to accept that George may have started the altercation.

An "honest skeptic" would provide evidence for his claims.

Please present evidence GZ "launched himself into fights" ? And no, pushing an undercover police officer is not a fight.

An "honest skeptic" would look at all the previous calls and see if GZ behavior matches the previous incidents. How many calls did GZ make to the police ? How many of those calls resulted in him attempting to apprehend someone ? Stalking someone ?

I'll help you out. The answer is none.

There is good evidence that Trayvon was on the phone when the fight started, but somehow we must accept that it started at the T where George said it did instead of near where Travon's phone was found. We have to ignore the witness who saw the fight move from South to North. It somehow isn't possible that George could be wrong.

No witness saw the fight move from south to north. Please provide evidence.

Please explain the keys/flashlight at the tee.
PLease explain the witness that claimed the altercation started at the Tee. (Good, Manalo, Lauer)

George has a reason for claiming the fight started at the T. George wants to be seen as a passive victim. By the next day, he didn't even admit he got out of the truck to follow Trayvon. It was just to find a house address, when in fact there was an address visible on the house right in front of where his truck was parked. We have to believe that George went to the other street and stood idle for a couple of minutes before starting back to his truck.

There is clear evidence that George exaggerated his injuries, yet his description of the fight is taken as the literal truth. No other possible explanations are allowed.

No, it's just that no reasonable alternate explanation that fits the evidence has been put forth, least of all by you.

 

[Cylinder]

It seems some concerned citizen filed an amicus brief with the court, apparently arguing to retry Zimmerman. At first I thought it likely to be a brief in support of the protective order regarding juror identities, but Mark O'Mara asserts it was filed by some presumably private citizen from Georgia. I doubt the brief is accepted by the court, if it doesn't make the court file, then it's unlikely to be published if they update the 18th Circuit Court page. Here's the Clerk of Court's entry:

07/23/2013 FREE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
07/23/2013 MOTN MOTION TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF[/url]

 

[TheL8Elvis]

It doesn't matter what their version is. What matters is what can be proven. It's not like Zimmerman's version is true by default.

No, it's not. Good thing no one here claimed that, right ?

If you would like to propose a plausible narrative where something happens other than TM confronts GZ at the Tee and a fight ensues, feel free.

Other than that, I feel comfortable enough that GZ versions of events, which may not be entirely accurate in every detail, still paints the best picture and agrees with the evidence.

And:

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

 

[WildCat]

Of course, there is no other account of the event because the only other witness to the start of of the altercation is dead.

But please, do provide the evidence that supports your claim that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first remembering, again, that assault could be as simple as grabbing someone, which wouldn't necessarily leave physical injury.

As for motive, can you think of no motive a wannabe cop might have for keeping a "criminal" from getting away before the cops arrived? But, really, motives are meaningless and mostly mind reading. Do you have any evidence of what actually happened in those few minutes before other witnesses were available? If so, what is it?

(At this point, I doubt there is anything you haven't already presented or else you would have presented that, too. Can we just skip to the realization that what you "know for a fact" is, in itself, the opinion you've formed by listening to the trial defense and not reviewing the evidence from a context outside the trial? After all, both the prosecution and defense have the job of persuading people about the guilt or non-guilt of Zimmerman, not determining what actually happened. As I've said, the verdict only shows there is a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman started the assault. It doesn't prove he didn't do it or that Martin did.)

You know why the "Zimmerman grabbed Martin to keep a criminal from getting away" scenario is completely implausible? Because Zimmerman never had the belief that Martin was a criminal. That's why he called the non-emergency number to report a suspicious person, not a crime in progress.

I can guess why Martin didn't call the cops.

 

[Dan O.]

Not true, please provide evidence for your claim.

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

I fully covered this in the last round with photographs and triangulation from the measurements that were taken that night. The keychain flashlight was about 6 feet from the tee just off the west side of the sidewalk.

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.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5004451f2b43280eea.jpg[/qimg]

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 !

You haven't been know to outright lie so this got me worried that Tim was lying on the stand in this high profile case where he would be sure that every word would be triple checked. (my quick transcript)

Yes, he does say it was approximately 30 feet. He says that was the distance from the tee to where Trayvon's body was.
Mark: "Very close by to where Trayvon's body was, right"
Tim: "yes"
Mark: "within feet?"
Tim: "Yes sir."
Mark: "And what was he doing?"
Tim: "Who?"​

Tim seems to be confused. But he doesn't actually say George is 30 feet from the tee. He doesn't say how many feet he was from Trayvon's body when he encounters George. And he doesn't even remember if there was someone else there, buzzing around, moving evidence, while he's trying to detain a suspect with a gun.

And that laser pointer was all over the place in the video. The frame you grabbed is not representative.

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

Yes, we covered this before. Joe said explicitly that George was about 6 feet from the tee and squatting. What was unspecified was the direction.

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.

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 ?

I provided that evidence earlier in this thread. I might dig it up again if I get a chance.

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.

Thanks, I noticed they patted George down when they got back to the station so they should have found the phone in his pocket then. In Joe's photo it kind of looks like an older Blackberry. Has anyone confirmed this?

Joe's testimony is quite explicit where he met George. At the tee next to the dog trash receptacle. (start at about 10 minutes in)

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.

That's your opinion and I kind of discount it. The evidence you provided is not very explicit except that it is quite clear that O'Mara wants the jury to believe they were only feet from Trayvon's body. Right, about 25 feet.

If you don't accept the witness testimony which can be fallible, the photographic evidence should be compelling.

 

[Mumbles]

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

.

Two issues:

1) the previous poster is, in fact, entirely correct.

2) you still have no evidence that Martin had access to the active ingredient to make the stuff.

Not that this matters, and Zimmerman couldn't have possibly known this even if true, and there was no reason for Martin to consider it a possible issue.

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.

...I think I've said this before, but the idea that he was barely able to stand is one that throws a great of suspicion on Zimmerman's story where he was beaten by a character from Tekken a mere half hour later.

 

[Upchurch]

You know why the "Zimmerman grabbed Martin to keep a criminal from getting away" scenario is completely implausible? Because Zimmerman never had the belief that Martin was a criminal. That's why he called the non-emergency number to report a suspicious person, not a crime in progress.

<SNIP> I never said Zimmerman thought it was a crime-in-progress. I said Zimmerman thought thought Martin was a criminal. From the NEN transcript:

Zimmerman: Hey, we've had some break-ins in my neighborhood, and there's a real suspicious guy, uh, [near] Retreat View Circle. Um, the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle. This guy looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something. It's raining and he's just walking around, looking about.

...

Zimmerman: Okay. These ********, they always get away.

What do you think Zimmerman suspected Martin of? Baking really good cookies and being ******** for getting away with baking really good cookies?

See how I used evidence to show how Zimmerman described Martin? That's what I would like you to do with your claim that Martin assaulted Zimmerman first. The trouble is that you've stopped considering the evidence and are just buying into the trial defense, which was never meant to get to the truth. Their purpose was to convince the jury that there was a reasonable doubt under Florida law that Zimmerman was guilty of murder. That's it. And they succeeded, but that doesn't mean that the defense's case is 100% true. That's why "it's all in the trial" isn't a valid argument. We can certainly review evidence presented in the trial, but the trial itself doesn't really inform us on what happened.

The fact is, so far, we don't have enough information to know exactly what happened with any certainty. If you have any evidence that shows otherwise, please present it here.

Edited by Locknar: 

SNIPed, breach of rule 12.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

You haven't been know to outright lie so this got me worried that Tim was lying on the stand in this high profile case where he would be sure that every word would be triple checked. (my quick transcript)

Yes, he does say it was approximately 30 feet. He says that was the distance from the tee to where Trayvon's body was.
Mark: "Very close by to where Trayvon's body was, right"
Tim: "yes"
Mark: "within feet?"
Tim: "Yes sir."
Mark: "And what was he doing?"
Tim: "Who?"​

Tim seems to be confused. But he doesn't actually say George is 30 feet from the tee. He doesn't say how many feet he was from Trayvon's body when he encounters George. And he doesn't even remember if there was someone else there, buzzing around, moving evidence, while he's trying to detain a suspect with a gun.

And that laser pointer was all over the place in the video. The frame you grabbed is not representative.

The question "who: is not because Officer Smith is confused. He is a trained observer. The question who refers to GZ or JM ... because they were both standing there within feet of the body. Not 6 feet from the Tee. The question of who was simply to clarify what was GZ doing, or what was JM doing.

Listen to his entire testimony, direct examination and cross, in context. Clearly both GZ and JM are standing there, 30 feet away from the Tee, a few feet away from the body.

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.

And I gave you a link to transcripts of JM interviews with serino, bdlr, and fdle. If his statement about tossing something isn't in there, where exactly do you think it is ?

 

[ABC10]

.

Two issues:

1) the previous poster is, in fact, entirely correct.

2) you still have no evidence that Martin had access to the active ingredient to make the stuff.

Not that this matters, and Zimmerman couldn't have possibly known this even if true, and there was no reason for Martin to consider it a possible issue.



...I think I've said this before, but the idea that he was barely able to stand is one that throws a great of suspicion on Zimmerman's story where he was beaten by a character from Tekken a mere half hour later.

I don't think Martin was barely able to stand in the 7/11 video. I don't think he swayed that much either. I was taken by his height compared to the clerk who was 5"10' and only the court cutouts show how much taller he was then George. I am sad Martin lost his life and is in his grave, forever. I am sad that the Scheme Team and others used this tragedy for their own purposes losing sight of the death of a 17 year old.

 

[Mumbles]

So, you are equating someone walking down the street looking at houses being the equivalent to "looking in windows"? I walk along my street all the time and I look at the houses. Are you suggesting I'm casing the joint(s)? Is he supposed to look at his feet in order to avoid suspicion?

There's another, more important, point here.

If Martin is merely walking down the sidewalk, and is able to look into windows, *how is this possible*? After all, this would be entirely impossible, is the people in the house had window shades, or drapes. Unless, they had left their drapes and window shades wide open.

In other words, if we assume that he's walking home (as Zimmerman and Jeantel agree he was doing), and that he's looking into a window (as Zimmerman alleges), then the only reasonable explanation is that many of the homeowners willfully exposed their houses to public view. That's not "peering into windows", any more than a person who sees a naked person walking around in public is a "peeping Tom". If the homeowners or renters didn't want Martin or other passersby to see into their homes, then that's their fault for not taking sensible precautions, and thus, Martin did nothing wrong.

 

[Dan O.]

The question "who: is not because Officer Smith is confused. He is a trained observer. The question who refers to GZ or JM ... because they were both standing there within feet of the body. Not 6 feet from the Tee. The question of who was simply to clarify what was GZ doing, or what was JM doing.

Listen to his entire testimony, direct examination and cross, in context. Clearly both GZ and JM are standing there, 30 feet away from the Tee, a few feet away from the body.

We are clearly going to disagree. Is there anyone else that wants to chime in here and answer this simple question: Where was George Zimmerman when he was being handcuffed?

• 6 feet south of the tee.
• Almost 30 feet south of the tee near Trayvon's body.
• Somewhere else (explain).

Please list what sources you used to make this determination.


BTW: I did watch all of Tim Smith's testimony. Tim was asked directly if he remembered seeing anyone else there. Do you remember his answer? Also for the second officer.

And I gave you a link to transcripts of JM interviews with serino, bdlr, and fdle. If his statement about tossing something isn't in there, where exactly do you think it is ?

Edited by Gaspode: 

Edited for moderated thread.

Have you figured out yet what I ment about compelling photographic evidence? Would you accept a photo that the police have from that night that undoubtably O'Mara has since he is required to get everything, which shows exactly where George was. Granted, they did receive notice of this photo kind of late but I don't believe the authenticity has been seriously challenged.