Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

They never looked for blood on Martin's hands, so it's not particularly suprising that it wasn't found.

That is false. We know they looked for blood in general, because they listed all the places they found it. We know they did not find it on his hands. You guys just asserted without proof that they never tested his hands. This would be something the defense should have raised hell over, because you can be sure the state will use this fact against poor George at his trial. I wonder why they haven't used this glaring mistake on the part of the Florida labs in their motion to continue? Face it, they didn't find blood on his hands, it wasn't under his nails. That blood should have been there and it wasn't and the jury will hear that.

ETA: They also didn't find George's blood on the LOWER sleeves of Trayvon's hoodie. Meaning, if he were beating a bloody nose or the side of a bloody face, some spray should have gotten some of that blood on his wrists. When he grabbed George's bloody head in his attempt to smash it against the cement, some of that blood should have gotten on his wrists. Grab a basketball with both hands and try and cup it around the back. Notice your wrists touch it? If the basketball were bloody, would your sleeves get wet? But nope. None was there. But you guys keep hoping.

ETA 2: And one last item about the blood. George has scratches on his face that people love to point to as signs of the fight. Those scratches look like something done with fingernails.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...e_2222832b.jpg

How did Trayvon manage to scratch his face like that but get nothing under the nails?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by WildCat

Unabogie is well aware of this, it's been discussed ad nauseam in this thread.

But when did truthers ever let facts get in the way of their claims?

You're going on ignore. If you can learn to stop using ignorant terms insulting other people, maybe we'll have another discussion one day. So long.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That is false. We know they looked for blood in general, because they listed all the places they found it. We know they did not find it on his hands. You guys just asserted without proof that they never tested his hands.

No, you are asserting with no proof that they tested his hands.

Please reference the documents where they tested samples from his hands ?

Should be easy, all the samples are labeled as to where they came from. So you can show us the one from the hands, right ?

Show us anywhere they claim to have swabbed the hands, other than under the fingernails?
Show us anywhere they claim to have bagged his hands ?
Show us where anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

Originally Posted by Unabogie

This would be something the defense should have raised hell over, because you can be sure the state will use this fact against poor George at his trial. I wonder why they haven't used this glaring mistake on the part of the Florida labs in their motion to continue? Face it, they didn't find blood on his hands, it wasn't under his nails. That blood should have been there and it wasn't and the jury will hear that..

ETA: They also didn't find George's blood on the LOWER sleeves of Trayvon's hoodie. Meaning, if he were beating a bloody nose or the side of a bloody face, some spray should have gotten some of that blood on his wrists. When he grabbed George's bloody head in his attempt to smash it against the cement, some of that blood should have gotten on his wrists. Grab a basketball with both hands and try and cup it around the back. Notice your wrists touch it? If the basketball were bloody, would your sleeves get wet? But nope. None was there. But you guys keep hoping.

ETA 2: And one last item about the blood. George has scratches on his face that people love to point to and signs of the fight. Those scratches look like something done with fingernails.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/...e_2222832b.jpg

How did Trayvon manage to scratch his face like that but get nothing under the nails?

The obvious answer would be ... his nails are not what made those scratches, and your assumption is wrong.

[Alt+F4]

Until this case comes to trial there is one thing we know for certain....George Zimmermann lied in regard to his financial situation. He is without a doubt a liar.

With that said, how stupid must folks feel who donated to his "defense fund" knowing now that he spent that money paying his BJ's bill?

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Show us where anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

Funny thing about that - and something that hasn't been discussed before - is that I would guess that there was no visible blood on Martin's hands because it wasn't noted in the autopsy. Of course, there's a signifigant difference between visible blood and blood. What's odd in its ommission is the lack of notation of the blood (seemingly) that had to have existed around Martin's chest wound. Both layers of shirts show signifigant blood stains but the ME makes no mention of it in the gross description of the body.

Presumably they took photos of Martin's hands and the GSW, but it is clear that his hands were never tested for the presence of any blood - Martin's or Zimmerman's. In fact, as you allude, there's no evidence that Martin's hands were even processed to protect any evidence that may have existed in the first place.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

No, you are asserting with no proof that they tested his hands.

Please reference the documents where they tested samples from his hands ?

Should be easy, all the samples are labeled as to where they came from. So you can show us the one from the hands, right ?

Show us anywhere they claim to have swabbed the hands, other than under the fingernails?
Show us anywhere they claim to have bagged his hands ?
Show us where anyone described TMs hands as 'free of blood' or 'clean' ?

You are asserting with no proof that they NEVER tested his hands. I also pointed out how there's no blood under the fingernails, which would be there if he smothered a bloody nose, and no blood on the sleeves, which would be there if he grabbed a bloody head while wearing a hoodie. There's no blood there, which will be brought up at trial and George will have to come up with an answer for it. Too bad he wasted $300,000 in donations on living high on the hog.

Quote:

The obvious answer would be ... his nails are not what made those scratches, and your assumption is wrong

.

Then what made those scratches on his face? Was his face already beat up? Did he run into something, like a tree? And if those wounds weren't made by his fingers, then why is it off limits to wonder if his other wounds were made by things other than Trayvon? Or is it that any wound that isn't helpful to George just gets whisked away while any wound that helps him has to be taken at face value?

[Unabogie]

I will suggest that we table this discussion until trial, when we will all know for sure the exact extent of what was tested, what wasn't and why, and then remove this conjecture. For now we're going to go around in circles and neither side will be convinced with the available public evidence.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I will suggest that we table this discussion until trial, when we will all know for sure the exact extent of what was tested, what wasn't and why, and then remove this conjecture. For now we're going to go around in circles and neither side will be convinced with the available public evidence.

I can agree with that.

But I have to say - I am NOT asserting that his hands were not tested. I am asserting the only things that I know were tested were the things specifically listed as tested.

That his hands were tested is a positive claim.

How in the world would I prove the negative claim of 'his hands weren't tested' ? All I can do is say his hands weren't tested because no evidence exists they were.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I can agree with that.

But I have to say - I am NOT asserting that his hands were not tested. I am asserting the only things that I know were tested were the things specifically listed as tested.

That his hands were tested is a positive claim.

How in the world would I prove the negative claim of 'his hands weren't tested' ? All I can do is say his hands weren't tested because no evidence exists they were.

Fair enough. We'll come back to this then as I'm sure it will be a key part of the trial.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Until this case comes to trial there is one thing we know for certain....George Zimmermann lied in regard to his financial situation. He is without a doubt a liar.

With that said, how stupid must folks feel who donated to his "defense fund" knowing now that he spent that money paying his BJ's bill?

What specific lie did GZ tell, and to whom ?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I'll be happy to wait for those of you who don't believe GZ to put together a narrative of what you think really really happened.

I've done that. Repeatedly.

Every time we do this song and dance, it ends the same way. I give you a version of events I find to be more plausible than Zimmerman's outlandish story, but you never hold up your end of the bargain.

Quote:

Hopefully it includes proving how GZ set out to murder TM with a depraved mind, and disproves his claim of TM on top of him, beating his head against the sidewalk, etc.

No one is claiming Zimmerman "set out" to murder Martin. That's why he's charged with second degree murder, not first degree. As far as the "depraved mind" bit, let's look at the full definition:

Quote:

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual.

If Zimmerman's self-defense claim is dismantled, then how else would you describe the killing?

And please... stop asking me to prove a negative. Of course I can't prove Martin didn't beat Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk. But since there's no evidence to substantiate that claim, I don't have to.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

What specific lie did GZ tell, and to whom ?

This had been covered. Zimmerman lied by proxy when he allowed his lawyer to file a claim of indigency while Zimmerman was sitting on a big pile of cash.

That we didn't hear the lie come directly from him is immaterial.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

This had been covered. Zimmerman lied by proxy when he allowed his lawyer to file a claim of indigency while Zimmerman was sitting on a big pile of cash.

That we didn't hear the lie come directly from him is immaterial.

He also allowed his wife to commit perjury and allowed his lawyer to tell the court that he'd surrendered his only passport when he knew he had a more recent, valid passport in a safe deposit box.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

What specific lie did GZ tell, and to whom ?

How many passports do you have? How much money in your bank accounts?

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

This had been covered. Zimmerman lied by proxy when he allowed his lawyer to file a claim of indigency while Zimmerman was sitting on a big pile of cash.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/1...-attorney.html

n a phone call recorded April 14 between Zimmerman and brother-in-law Scott Wilson, the two discuss the new defense lawyer and the attorney’s vision for an upcoming bond hearing. Zimmerman twice said that he told O’Mara that he tried to transfer $37,000 from his online legal defense fund site, but could not complete the transaction because PayPal rules prevent transfers larger than $10,000.

But in court later at Zimmerman’s bond hearing, O’Mara told the judge his client was broke.

O’Mara told The Herald that he does not recall the conversation Zimmerman referred to and would not risk his law license lying to the court.

“He said he’s going to have me declared indigent,” Zimmerman told Wilson on the call. “I told him I didn’t think that would be possible, because there was one sizable transfer I tried to make. It got stopped. You know, $37. He said: ‘Well that doesn’t matter. Right now you’re not working. You’re not providing an income for your family. You’re probably not going to be employable for the rest of your life.’”

Originally Posted by johnny karate

That we didn't hear the lie come directly from him is immaterial.

I disagree. I think if your lawyer knows about your finances and tells you that you are indigent anyway, then you listen to your lawyer.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

How many passports do you have? How much money in your bank accounts?

That didn't answer my question. Who did GZ lie to, specifically, and when ?

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I think if your lawyer knows about your finances and tells you that you are indigent anyway, then you listen to your lawyer.

I'd find another lawyer, after all that lawyer isn't go back to jail when my bail is revoked.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I've done that. Repeatedly.

You have given a vague, undetailed synopsis of what you think happened.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Every time we do this song and dance, it ends the same way. I give you a version of events I find to be more plausible than Zimmerman's outlandish story, but you never hold up your end of the bargain.

Surely you can link to this bargain, and where you held up your end but I didn't ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

No one is claiming Zimmerman "set out" to murder Martin. That's why he's charged with second degree murder, not first degree. As far as the "depraved mind" bit, let's look at the full definition:


If Zimmerman's self-defense claim is dismantled, then how else would you describe the killing?

And please... stop asking me to prove a negative. Of course I can't prove Martin didn't beat Zimmerman's head against the sidewalk. But since there's no evidence to substantiate that claim, I don't have to.

But the state does have to. That's their problem though, right ?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

He also allowed his wife to commit perjury and allowed his lawyer to tell the court that he'd surrendered his only passport when he knew he had a more recent, valid passport in a safe deposit box.

Well, I didn't want to open that whole "perjury" can of worms.

But the legal system has rendered its judgement on George's dishonesty.

That's why he's stuck in Seminole County with an ankle monitor, and with the court holding onto almost $100,000 of his money.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

That didn't answer my question. Who did GZ lie to, specifically, and when ?

Read this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/content...evoke-Bond.pdf

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/07/1...-attorney.html

n a phone call recorded April 14 between Zimmerman and brother-in-law Scott Wilson, the two discuss the new defense lawyer and the attorney’s vision for an upcoming bond hearing. Zimmerman twice said that he told O’Mara that he tried to transfer $37,000 from his online legal defense fund site, but could not complete the transaction because PayPal rules prevent transfers larger than $10,000.

But in court later at Zimmerman’s bond hearing, O’Mara told the judge his client was broke.

O’Mara told The Herald that he does not recall the conversation Zimmerman referred to and would not risk his law license lying to the court.

“He said he’s going to have me declared indigent,” Zimmerman told Wilson on the call. “I told him I didn’t think that would be possible, because there was one sizable transfer I tried to make. It got stopped. You know, $37. He said: ‘Well that doesn’t matter. Right now you’re not working. You’re not providing an income for your family. You’re probably not going to be employable for the rest of your life.’”

Oh, I see. Zimmerman didn't lie because he says he didn't lie. Gotcha.

Unfortunately for you, the court saw it differently. You may not think so, but the judge's ruling - and therefore reality - disagrees.

Quote:

I disagree. I think if your lawyer knows about your finances and tells you that you are indigent anyway, then you listen to your lawyer.

So O'Mara is the liar then?

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Oh, I see. Zimmerman didn't lie because he says he didn't lie. Gotcha.

Unfortunately for you, the court saw it differently. You may not think so, but the judge's ruling - and therefore reality - disagrees.


So O'Mara is the liar then?

Wow, I never knew that Judges were Omnipitent and Infallible and able to create reality.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

Wow, I never knew that Judges were Omnipitent and Infallible and able to create reality.

The state filed a motion that accused Zimmerman of deceiving the court.

The judge ruled in favor of that motion, and Zimmerman is now suffering the consequences.

I don't know what other standard you require, but as far as the court is concerned - and the way reality played out - Zimmerman is a liar.

[PhantomWolf]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The state filed a motion that accused Zimmerman of deceiving the court.

The judge ruled in favor of that motion, and Zimmerman is now suffering the consequences.

I don't know what other standard you require, but as far as the court is concerned - and the way reality played out - Zimmerman is a liar.

I'm just pointing out that just because a Judge rules a certain way, doesn't make it reality, even if the court assumes so. If a guy rapes a girl and the court finds him not guilty, it doesn't actually mean it didn't really happen, and likewise, if a person is convicted of something they didn't do, it doesn't transmoph reality into a new universe where they did do it. Judge's decisions don't create reality.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

You have given a vague, undetailed synopsis of what you think happened.

I've given a point-by-point breakdown. I don't know how much more detail you require.

Quote:

Surely you can link to this bargain, and where you held up your end but I didn't ?

Gladly.

Here's me issuing the challege:

Originally Posted by johnny karate

But what's great is that we have documentation of his actual, specific injuries so we don't have to resort to generalizations that can be broadly interpreted.

So what's your theory as to how Martin remained free of Zimmerman's blood while repeatedly punching his bloody face, repeatedly bashing his bloody head onto the ground, and attempting to smother him, all with his bare hands?

Here's you accepting:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

You go first and tell me your theory of how things happened.
Please be sure to account for all the witness statements that generally support and do not contradict GZ story. Especially the part about how he saw someone come out while he was underneath TM and say he was going to call 911 and he pleaded to him for help. Just like the initial witness statement.

Here's me fulfilling my end of the bargain:

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Martin punches Zimmerman in the nose. They go to the ground and Zimmerman scrapes and cuts his head in the ensuing struggle. At some point, Martin is able to wrestle his way on top of Zimmerman, perhaps, as Witness #6 alleges, in an attempt to subdue him. Zimmerman screams for help. Zimmerman shoots and kills Martin. Zimmerman manufactures a tale of a savage beating to tell the cops. A bunch of people on an internet forum struggle to reconcile the facts with Zimmerman's narrative.

Your turn.

And here's you not:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

That works for me, or close enough. A 'savage beating' is in the eye of the beholder.
If things went as you described, it is as has been claimed numerous times - an unlucky combination of events gone terribly wrong that ended in the unfortunate death of a young man.

Quote:

But the state does have to. That's their problem though, right ?

Look at those goal posts move! It's like they're on roller skates:

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I'll be happy to wait for those of you who don't believe GZ to put together a narrative of what you think really really happened.

So did you want my opinion, or not?

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Oh, I see. Zimmerman didn't lie because he says he didn't lie. Gotcha.

Unfortunately for you, the court saw it differently. You may not think so, but the judge's ruling - and therefore reality - disagrees.

Oh, I see. Zimmerman did lie because a judge says he did. Gotcha.

BTW, that same judge who was removed from the case for being biased.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So O'Mara is the liar then?

Kinda looks like it, yeah.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by PhantomWolf

I'm just pointing out that just because a Judge rules a certain way, doesn't make it reality, even if the court assumes so. If a guy rapes a girl and the court finds him not guilty, it doesn't actually mean it didn't really happen, and likewise, if a person is convicted of something they didn't do, it doesn't transmoph reality into a new universe where they did do it. Judge's decisions don't create reality.

Awesome.

The state met it's burden to determine Zimmerman deceived the court, and now Zimmerman is suffering the consequences for having deceived the court.

That's about as real as it's going to get.

Appranently, that's not good enough for some people, which quite frankly, strikes me as a denialism dry run for when or if Zimmerman gets convicted.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I've given a point-by-point breakdown. I don't know how much more detail you require.

I recall that exchange. That doesn't cover such things as why GZ keys are at the Tee, but the fight is down some 35 (at least) feet away ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Look at those goal posts move! It's like they're on roller skates:

No, I'm not holding you to prove it. Just pointing out that for GZ to be found guilty, the state will have to. There has always been a bit of a dichotomy in these discussions between what can be proven to have happened, and what the state will be required to prove. So fine, you can believe GZ guilty because he can't prove his head was beaten, but the jury shouldn't find him guilty unless the state proves he wasn't in fear of great bodily harm.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So did you want my opinion, or not?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

I recall that exchange. That doesn't cover such things as why GZ keys are at the Tee, but the fight is down some 35 (at least) feet away ?

You keep saying this, but it's not correct. You just posted a link to the debris field. His keys are just north of that small tree, not on the sidewalk.

Here's a direct image of item 1, his keys:

http://s1175.beta.photobucket.com/us...ield3.jpg.html

As you can see, they are not at the place where he claimed to get hit once in the nose and fell backwards.

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/...vidence-field/

If you cut the 37.5 feet in half, you can estimate that it's about 30 feet from the keys to the foot of the boy he shot. Interestingly, if it were deemed "too far" for George to wander after the killing to drop the keys there, then somehow that "too far" gets flipped to "not that far at all" when wondering how a guy who got hit once, fell backwards and IMMEDIATELY fell to the ground moved all that way while a mobile and walking George - post shooting - would have found this distance insurmountable.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Oh, I see. Zimmerman did lie because a judge says he did. Gotcha.

Yep, that's how it works in the legal system. It's why Zimmerman had his bond revoked. I'm sorry if legal standards are no longer good enough for you.

Quote:

BTW, that same judge who was removed from the case for being biased.

Was his ruling on the motion overturned? You know, the motion that said Zimmerman deceived the court? Was that reversed?

Quote:

Kinda looks like it, yeah.

No, it doesn't look like it all. If it did, O'Mara would be off the case, most likely disbarred and facing criminal charges. And Zimmerman wouldn't have had his bond revoked.

But those things didn't happen, did they?

So what it looks like is that Zimmerman deceived the court and got caught doing it.

But kudos for actually having the courage to make the argument that Zimmerman's own defense attorney betrayed him to cover his own illegal deeds. I don't think a lot of people would have admitted something so silly in a public forum.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Yep, that's how it works in the legal system. It's why Zimmerman had his bond revoked. I'm sorry if legal standards are no longer good enough for you.

Sorry, that's not really how it works. All that revoking GZ bond meant is that ... the judge decided to revoke the bond. That doesn't mean that every point in the states motion was necessarily true.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Was his ruling on the motion overturned? You know, the motion that said Zimmerman deceived the court? Was that reversed?

Was his motion overturned ... well, GZ is out on bond, is he not ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

No, it doesn't look like it all. If it did, O'Mara would be off the case, most likely disbarred and facing criminal charges. And Zimmerman wouldn't have had his bond revoked.

But those things didn't happen, did they?

Really, every time an attorney lies those things happen ? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by johnny karate

So what it looks like is that Zimmerman deceived the court and got caught doing it.

Because it is impossible that MOM wanted to file for indigency even though he knew that GZ had money from the web site ?

Originally Posted by johnny karate

But kudos for actually having the courage to make the argument that Zimmerman's own defense attorney betrayed him to cover his own illegal deeds. I don't think a lot of people would have admitted something so silly in a public forum.

I've seen much sillier said just in this thread, much less this forum ....

[Unabogie]

Wow, the stuff you just wrote is almost beyond belief.

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Sorry, that's not really how it works. All that revoking GZ bond meant is that ... the judge decided to revoke the bond. That doesn't mean that every point in the states motion was necessarily true.

Except that the judge agreed explicitly that they were, and wrote it down and everything.

Quote:

Was his motion overturned ... well, GZ is out on bond, is he not ?

The motion to revoke bond was not overturned, and it was the same judge who let George out on a million dollar bond. So no, as a matter of reality, it was not. This isn't open to interpretation. That motion to revoke bond was granted.

Quote:

Really, every time an attorney lies those things happen ? I doubt it.

Ok, so you're going with the story that George was done in by his lying attorney and his lying wife?

Quote:

Because it is impossible that MOM wanted to file for indigency even though he knew that GZ had money from the web site ?

It's impossible that he wanted to do so by telling the court that George had no money when he had a couple hundred grand. Are you seriously arguing that the court was not entitled to know about all that filthy lucre?

Quote:

I've seen much sillier said just in this thread, much less this forum ....

Until now.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

You keep saying this, but it's not correct. You just posted a link to the debris field. His keys are just north of that small tree, not on the sidewalk.

Here's a direct image of item 1, his keys:

http://s1175.beta.photobucket.com/us...ield3.jpg.html

As you can see, they are not at the place where he claimed to get hit once in the nose and fell backwards.

http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2013/...vidence-field/

You are correct, his keys are not directly at the Tee, but 6 or so feet away. I will attempt to put '6 feet from the tee' in the future.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

If you cut the 37.5 feet in half, you can estimate that it's about 30 feet from the keys to the foot of the boy he shot. Interestingly, if it were deemed "too far" for George to wander after the killing to drop the keys there, then somehow that "too far" gets flipped to "not that far at all" when wondering how a guy who got hit once, fell backwards and IMMEDIATELY fell to the ground moved all that way while a mobile and walking George - post shooting - would have found this distance insurmountable.

It's not 'too far to wander' - it's is there any evidence and/or what do the witnesses say about how far he wandered.

It's also getting into territory much different than simply lying about chasing TM ... it's now claiming right after the shooting GZ tried to go plant his keys so he could lie about where he got punched, but then forgot to lie about why he was far away from where he got punched. That's not a very compelling story.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Wow, the stuff you just wrote is almost beyond belief.

Good thing it's only almost.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Except that the judge agreed explicitly that they were, and wrote it down and everything.

The motion to revoke bond was not overturned, and it was the same judge who let George out on a million dollar bond. So no, as a matter of reality, it was not. This isn't open to interpretation. That motion to revoke bond was granted.

I know. But he was let back out on bond again.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Ok, so you're going with the story that George was done in by his lying attorney and his lying wife?

No, I'm saying he and his wife could have been done in buy an attorney telling them exactly what GZ said he told them. That 37k GZ mentioned doesn't amount to a spit in the ocean of what MOM anticipated he would end up spending for court costs, etc.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

It's impossible that he wanted to do so by telling the court that George had no money when he had a couple hundred grand. Are you seriously arguing that the court was not entitled to know about all that filthy lucre?

He didn't have hundreds of grand at that point in time, IIRC. Again, IIRC, everyone was quite shocked that he had raised as much as he did. If MOM thought the defense fund was going to amount to 40-50 thousand dollars, I don't think it beyond the pale to suggest that he ignore that while considering filing for indigency.

Wasn't it just a few pages ago you basically called MOM a liar regarding the cell data being missing for the 26th of february from the data ge got from teh state ? If I say MOM might be lying it's OMG! but if you suggest it , it's no biggie ?

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Until now.

Well played.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

You are correct, his keys are not directly at the Tee, but 6 or so feet away. I will attempt to put '6 feet from the tee' in the future.

It's not 6 feet. It's farther. But in this case, when heading south, we have to minimize the distances. While when heading north...

Quote:

It's not 'too far to wander' - it's is there any evidence and/or what do the witnesses say about how far he wandered.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...rman-uninjured

Quote:

"It was dark. I can't say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer. It was a Hispanic man. He didn't appear hurt or anything else. He just kind of seemed very worried with his hand up to his forehead."

The man said that before opening his window and looking out, he had heard angry voices outside. "There was a loud, predominant voice. I couldn't hear the words but this is not a regular conversation," he said. "This is someone aggressively yelling at someone."

Oh, weren't you the person who accused me of making up the term "yelling"? Well, George yelled, just like DeeDee said.

Quote:

It's also getting into territory much different than simply lying about chasing TM ... it's now claiming right after the shooting GZ tried to go plant his keys so he could lie about where he got punched, but then forgot to lie about why he was far away from where he got punched. That's not a very compelling story.

I have no idea why he would do this. He's not a very smart man, but he's very manipulative, as when he allegedly raped his young cousin and carried that on for 10 years, or when he made up "Peter Pan" and "$9.99" and deceived the court, or when he claimed that Trayvon called him "homie" and came up with this whole story of the attack. He seems to think on his feet and yet makes mistakes. Who knows why he would have thought this helped? Maybe he simply dropped his keys in shock? No matter, look at the evidence field. It's all grouped down by the body, not by the T. The closest thing is the keys, and they are all by themselves.

Again, remember what each person was carrying at the beginning of the confrontation. George had his flashlight, and Trayvon had his phone. The first thing to drop would be the thing in their hands, right? And again, let's put two pieces of testimony together. George was carrying his flashlight in one hand and "went for his phone" with the other. That means that when the fight started, he wasn't holding his keys and they were in his pocket somewhere. So after the shooting, he was holding his gun and not his flashlight. Maybe he pulled out his keys to use the flashlight to look on the ground to see if there were something there he could claim as a weapon? We don't know. But we do know he got up, walked away from the body, and left his keys at some point by the tree. That hardly supports the idea that the fight started way up there. It almost certainly shows it happened around the body where all the other stuff is.

[Unabogie]

More on George walking on the sidewalk.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justic...-teen-shooting

Quote:

But the man, who by now had left the grass and was walking on the sidewalk, did seem worried, "with his hand up to his forehead," the witness said. "Now, a couple of seconds later, in the dark, you see that person that's alive walk away; you know, obviously, OK, he must've got up and he walked away, where the other person is still laying there, face down."

By the way, regarding Trayvon laying there dead, face down. We know he was found with his arms under his body, so even if it was raining, his hands were shielded in that position from water. It still brings up the curious story George told about grabbing his arms and trying to hold the dead teenager to restrain him. I've never really figured that out except that perhaps it matches with him getting up and walking away.

Perhaps George thought to search Trayvon for a weapon and was frisking his dead body. The he got up, grabbed his keys, and turned on the mini flashlight to try and look on the ground. When the cops showed up, he just dropped what was in his hands so it wouldn't be mistaken for a weapon? I'm willing to bet that the keys end up to be in the area where the cops arrested him and would tie all this evidence together.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

It's not 6 feet. It's farther. But in this case, when heading south, we have to minimize the distances. While when heading north...

Tell me what distance it is from the sidewalk, then.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...rman-uninjured
Oh, weren't you the person who accused me of making up the term "yelling"? Well, George yelled, just like DeeDee said.

Yes, because she didn't use the word yell. If she did, I'll wait for you to show me where.

And that witness didn't identify who was yelling. So maybe it was GZ, maybe it was TM. Maybe it was both.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I have no idea why he would do this. He's not a very smart man, but he's very manipulative, as when he allegedly raped his young cousin and carried that on for 10 years,

Being an alleged rapist proves he is manipulative ?

Originally Posted by Unabogie

or when he made up "Peter Pan" and "$9.99" and deceived the court,

Neither of those seem particularly smart or manipulative.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

or when he claimed that Trayvon called him "homie"

Because someone who takes a picture of themselves with fake gold teeth could never use the word 'homie' ?

Originally Posted by Unabogie

and came up with this whole story of the attack. He seems to think on his feet and yet makes mistakes. Who knows why he would have thought this helped? Maybe he simply dropped his keys in shock?

Maybe.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

No matter, look at the evidence field. It's all grouped down by the body, not by the T. The closest thing is the keys, and they are all by themselves.

Yes, so if we are to disbelieve GZ story, there needs to be a compelling alternate narrative. And in the case of the prosecution, that is going to need to PROVE that GZ was not acting in self defense. It's not enough to simply discredit GZ story.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Again, remember what each person was carrying at the beginning of the confrontation. George had his flashlight, and Trayvon had his phone. The first thing to drop would be the thing in their hands, right? And again, let's put two pieces of testimony together. George was carrying his flashlight in one hand and "went for his phone" with the other.

I thought the story was his flashlight didn't work - so was it still in his hand ? He doesn't say anything about it to Singleton, and talks about it not working to Serino. I don't know what the answer is..

Originally Posted by Unabogie

That means that when the fight started, he wasn't holding his keys and they were in his pocket somewhere. So after the shooting, he was holding his gun and not his flashlight. Maybe he pulled out his keys to use the flashlight to look on the ground to see if there were something there he could claim as a weapon? We don't know. But we do know he got up, walked away from the body, and left his keys at some point by the tree. That hardly supports the idea that the fight started way up there. It almost certainly shows it happened around the body where all the other stuff is.

Your story is a possibility, just like GZ story. It's no more conclusive than GZ story is. And even if GZ chase him down and attacked him, when witness 6 sees him on the bottom, screaming for help, by the sidewalk, that's still his claim for self defense.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I said no new evidence, not learning something new.

I am not changing the parameters.

Yes, there will be new evidence, not just "learning something".

You literally think that if someone comes forward tomorrow with a videotape of the murder that it won't be allowed because some magical barrier has passed?? You literally think that if the prosecution makes some minor connection tomorrow and needs to submit something that it won't be allowed because some magical barrier has passed?? You sure you watched multiple FL trials before??

Even in the sunshine state the state often plays very coy with certain aspects of evidence until a few months before the trial. The defense always cries foul and says "why didn't they put 2 and 2 together months ago and give us more time" and the state says "sorry".

Originally Posted by WildCat

Under FL law they have to release everything, they're not allowed to keep it secret. Now, they may interpret said evidence in some new and illuminating way but they certainly can't introduce evidence at trial they haven't already released.

They can and they do.

They just have to prove that it is new to them.

Also we're not talking about just at trial, we're talking about from now to the trial as well.

Remember, the claim was that we have everything now.

Originally Posted by WildCat

But when did truthers ever let facts get in the way of their claims?

Wow. You think they never checked a homicide victims hands for blood and you call other people truthers? Unbelievable.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Tell me what distance it is from the sidewalk, then.

I'm not 100% sure, but I put it at about 8 feet from the edge of the sidewalk.

Quote:

Yes, because she didn't use the word yell. If she did, I'll wait for you to show me where.

I just quoted it and put it in bold.

Quote:

And that witness didn't identify who was yelling. So maybe it was GZ, maybe it was TM. Maybe it was both.

Ok, true.

Quote:

Being an alleged rapist proves he is manipulative

?

Absolutely. Did you read her account of what he did? He bullied her into sex over the course of a decade. That's the very definition of manipulative.

Quote:

Because someone who takes a picture of themselves with fake gold teeth could never use the word 'homie' ?

Because no one says "homie" anymore. Do you know any 16 year olds?

Quote:

Yes, so if we are to disbelieve GZ story, there needs to be a compelling alternate narrative. And in the case of the prosecution, that is going to need to PROVE that GZ was not acting in self defense. It's not enough to simply discredit GZ story.

Well, that's where we disagree. But I think my narrative fits the evidence much better than George's.

Quote:

I thought the story was his flashlight didn't work - so was it still in his hand ? He doesn't say anything about it to Singleton, and talks about it not working to Serino. I don't know what the answer is..

It must have been in his hand. Where else would it have been? And doesn't that make sense that it's why it was dropped? Who knows why he claimed it didn't work, but I think that was just to explain why he didn't head right back to his truck. You have his word on that, vs the fact that he didn't head back to the truck when he claimed he did and the fact that he ended up, with that same flashlight, all the way down by the body. Also note that in none of his walkthrough did he explain what he did with the flashlight and how he "fought back" while holding it. It just sort of disappeared as a prop. If that were a movie it'd be a continuity error.

Quote:

Your story is a possibility, just like GZ story. It's no more conclusive than GZ story is. And even if GZ chase him down and attacked him, when witness 6 sees him on the bottom, screaming for help, by the sidewalk, that's still his claim for self defense.

Witness 6 no longer can tell you who is who or what they were doing. Let's wait to hear him on the stand before placing all your hope that he'll back George up here.

ETA: Even if he Trayvon was on top and even if George was panicked for his life, if George followed and pursued Trayvon, which is what all the evidence points to IMO, he would still not have a defense against murder. You don't get to provoke people and then claim self-defense. If his claim of heading back to the truck and then getting jumped falls apart and the state can convince the jury George went looking for Trayvon again after that call, he's at fault and can't claim SYG.

[TheL8Elvis]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

More on George walking on the sidewalk.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/29/justic...-teen-shooting



By the way, regarding Trayvon laying there dead, face down. We know he was found with his arms under his body, so even if it was raining, his hands were shielded in that position from water. It still brings up the curious story George told about grabbing his arms and trying to hold the dead teenager to restrain him. I've never really figured that out except that perhaps it matches with him getting up and walking away.

Perhaps George thought to search Trayvon for a weapon and was frisking his dead body. The he got up, grabbed his keys, and turned on the mini flashlight to try and look on the ground. When the cops showed up, he just dropped what was in his hands so it wouldn't be mistaken for a weapon? I'm willing to bet that the keys end up to be in the area where the cops arrested him and would tie all this evidence together.

Haven't we done the 'where are TMs hands' dance already ?

George says out, witness 6 says like a chalk outline (so out)

Page 14, report of Ayala, Ricardo.

Quote:

I then noticed that there was what appeared to be a black male ... lying face down on the ground, The black male had his hands underneath his body... At that time, Sgt. Ralmondo and I turned the black male over And began CPR.

2-1, hands out wins, unless you have a better idea.