• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Continuation Part 2: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-...8/21865430/-/8amum/-/index.html#ixzz2eVbh1sEM


DAYTONA BEACH, Fla. —The associate medical examiner for Volusia County, who performed the autopsy on Trayvon Martin, is no longer employed at the Medical Examiner's Office, WESH 2 News has learned.

Authorities said Dr. Shiping Bao was told last month he had 30 days and was fired.

Sources said Bao's last official day on staff was Friday, but that he actually left the position last month.
 
http://www.wftv.com/news/news/local/trayvon-martins-medical-examiner-who-testified-geo/nZsH3/

...
Dr. Bao is dropping another bombshell -- his attorney is preparing a $100 million lawsuit.

Through his high-profile attorney, he claims the medical examiner, state attorney's office, and Sanford Police Department were all biased against Martin.

"He says their general attitude was that he got what he deserved," Attorney Willie Gary told Channel 9.

Great. Bao is suing the Florida ME, Bernie and Angela's office and the SPD. Can't get much better then that. Thank you, G-d. The truth on the attempted frame of George Zimmerman Is going to come out. Will be lighting daily candles to see all the plaintiffs :crowded: in Court and another testimony from Bao. Does not get more fun then that while the Zimmerman supporters sit on the sidelines and laugh. :):):)
 
Gary said Dr. Bao was made to be a scapegoat and was wrongfully fired from the medical examiner's office. He said his client was prepared to offer proof that Martin was not the aggressor.

"He was in essence told to zip his lips. 'Shut up. Don't say those things,'" Gary said.

Gary said prosecutors never asked Dr. Bao a question crucial to their case.

"He wanted a question that would have allowed him to explain to the jury with scientific evidence how there was no way Trayvon Martin could have been on top of George Zimmerman," Gary said.

Gary said that question never came.

I'm confused... what would he be made a scapegoat over, if he had testimony that would have won the case for the prosecutors but the prosecutors never asked him for it?

On the stand, Dr. Bao changed his testimony about key statements he'd made and said he'd changed his mind about Martin only being alive for as many as three minutes after the shooting.

Sounds to me like if his termination had anything to do with this case it was over his own professional failings- an inability to present credible testimony on the stand.
Never mind his statements now indicate a public employee who cannot be a team player in support of his superiors, right or wrong- a fatal mistake in civil service.
The story does not elaborate on the $100mil suit. Is it for wrongful termination, or does he feel somehow entitled to be awarded monetary compensation to himself based upon perceived injustices toward Martin?

Perhaps he was fired due to the obvious: He doesn't seem rational.
 
Defended his fist from GZ nose hitting it ?

What are you talking about? Didn't Zimmerman get out of his vehicle and confront him? We don't know who technically started the fight, but what was going through Trayvon's head? "Oh, hey, there's a large, scary man stalking me in the dark. Let's see what he wants. I'm sure his intentions are good!" If somebody who looked like GZ was following me, an unarmed teenage boy, in the darkness, and tried to lay a finger on me...you bet I'd fight back.

In any case, being allowed to shoot somebody, because you're losing in a fight with them, is patently absurd.
 
This is baloney, frankly. What is the clear purpose and destination of any particular person walking down the public sidewalk? Can you tell at a glance? And if it's night time and someone has their hood up and you can't see their face, how do you know whether they "look like they're on drugs"? When you are walking through a neighborhood, how is it even possible to not look at houses at some point?
The fact is, nothing Zimmerman told the police during his phone call about Martin's behavior can be independently verified.

Baloney, indeed.

Baloney to act like you can't possibly make the judgement that someone looks like they're on drugs from a distance. Obviously the most significant way this judgement can be made is if they appear to be off balance, swaying, unsteady on their feet.

Also baloney to imply that the unavoidable, natural way you end up looking at houses as you walk through a neighborhood, isn't distinct from other ways a person can look at houses which can appear suspicious. This could be the case if they are glancing around in a way that seems like they might be trying to ensure they aren't being watched, and if they appear to be staring at a particular house (especially while stopped) for a prolonged period of time. Particularly when coupled with the indications of intoxication previously discussed, such behaviors can absolutely be suspicious.

A lot of people seem to want to assert that there is no possible way that Trayvon could have appeared suspicious based only on what George had the opportunity to see, I say that is really disingenuous or naive or both.

I saw a strong hint of it in the 7/11 video alone. He didn't look entirely steady on his feet, and he may have had more drugs in his system by the time GZ saw him, than he did at 7/11 (this seems likely given how long it took him to get to RTL from there.)

The odd walking back toward the coolers moment after he'd already completed his purchases, is a good example of the sort of behavior.

Human beings are built to be absolute masters of noticing anything weird or concerning about another human being's movements or behaviors. Evolution saw to that.

To pretend as though GZ can't possibly have seen anything in Trayvon's behavior which caused legitimate suspicion or concern, is just silly.
 
What are you talking about?

I am talking about the same thing as you, I thought.
You asked:
Should Martin not have defended himself?

I was simply (and sarcastically, I admit) pointing out the only evidence we have of someone defending themselves is GZ. He's the one who was bloody and banged up, not TM.

Didn't Zimmerman get out of his vehicle and confront him?

No.

We don't know who technically started the fight, but what was going through Trayvon's head? "Oh, hey, there's a large, scary man stalking me in the dark. Let's see what he wants. I'm sure his intentions are good!" If somebody who looked like GZ was following me, an unarmed teenage boy, in the darkness, and tried to lay a finger on me...you bet I'd fight back.

OK. But in this thread, we have yet to see the evidence that GZ tried to lay a finger on TM.

In any case, being allowed to shoot somebody, because you're losing in a fight with them, is patently absurd.

Good thing that doesn't describe this case, then.
 
I wanted to add a comment about the Zimmerman-Martin case but I presumed it would have to be in this thread not the one about his current troubles. So I dug this out (and it wasn't easy to find, been a while!).

Recently I discovered that during his summation to the jury, Mark O'Mara basically admitted his client, George Zimmerman, was guilty of murder! :boggled:

What he said to the jury was, he reminded them this was not a civil suit where the burden on the state is to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, which could be 51%-49% certainty. He said if he was a juror in a civil suit against Zimmerman he might in fact vote guilty. That's pretty damning coming from the man's own attorney.

The point O'Mara was making was, this was a criminal case and the burden is reasonable doubt. He told them they could believe it was "highly unlikely" that Zimmerman was acting in self defense and still harbor a "reasonable doubt."

I don't agree with the latter point. I don't agree you can have a reasonable doubt about the legitimacy of someone's action if you also consider it "highly unlikely" it was legitimate. Those two positions seem mutually exclusive to me. But it worked for O'Mara.
 
I wanted to add a comment about the Zimmerman-Martin case but I presumed it would have to be in this thread not the one about his current troubles. So I dug this out (and it wasn't easy to find, been a while!).

Recently I discovered that during his summation to the jury, Mark O'Mara basically admitted his client, George Zimmerman, was guilty of murder! :boggled:

What he said to the jury was, he reminded them this was not a civil suit where the burden on the state is to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence, which could be 51%-49% certainty. He said if he was a juror in a civil suit against Zimmerman he might in fact vote guilty. That's pretty damning coming from the man's own attorney.

The point O'Mara was making was, this was a criminal case and the burden is reasonable doubt. He told them they could believe it was "highly unlikely" that Zimmerman was acting in self defense and still harbor a "reasonable doubt."

I don't agree with the latter point. I don't agree you can have a reasonable doubt about the legitimacy of someone's action if you also consider it "highly unlikely" it was legitimate. Those two positions seem mutually exclusive to me. But it worked for O'Mara.

This is a misrepresentation of O'Mara's closing argument and certainly of his confidence in Zimmerman's innocence. Watch his recent Anderson Cooper segment - he forcefully argues innocence and clear self defense.

Not only did O'Mara not say what you're saying he did, he went out of his way to say that he'd never been more confident in a client's absolute innocence. He stressed innocence vs. mere lack of guilt. He said he was so confident he would take the burden of proving innocence, in that closing argument.
 
I thought I bookmarked the transcript I saw with Mark O'Mara's comment but apparently I didn't. I also thought I could find it easily by highlighting and right-clicking on a phrase that was used in another thread but that didn't work either.

Anyway I still have not found exactly what I remember seeing but I'll keep looking. I did find what appears to me to be a partial comment from a CNN transcript:

May not be self-defense. You're not quite sure. Not guilty. Unlikely self-defense, but it might be? You've got a doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. Not guilty. You know, less than likely is it self-defense? This was a 50/50, I wouldn't vote self-defense. This was a civil trial. Highly unlikely that it's self-defense. But I have a reasonable doubt as to whether or not it's self-defense. Not guilty. Link

I think he misrepresented the meaning of reasonable doubt.

To tell a jury that if they think it's, "Highly unlikely that it's self-defense," they should vote not guilty is to me almost misconduct. If you think it's "highly unlikely" a defendant was acting in self defense than you vote guilty. Come on! If you don't think it was "highly unlikely," than you vote not guilty.
 
Baloney, indeed.

Baloney to act like you can't possibly make the judgement that someone looks like they're on drugs from a distance. Obviously the most significant way this judgement can be made is if they appear to be off balance, swaying, unsteady on their feet.

Also baloney to imply that the unavoidable, natural way you end up looking at houses as you walk through a neighborhood, isn't distinct from other ways a person can look at houses which can appear suspicious. This could be the case if they are glancing around in a way that seems like they might be trying to ensure they aren't being watched, and if they appear to be staring at a particular house (especially while stopped) for a prolonged period of time. Particularly when coupled with the indications of intoxication previously discussed, such behaviors can absolutely be suspicious.

I've said it a thousand times, and I'm sure I'll say it a thousand more. If black kids started wearing suits and ties as everyday, casual wear, people like you would *swear* that they were imitating the Goodfellas, and wanted to look like gangsters. There's literally nothing that black teens could wear as fashion, that would satisfy you.

That's one thing this case has exposed. Martin was wearing Khakis and a hooded sweater, in winter, in the rain. There's nothing remarkable about that, and yet you think it's still acceptable to chase him around, in the street.

A lot of people seem to want to assert that there is no possible way that Trayvon could have appeared suspicious based only on what George had the opportunity to see, I say that is really disingenuous or naive or both.

I saw a strong hint of it in the 7/11 video alone. He didn't look entirely steady on his feet, and he may have had more drugs in his system by the time GZ saw him, than he did at 7/11 (this seems likely given how long it took him to get to RTL from there.)
Yes, we saw the 7-11 footage, and we saw...a guy buying a couple of items from a store. Never mind that Matin had no active drugs in him, or that he apparently was walking home while talking to a girl. Nope. If you're black, and you look into a window that you walk past, you're a violent thug!

Now, here's a question. Even if Martin was stumbling about - and Zimmerman never notes this to the dispatcher - how does this justify Zimmerman tailing Martin by car and on foot?

The odd walking back toward the coolers moment after he'd already completed his purchases, is a good example of the sort of behavior.
Yes, I saw that. Martin started to leave the 7-11, but then returned and picked *something* off of the ground, and walked out agin. Good luck showing that he didn't pick up a random coin.

Human beings are built to be absolute masters of noticing anything weird or concerning about another human being's movements or behaviors. Evolution saw to that.
Um, no. we see faces in cliffs, in the moon, and so forth.

To pretend as though GZ can't possibly have seen anything in Trayvon's behavior which caused legitimate suspicion or concern, is just silly.
Sadly for you, Zimmerman did not notice anything suspicious about Martin, or at least he failed to relay it to the police. His entire source of anger was that Martin was "walking around, looking about" - in other words, Martin was walking down the street.

In any event, there's no evidence at all that Martin was doing anything wrong when Zimmerman began stalking him. What you call "silly" is just common sense. Zimmerman saw a kid walking down the street, and freaked out.
Edited by Gaspode: 
Edited for moderated thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...an-bodyguards-settle-20131202,0,2430300.story

The bodyguard company that sued George Zimmerman and Mark O'Mara, saying they had failed to pay for $27,000 worth of protection, has settled the case.

CMR Associates formally settled on Nov. 22 and filed paperwork to dismissed the case last week, records at the Orange County Courthouse show.

CMR executive Chris Rumbaugh today said O'Mara and Shellie Zimmerman settled by paying a combined $30,000.

He said George Zimmerman refused to settle but that he had no plans to continue legal action against the former Neighborhood Watch volunteer.
 
A jury of George's peers obviously did not agree that he was a "killer" when he was found Not Guilty.


First of all, you are wrong because no one denies he is a killer. No one denies that GZ killed Trayvon Martin. Perhaps you have the definitions of murderer and killer mixed up?

Secondly, you are technically wrong because on of the jurors said after the trial that they do consider GZ to be a murderer.
 
It doesn't matter what the jurors say outside the courtroom, because they are no longer jurors.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom