Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Once again you clearly hear what you want to hear, since it would appear that the police had different opinions on the matter. Its humorous that you've convinced yourself thepolice "saw right through him" because they followed normal investigative techniques. Its also humorous that suddenly serino is your hero whereas previously the police were incompetent.

I will address this point because it's so silly. When this case was first reported, people said that the SPD didn't do a thorough job of investigating, including not taking the gun into custody and only doing a quick interview with George before letting him go. Thankfully, that's not the case. But prior to this week, none of us had any idea of what the investigation was really like. Now, we do. Now, we can hear it for ourselves. Now, after listening to Serino work for almost two hours, yes, I've changed my opinion of him. I took in new information and adjusted my conclusions based on new evidence. Isn't that what a good "skeptic" is supposed to do? My question is why you haven't changed your mind about anything, even after listening to this interrogation. My only conclusion is that you haven't listened to it, which explains why you're spending your time attacking posters instead of defending George's story.

[Unabogie]

Just a little more food for thought.

George claims he was punched in the nose 3 times. He claims he was punched in the face 30 times, with what he felt were "bricks". He claims his head was repeatedly bashed against the concrete.

Looking at George that night, the next day, and then a few days later in the walk through, is that credible? Do the lack of marks on Trayvon's hands and the lack of blood from George make sense?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

He claims he was punched in the face 30 times...

Can you source this claim? I heard in one of the interviews where Serino refers to it, but have yet to come across Zimmerman himself making the claim.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Bob001

Just an observation here: Note that these events occurred just after 7 p.m. on a Sunday. In most areas, that's a time when a lot of people are on the streets: They're coming home from whatever they did during the day, going shopping (like GZ himself), visiting friends, going out for the evening, etc., etc. Does anybody think it says a lot -- and nothing good -- about GZ's state of mind that he felt compelled to call the police just because he saw one black teen-ager walking down the street at 7 p.m.? This was a suburban townhouse development, not a farm road in Idaho. Why wouldn't people be walking around? I would be willing to cut GZ some slack if he saw somebody lurking in his own backyard at 3 a.m. But it really sounds like GZ was hunting for trouble with no good reason.

It was dark and raining... Do people where you live wander around aimlessly like that?

Zimmerman didn't call to report that he saw 'one black teen-ager walking down the street at 7 p.m.'.

Those deliberate fabrications by the media were debunked a long time ago, and your wishful repeating isn't going to change that.

[GWCarver]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Yes, her version is more detailed but the elements are identical. The third link from the bottom of the grouping of Witness 2's statement is taken on the same day as witness 1's. Listen to one, and then the other, then listen to witness 2's statement with the state department, and then tell me something is not weird, there.

I see what you mean, there is a dramatic change in W2's testimony, and it does tend to line up with what her sister said in her interview, although she doesn't mention John. With Serino only recording the last part of the interview, there is no way of knowing if he led her into her initial statement, or not. If the SA interviewer asked her about the change in her story, he didn't record it.

W1, who was cooking dinner, at one point said "they were running in the back" after she saw the "arms flailing". Then she saw a neighbor, presumably John, come out and and say something to them.

W2 said she was in the kitchen in her first statement, and at one point she walked back to the stove and turned it off. In her statement to FDLE, she said she was upstairs the whole time. She "saw something out there" and it was "just a glance" of an indeterminate person before hearing what turned out to be the shot. (Later she said she heard the "feet running". He didn't ask her the obvious questions - how long did she hear the feet running? Which direction? He did ask her to guess at the elapsed time between the feet running and the shot. She guessed 15 seconds, which I don't think matches up with any plausible scenario that would include Z or TM running, considering the amount of time Zimmerman is down and screaming on the non-emergency recording.)

I wonder why W1 wasn't re-interviewed. I think it is unlikely they had upstairs and downstairs stoves, but I don't know for sure.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Can you source this claim? I heard in one of the interviews where Serino refers to it, but have yet to come across Zimmerman himself making the claim.

No, I'm not sure off the top my head. I'm heading out for a while. I'm sure it's in one of those early interviews. Maybe it's something he told police on the scene.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by GWCarver

I see what you mean, there is a dramatic change in W2's testimony, and it does tend to line up with what her sister said in her interview, although she doesn't mention John. With Serino only recording the last part of the interview, there is no way of knowing if he led her into her initial statement, or not. If the SA interviewer asked her about the change in her story, he didn't record it.

W1, who was cooking dinner, at one point said "they were running in the back" after she saw the "arms flailing". Then she saw a neighbor, presumably John, come out and and say something to them.

W2 said she was in the kitchen in her first statement, and at one point she walked back to the stove and turned it off. In her statement to FDLE, she said she was upstairs the whole time. She "saw something out there" and it was "just a glance" of an indeterminate person before hearing what turned out to be the shot. (Later she said she heard the "feet running". He didn't ask her the obvious questions - how long did she hear the feet running? Which direction? He did ask her to guess at the elapsed time between the feet running and the shot. She guessed 15 seconds, which I don't think matches up with any plausible scenario that would include Z or TM running, considering the amount of time Zimmerman is down and screaming on the non-emergency recording.)

I wonder why W1 wasn't re-interviewed. I think it is unlikely they had upstairs and downstairs stoves, but I don't know for sure.

Can either of you two kindly post links to those? I don't think I've heard them.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Pointing out your irrationality is not a "personal attack".

You've pointed out to everyone that you think his story is implausible. Since you find every aspect of it implausible including parts that are not remotely suspicious, that amounts to about 0.

Once again you clearly hear what you want to hear, since it would appear that the police had different opinions on the matter. Its humorous that you've convinced yourself thepolice "saw right through him" because they followed normal investigative techniques. Its also humorous that suddenly serino is your hero whereas previously the police were incompetent.

If I can say, a lot of it seems to be lack of understanding of police interrogation techniques, seasoned by already being convinced of GZ's guilt, before the records were released.

The interrogation tactic Serino and the Singleton use are classic techniques. I believe there is even a specific name for that procedure. Round 1: Singleton is all about just the facts and in round. Round 1 strays a little bit from the typical interrogation because it's not a classic 'who done it'. They know he shot Trayvon. Round 1 was just taking statements.

Round 2 is how a typical round one goes. 2: Serino is the confident and fast talking, but sympathetic buddy, who's only looking out for Zimmerman's best interest. He is not allowing GZ to tell his story, he is asking questions based on GZ's statement and he seems to be generally asking questions about excepted truths regarding the incident (how many times did you shoot?). This is to establish honest body language, later to be compared against perceived dishonest body language. Now remember, by this point, if I recall the chain of events correctly, Serino has already recommended manslaughter, as he states the entire situation could have been avoided, had Zimmerman stayed in the car. However, in the interrogation, he acts like he completely understands the situation. This is to establish trust. People are more likely to "do more talking" in that situation.

Round 3 is the walk through. This is to see how far from his original story, the timing and location vary. There will be variations because by now, Zimmerman's memory of the incident have already started to deteriorate. It's been almost 24 hours since the incident and he has already recalled the incident, at least twice. Here's the interesting thing; they expect discrepancies. If his story was perfect, every time, they would be more inclined to believe it has been memorized.

Round 4 is when they try to hit him. Now remember, Serino thinks this is manslaughter, at this point. They can make an easy case if they can just get Zimmerman to admit to instigating the incident. Notice he is pushing the guilt factor first (the Catholic questions are a big indicator), showing pictures of Trayvon (a highly questionable tactic, mind you because emotional manipulation is known to cause memory doubt), threatening with evidence they may have against him. Then he goes into minor inconsistencies that are probably no big deal. Help me help you. This is done intentionally to get the suspect to doubt themselves. Then he goes with the alternate theory tactic. "I know your history so I know you had good intentions..." Leaving the room, they are discussing his reactions and what they are going to do, next. In the beginning, Singleton is relatively silent. By the end of that interview, it went from minor inconsisencies to glaring inconsistencies where he is clearly lying. They do this on purpose. If they come at him too hard, in the beginning, he is more likely to shut down and immediately deny. Interrogators try to avoid putting them in the denial state because it makes the suspect reinforce their security in their innocence. By the end, though, they are going step by step, deconstructing every word Zimmerman said, making him doubt everything (such as the "they always get away" pointing out that they don't always get away. That's not even relavent to the case. They just want to make him doubt himself).

What I've seen so far in the investigation is that they did a pretty by the book interrogation. It does nothing for telling me what Serino or Singleton are thinking, it just tells me that they've had standard training in interogation. What does speak volumes, though, is after all of that, and Serino's recommendation of manslaughter, Serino still comes out and says, Zimmerman's story is supported by the evidence and witness testimony. Either Serino is lying about that to cover up or his recommendation for manslaughter had more to do with moral accountability than "blatant inconsistancies" in his story.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Can either of you two kindly post links to those? I don't think I've heard them.

http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/new...-to-the-public

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

If I can say, a lot of it seems to be lack of understanding of police interrogation techniques, seasoned by already being convinced of GZ's guilt, before the records were released.

The interrogation tactic Serino and the Singleton use are classic techniques. I believe there is even a specific name for that procedure. Round 1: Singleton is all about just the facts and in round. Round 1 strays a little bit from the typical interrogation because it's not a classic 'who done it'. They know he shot Trayvon. Round 1 was just taking statements.

Round 2 is how a typical round one goes. 2: Serino is the confident and fast talking, but sympathetic buddy, who's only looking out for Zimmerman's best interest. He is not allowing GZ to tell his story, he is asking questions based on GZ's statement and he seems to be generally asking questions about excepted truths regarding the incident (how many times did you shoot?). This is to establish honest body language, later to be compared against perceived dishonest body language. Now remember, by this point, if I recall the chain of events correctly, Serino has already recommended manslaughter, as he states the entire situation could have been avoided, had Zimmerman stayed in the car. However, in the interrogation, he acts like he completely understands the situation. This is to establish trust. People are more likely to "do more talking" in that situation.

Round 3 is the walk through. This is to see how far from his original story, the timing and location vary. There will be variations because by now, Zimmerman's memory of the incident have already started to deteriorate. It's been almost 24 hours since the incident and he has already recalled the incident, at least twice. Here's the interesting thing; they expect discrepancies. If his story was perfect, every time, they would be more inclined to believe it has been memorized.

Round 4 is when they try to hit him. Now remember, Serino thinks this is manslaughter, at this point. They can make an easy case if they can just get Zimmerman to admit to instigating the incident. Notice he is pushing the guilt factor first (the Catholic questions are a big indicator), showing pictures of Trayvon (a highly questionable tactic, mind you because emotional manipulation is known to cause memory doubt), threatening with evidence they may have against him. Then he goes into minor inconsistencies that are probably no big deal. Help me help you. This is done intentionally to get the suspect to doubt themselves. Then he goes with the alternate theory tactic. "I know your history so I know you had good intentions..." Leaving the room, they are discussing his reactions and what they are going to do, next. In the beginning, Singleton is relatively silent. By the end of that interview, it went from minor inconsisencies to glaring inconsistencies where he is clearly lying. They do this on purpose. If they come at him too hard, in the beginning, he is more likely to shut down and immediately deny. Interrogators try to avoid putting them in the denial state because it makes the suspect reinforce their security in their innocence. By the end, though, they are going step by step, deconstructing every word Zimmerman said, making him doubt everything (such as the "they always get away" pointing out that they don't always get away. That's not even relavent to the case. They just want to make him doubt himself).

What I've seen so far in the investigation is that they did a pretty by the book interrogation. It does nothing for telling me what Serino or Singleton are thinking, it just tells me that they've had standard training in interogation. What does speak volumes, though, is after all of that, and Serino's recommendation of manslaughter, Serino still comes out and says, Zimmerman's story is supported by the evidence and witness testimony. Either Serino is lying about that to cover up or his recommendation for manslaughter had more to do with moral accountability than "blatant inconsistancies" in his story.

Or political accountability.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

This I find problematic and I'm concerned you're rationalizing this away.

Let me first touch on the other comment about him walking his dog:

Yes, I agree that it's plausible he didn't know his streets. While walking his dog and being the NW person should make that less likely, he shows he's not good with directions, so I'll grant you he could have been unsure about the address. Where I think he is lying is where he uses that as his reason for exiting the car "just to look for a street sign". In the NEN he says he's following Trayvon. And you can clearly hear him running. When he later claims he wasn''t following him and was only looking for a street sign, it's not plausible. And it isn't an innocent memory lapse since it's clearly self serving and affects his culpability.

As I've stated, the first interview will be the most reliable. In the initial interview, he says he got out to see which direction he is running and to get an address. In the 911 call: ..."**** he's running."
The dispatcher respons at about 2:11"He's running? Which way is he running?" After that question, George opens the door to get out of the car. There is nothing about that interview and the way the call transpired that tells me he is lying. I don't clearly hear him running. You may want to clearly hear him running but it doesn't sound like the sharp interruptions in a person's voice you would get when they run while talking.

Quote:

On the issue of the "circling", there is no innocent explanation. In the NEN call, the only close contact he has with Trayvon is within about 15 seconds of the start of the call. That means one of two things:

You create a dochotomy and then explain it with your own inventions. What do you have that says that there is no close contact?

Quote:

1. He parked at the clubhouse as he says in the walkthrough and Trayvon was merely walking past the car on his way home.
2. He never parked at the clubhouse at all and made that up.

For Trayvon to have walked past the T, come back out onto the street in order to circle the car, George would have had to have started the call near the T. He clearly says this isn't how it happens and if it did, it drastically changes the nature of events.


Therefore, I think this proves the circling at the T, and Trayvon coming back out onto the street from behind the row houses, never happened. I think there is ample evidence that this is impossible and therefore George made it up. If he made up something as inflammatory as Trayvon circling his car, and included such detail as how he turned the corner, but came back out to the street while George waiting with his windows rolled up, in fear, is this defensible?

ETA: I think the most reasonable choice is option #1 above. Trayvon really did walk past his car with his hands in his waistband, holding his drink. This is just a demonstration of George's bad judgment, but it fits the facts. I think he added the part about circling his car to embellish his tale, and unfortunately for him, this embellishment is easily discredited, which is why I keep coming back it as one of the worst of his lies.

That's a relatively easy conclusion to come to, when you established, long before the statements were released, that he is a liar. It sounds to me, based on the first interview, that he stopped at the clubhouse to make the call and Trayvon walked past him. He followed Trayvon around the corner, to down by the T. That's when Trayvon came back to check him out, this is when Zimmerman says, "he's checking me out." A few seconds later, Trayvon runs. The dispatcher asks which direction he ran and George gets out of the car. By the walk through, he is already unclear, mixing up events, and confabulating impressions he got from the dispatcher with actual requests (which direction is he running beccomes, can you get to a point where you can see him). Either, his story is going to be inconsistant because memory fails or he is a liar. If he is a liar, so is every other witness, who's story has been changed, since the initial interviews. Then, so is Trayvon Martin's father because he says he saw Trayvon over an hour after he was shot. Either you accept variations because of unreliable memory across the board or you don't and throw out everyone's statement. You don't get to agree with what helps you and dismiss what you don't like, then accuse other people or rationalization.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

...You don't get to agree with what helps you and dismiss what you don't like, then accuse other people or rationalization.

Way to kill a thread.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by marplots

Way to kill a thread.

I feel pretty gifted in being able to do that.

[gabeygoat]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

It was dark and raining... Do people where you live wander around aimlessly like that?

Yes.
Then again, I live in Oregon.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

What does speak volumes, though, is after all of that, and Serino's recommendation of manslaughter, Serino still comes out and says, Zimmerman's story is supported by the evidence and witness testimony.

Serino didn't quite say that.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event. Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

Notice that he says the best evidence they have is Zimmerman's testimony. In other words, the best evidence that Zimmerman's story is true is the story itself. Which wouldn't be the case if they had any solid corroborating evidence. Independent evidence is always better than the testimony of the accused.

"Everything I have is adding up to what what he says" could easily be interpreted as "I can't disprove anything he says", and considering that Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman, it seems the most logical interpretation.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by gabeygoat

Yes.
Then again, I live in Oregon.

In Oregon, umbrellas are on the prohibited weapons list because of the curved grip automatic activation, and spike on the tip, right?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

Either, his story is going to be inconsistant because memory fails or he is a liar. If he is a liar, so is every other witness, who's story has been changed, since the initial interviews. Then, so is Trayvon Martin's father because he says he saw Trayvon over an hour after he was shot. Either you accept variations because of unreliable memory across the board or you don't and throw out everyone's statement. You don't get to agree with what helps you and dismiss what you don't like, then accuse other people or rationalization.

Uh... no.

See, here's the difference. Zimmerman has established himself as a dishonest person who will lie and connive to cover his ass. The bond hearing shenanigans prove that. This is a fact not in dispute.

Dishonest people shouldn't get the same benefit of the doubt as people whose integrity has not been damaged through their own deceitful actions.

If there are inconsistencies in Zimmerman's testimony, it is reasonable to assume they are the result of lies because we know Zimmerman is a liar. If there are inconsistencies in the testimony of witnesses, it is reasonable to give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove themselves to be untrustworthy.

And I posted this earlier, but received no response:

Quote:

February 26th NEN call:

Quote:

Dispatcher: Are you following him.

Zimmerman: Yeah.

February 29th interview with Investigator Serino:

Quote:

Zimmerman: I wasn't following him. I was just going in the same direction he was.

What rationalization can you offer for that "inconsistency"?

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

As I've stated, the first interview will be the most reliable. In the initial interview, he says he got out to see which direction he is running and to get an address. In the 911 call: ..."**** he's running."

Ok, but later on he denies getting out to follow him. That's not credible, right?

Quote:

The dispatcher respons at about 2:11"He's running? Which way is he running?" After that question, George opens the door to get out of the car.

Actually no, you hear the door opening before the dispatcher asks the question, so you have that reversed.

Quote:

There is nothing about that interview and the way the call transpired that tells me he is lying. I don't clearly hear him running.

Really? He's out of breath and you hear the wind. They ask him about it and he says "it was windy". Again, I think you've just decided to accept everything he says for some reason.

Quote:

You may want to clearly hear him running but it doesn't sound like the sharp interruptions in a person's voice you would get when they run while talking.

So he gets out of breath from walking, looking for a street sign? He doesn't seem out of breath during his walkthrough.

Quote:

You create a dochotomy and then explain it with your own inventions. What do you have that says that there is no close contact?

He only mentions "checking him out once" which starts around 30 seconds into the call. If he's at the clubhouse at the start of the call, how can this happen at the T? It can't. Especially since he claims he parked at the clubhouse, which would make him have to back out, drive down to the T, and then after parking at the T he saw Trayvon, walk off the grass, then around the corner, then back again, then out onto the street. How long would that take? At least 30 more seconds. It's physically impossible.

Quote:

That's a relatively easy conclusion to come to, when you established, long before the statements were released, that he is a liar.

That's the problem with lying. It makes people doubt your word?

Quote:

It sounds to me, based on the first interview, that he stopped at the clubhouse to make the call and Trayvon walked past him. He followed Trayvon around the corner, to down by the T. That's when Trayvon came back to check him out, this is when Zimmerman says, "he's checking me out."

No, this is impossible.

Quote:

A few seconds later, Trayvon runs. The dispatcher asks which direction he ran and George gets out of the car.

Again, you have this reversed.

Quote:

By the walk through, he is already unclear, mixing up events, and confabulating impressions he got from the dispatcher with actual requests (which direction is he running beccomes, can you get to a point where you can see him). Either, his story is going to be inconsistant because memory fails or he is a liar. If he is a liar, so is every other witness, who's story has been changed, since the initial interviews. Then, so is Trayvon Martin's father because he says he saw Trayvon over an hour after he was shot. Either you accept variations because of unreliable memory across the board or you don't and throw out everyone's statement. You don't get to agree with what helps you and dismiss what you don't like, then accuse other people or rationalization.

The problem is that the version he ends up with is physically impossible and he resisted all opportunities to clear things up.

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Serino didn't quite say that.

"The best evidence we have is the testimony of George Zimmerman, and he says the decedent was the primary aggressor in the whole event. Everything I have is adding up to what he says."

Notice that he says the best evidence they have is Zimmerman's testimony. In other words, the best evidence that Zimmerman's story is true is the story itself. Which wouldn't be the case if they had any solid corroborating evidence. Independent evidence is always better than the testimony of the accused.

"Everything I have is adding up to what what he says" could easily be interpreted as "I can't disprove anything he says", and considering that Serino wanted to charge Zimmerman, it seems the most logical interpretation.

Seriono, As his boss gives the media statement that overrules him:



Oh yeah. If looks could kill.

[Rare Truth]

Make that ex-boss.

[Unabogie]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4

Again, watching this. It takes 35 seconds to get to the T. It takes a full minute before he can even describe Trayvon coming back onto the street. In reality, how long would it take George to drive from the clubhouse, then Trayvon to come and circle around him?

George starts to say "he's coming toward me" at 40 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

He doesn't say "he ran" until after George was out running after him.

1:51 "the back entrance" - out of breath.
1:57 quick "yeh".
2:08 "George". - out of breath.

So first, he's totally out of breath. Second, he has suddenly stopped talking and there are 10 second gaps in his speech. His answers are staccato. I don't know how anyone can start at the 1:45 mark and not conclude the guy is running after Trayvon, and not simply looking for a street sign.

ETA:


Last thing: after the 2:08 mark, when he says "he ran" and then gives his name, he seems to have stopped running. You no longer hear the wind in the phone. In his interview he denied running at all and claimed it was just a windy night. Funny how at the point where he no longer was chasing him the wind died down.

[Rare Truth]

Here's a perfect example of how Zimmerman lies on the fly.

Bond hearing. Z had just delivered his non-apology apology on the stand, under oath.

First question, right off, from the prosecution:

PROSECUTION: Ok. And tell me, after you committed this crime and you spoke to the police, did you ever make that statement to the police, sir? That you were sorry for what you've done or their loss?

ZIMMERMAN: No sir.

PROSECUTION: You never stated that, did you?

ZIMMERMAN: I don't remember what I said. I believe I did say that.

PROSECUTION: You told that to the police?

ZIMMERMAN: In one of the statements, I said that I felt sorry for the family.

PROSECUTION: You did?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

He goes from no, to I don't remember, to yes. Straight shot.

Side note Georgie: You should have stuck with your first answer. That was the correct one.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

And I posted this earlier, but received no response:

Quote:

February 26th NEN call:

Quote:

Dispatcher: Are you following him.

Zimmerman: Yeah.

February 29th interview with Investigator Serino:

Quote:

Zimmerman: I wasn't following him. I was just going in the same direction he was.

What rationalization can you offer for that "inconsistency"?

Your wish is my command.

follow
verb (used with object)
1. to come after in sequence, order of time, etc.: The speech follows the dinner.
2. to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.

The discrepancy is explained by using the first definition when he's talking to the dispatcher and a meaning closer to "pursue" in the second instance, which clarifies the first. One is happenstance and the other is intentional. So the first mention is heard as a kind of pursuit, but is then clarified later by GZ.

I hope this resolves any cognitive dissonance. If that doesn't, I'll give another example.

"I followed right behind Sun Myung Moon when getting on the plane."
"Oh, so you were a follower of Reverend Moon then?"
"No, I'm a Muslim."

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Ok, but later on he denies getting out to follow him. That's not credible, right?

Again, the most reliable testimony is the first. He said he got out to see what direction Trayvon ran, that is not the same as following. That is what I am talking about, slightly rearranging his words to confuse him.

Quote:

Actually no, you hear the door opening before the dispatcher asks the question, so you have that reversed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8

Listen again, 2:11 "**** he's running."
2:12, "He's running, which way is he running?"
2:13 you hear the click of the door and then the dinging

Quote:

Really? He's out of breath and you hear the wind. They ask him about it and he says "it was windy". Again, I think you've just decided to accept everything he says for some reason.

You hear wind because it's windy. I've accepted nothing he says. I didn't say he's not running because he said he's not running. I said it doesn't sound like the voice of someone running.

Quote:

So he gets out of breath from walking, looking for a street sign? He doesn't seem out of breath during his walkthrough.

If that is his breath, instead of wind, damn that guy has some lung capacity.

Quote:

He only mentions "checking him out once" which starts around 30 seconds into the call. If he's at the clubhouse at the start of the call, how can this happen at the T? It can't. Especially since he claims he parked at the clubhouse, which would make him have to back out, drive down to the T, and then after parking at the T he saw Trayvon, walk off the grass, then around the corner, then back again, then out onto the street. How long would that take? At least 30 more seconds. It's physically impossible.

Another correction. at :51 seconds "Now he's just staring at me."
1:26 He's coming to check me out.

You shouldn't rely on memory so much

Quote:

That's the problem with lying. It makes people doubt your word?

It's a strange choice of words considering what makes these interrogation tactics questionable is that they can make an innocent person confess to a crime they didn't commit. You should check it out, sometime. It's pretty interesting psychology.

Quote:

No, this is impossible.

So do I just accept that based on your word or are you going to actually challenge it?

Quote:

Again, you have this reversed.

Listen to the 911 call I posted above. I do not have it reversed and I've given you the exact time where you can hear it.

Quote:

The problem is that the version he ends up with is physically impossible and he resisted all opportunities to clear things up

Impossible as in defying all laws of physics or impossible as in it goes against what you've decided to be true?

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4

Again, watching this. It takes 35 seconds to get to the T. It takes a full minute before he can even describe Trayvon coming back onto the street. In reality, how long would it take George to drive from the clubhouse, then Trayvon to come and circle around him?

George starts to say "he's coming toward me" at 40 seconds in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aVwPqXc-bk

He doesn't say "he ran" until after George was out running after him.

1:51 "the back entrance" - out of breath.
1:57 quick "yeh".
2:08 "George". - out of breath.

So first, he's totally out of breath. Second, he has suddenly stopped talking and there are 10 second gaps in his speech. His answers are staccato. I don't know how anyone can start at the 1:45 mark and not conclude the guy is running after Trayvon, and not simply looking for a street sign.

ETA:


Last thing: after the 2:08 mark, when he says "he ran" and then gives his name, he seems to have stopped running. You no longer hear the wind in the phone. In his interview he denied running at all and claimed it was just a windy night. Funny how at the point where he no longer was chasing him the wind died down.

Dude! Seriously, you are listening to the edited version of the call. I posted the unedited version. I want to take that out and keep it civil. The reason why you are having trouble believing in the time is because you are listening to the version that cuts out over two minutes of the conversation.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by marplots

Your wish is my command.

follow
verb (used with object)
1. to come after in sequence, order of time, etc.: The speech follows the dinner.
2. to go or come after; move behind in the same direction: Drive ahead, and I'll follow you.

The discrepancy is explained by using the first definition when he's talking to the dispatcher and a meaning closer to "pursue" in the second instance, which clarifies the first. One is happenstance and the other is intentional. So the first mention is heard as a kind of pursuit, but is then clarified later by GZ.

I hope this resolves any cognitive dissonance. If that doesn't, I'll give another example.

"I followed right behind Sun Myung Moon when getting on the plane."
"Oh, so you were a follower of Reverend Moon then?"
"No, I'm a Muslim."

Uh... what?

Neither example of the alternate definitions of "follow" make any damn sense in this context.

A person doesn't follow another person in "order of time". Only events follow each other in order of time.

And Zimmerman certainly wasn't claiming to be an adherent or devotee of Martin's, so the second example is even more ludicrous.

Seriously, that is some really twisted logic.

It's really quite simple. First, it's:

Quote:

Dispatcher: Are you following him.
Zimmerman: Yeah.

And then it becomes:

Quote:

Zimmerman: I wasn't following him.

He contradicts himself by denying he did something he already admitted to doing.

That's called lying.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Uh... what?

Neither example of the alternate definitions of "follow" make any damn sense in this context.

A person doesn't follow another person in "order of time". Only events follow each other in order of time.

And Zimmerman certainly wasn't claiming to be an adherent or devotee of Martin's, so the second example is even more ludicrous.

Seriously, that is some really twisted logic.

It's really quite simple. First, it's:

Quote:
Dispatcher: Are you following him.
Zimmerman: Yeah.
And then it becomes:
Quote:
Zimmerman: I wasn't following him.

He contradicts himself by denying he did something he already admitted to doing.

That's called lying.

OK, I'm starting to think this is a rhetorical question and you don't really want me to answer it. But, just in case it's not, I'll try again.

"Are you following him?" [in the sense of traveling behind to see where he's going] -- yes
"Were you following him?" [in the sense of pursuit, but he lost sight of TM] -- no

Perhaps if the cop had asked, "Did you try to follow him?" in the second case, GZ would have said, "Yeah."

Let me know if you really didn't want anyone to respond to your query. It's just that when someone asks for an explanation of how things could be viewed alternately, I assume they really are curious about it.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

I will address this point because it's so silly.

Why would you choose a silly point to address?

Quote:

My question is why you haven't changed your mind about anything

So you can not only read GZ's mind, and the polices mind, you can read my mind too. How precisely do you know I haven't changed my mind about anything? Or perhaps you're also just seeing what you want to see on that front too. I've continually adjusted my views as this thread has progressed, though admittedly the one thing I am still sure of is that I'm not sure of what precisely transpired here.

[sgtbaker]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Why would you choose a silly point to address?

So you can not only read GZ's mind, and the polices mind, you can read my mind too. How precisely do you know I haven't changed my mind about anything? Or perhaps you're also just seeing what you want to see on that front too. I've continually adjusted my views as this thread has progressed, though admittedly the one thing I am still sure of is that I'm not sure of what precisely transpired here.

I've actually seen you change your position. A few pages back, in the other thread, you went from not enough evidence to you would probably vote guilty on manslaughter, right?

[marplots]

Just curious, and this might have already been addressed, but is GZ expected to testify? I had the impression that SYG was a kind of affirmative (is that the right word?) defense where the accused has to testify to make the assertion.

On the other hand, it seems weird that someone would have to testify.

Can someone fix my misunderstanding here as well as guess about whether GZ will testify or not?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by marplots

OK, I'm starting to think this is a rhetorical question and you don't really want me to answer it. But, just in case it's not, I'll try again.

"Are you following him?" [in the sense of traveling behind to see where he's going] -- yes
"Were you following him?" [in the sense of pursuit, but he lost sight of TM] -- no

Perhaps if the cop had asked, "Did you try to follow him?" in the second case, GZ would have said, "Yeah."

Let me know if you really didn't want anyone to respond to your query. It's just that when someone asks for an explanation of how things could be viewed alternately, I assume they really are curious about it.

Yeah, I asked for what rationalization could be offered to explain the inconsistency, and you certainly delivered. Your laughable semantic hair-splitting did not disappoint.

Just out curiosity (and this is not a rhetorical question) what would it take for you to acknowledge Zimmerman lied if a denial of something he previously admitted to doesn't quite cut it?

If he denied the sky was blue or water was wet, would you find ways to make those truthful statements as well?

And as a follow up question, why the investment in offering contortions to rationalize everything this guy says? Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge the obvious fact that he's being dishonest?

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

I've actually seen you change your position. A few pages back, in the other thread, you went from not enough evidence to you would probably vote guilty on manslaughter, right?

Which is exactly what Unabogie said he did in regard to his opinion of the police.

And yet he was mocked for doing that here:

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

Its also humorous that suddenly serino is your hero whereas previously the police were incompetent.

... until it was decided that doing so was actually a good thing:

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I've continually adjusted my views as this thread has progressed...

So it seems that some people are simply more interested in taking potshots than they are in offering consistent or rational arguments. And those people have the yellow cards to prove it.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by marplots

Just curious, and this might have already been addressed, but is GZ expected to testify? I had the impression that SYG was a kind of affirmative (is that the right word?) defense where the accused has to testify to make the assertion.

On the other hand, it seems weird that someone would have to testify.

No - obviously he cannot be required to testify because the US Constitution provides that protection. To assert a self defense claim in Florida, Zimmerman only needs to provide a claim that fits the statute and some evidence to support the claim.

Gregory v. State

Quote:

A criminal defendant is entitled to have the jury instructed on the law applicable to his or her theory of defense where there is any evidence to support it, no matter how weak or flimsy.

Villa v State

Quote:

According to Vila's testimony, the victim attacked him first, and he responded in order to defend himself against that attack. The State contends that Vila was not entitled to the instruction because the evidence that he presented was minimal and self-serving. This argument lacks merit as a defendant is entitled to a self-defense instruction if there is any evidence to support his defense. Wright v. State, 705 So. 2d 102, 104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (holding that defendant is entitled to jury instruction on his theory of case if there is any evidence to support it, no matter how flimsy that evidence might be); Taylor v. State, 410 So. 2d 1358, 1359 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) (holding defendant entitled to requested self-defense instruction no matter "how weak or improbable his testimony may have been with respect to the circumstances" leading to commission of offense).

Zimmerman's claims - taken by themself in the form of statements to police - would be enough to satisfy this threshold. Once the instruction is given, it is the burden of the state to prove that his use of force was unlawful.

Originally Posted by marplots

Can someone fix my misunderstanding here as well as guess about whether GZ will testify or not?

IANAL, but that will be decided at trial. It may turn out that the state's theory of the crime can be impeached through other testimony and evidence. If that's the case - and it seems that Zimmerman has that sort of evidence here - then there's no need for Zimmerman to testify at trial. OTOH, Zimmerman's team may decide at some point that Zimmerman doesn't have much exposure against a cross-examination and rebuttal evidence and recommend that he testify. Zimmerman himself may think it important to tell his story. There's a ton of possibilities there. It's important to note that the mere fact that Zimmerman testifies allows the state to present new rebuttal evidence concerning what amounts to Zimmerman's character.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Yeah, I asked for what rationalization could be offered to explain the inconsistency, and you certainly delivered. Your laughable semantic hair-splitting did not disappoint.

Just out curiosity (and this is not a rhetorical question) what would it take for you to acknowledge Zimmerman lied if a denial of something he previously admitted to doesn't quite cut it?

"I did not shoot Trayvon Martin" would be a good one.

Quote:

If he denied the sky was blue or water was wet, would you find ways to make those truthful statements as well?

You mean frozen water or liquid water?

Quote:

And as a follow up question, why the investment in offering contortions to rationalize everything this guy says? Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge the obvious fact that he's being dishonest?

It's hard to know. I appreciate that dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder sometimes, but it's hard to distinguish it from simply making a mistake when you are talking about nuances in testimony. To say that someone who is caught in a lie always lies or "is a liar" seems silly. Will you now stipulate, that because GZ is a liar, that his claim to have been at the crime scene was also a lie? I lied last week when I told my wife I had checked the mail when I hadn't yet done it. Am I a liar? Did I kill someone even though I say I didn't? Character assassination seems shallow when you are trying to decide if someone should be jailed for murder or not.

If you are keen on liars though, you should check out the police. Apparently, lying about what evidence they have during an interrogation is standard practice. Lying is part of the job. Or is it OK if the good guys lie but not the bad guys?

As to GZ, I expect he got much more careful about shaping things to support his case once he understood the cops weren't his allies. And I expect he is lying about some of the things he said happened to make his story more coherent and believable. But that doesn't tell me just which pieces those are. The only way to do it would be to have another, conflicting, independent statement or forensics. So, for example, if Trayvon had been shot in the back, it would indicate GZ was lying about shooting him from the front. This is what happened with the bond hearing stuff. The wife is caught lying because there is evidence she was lying. Pretty simple, really.

I'll wait and see what lies the prosecution comes up with at trial and how they are explained or not explained.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by marplots

Just curious, and this might have already been addressed, but is GZ expected to testify? I had the impression that SYG was a kind of affirmative (is that the right word?) defense where the accused has to testify to make the assertion.

On the other hand, it seems weird that someone would have to testify.

Can someone fix my misunderstanding here as well as guess about whether GZ will testify or not?

Affirmative defense means literally, that the defendant affirms that they did the act (In this case, pulling the trigger), but that they fall into one of the recognized exceptions (In this case, self defense).

And nothing about an affirmative defense requires the defendant to waive any of their rights under the US Constitution

There is a requirement that the defense (not necessarily the defendant) explain how the tests for that exception have been met.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by marplots

It's hard to know. I appreciate that dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder sometimes, but it's hard to distinguish it from simply making a mistake when you are talking about nuances in testimony.

He denied following Martin immediately after listening to a recording in which he admitted to following Martin.

There are no nuances or mistakes to discuss. It's a simple case of Zimmerman claiming one thing, and then claiming the opposite.

Quote:

To say that someone who is caught in a lie always lies or "is a liar" seems silly.

Of course it is. And no one is doing that in this case. I'm just pointing out an actual lie that he told.

Quote:

Will you now stipulate, that because GZ is a liar, that his claim to have been at the crime scene was also a lie?

Speaking of silly...

If a claim can be independently corroborated then of course it isn't a lie, no matter how untrustworthy the person making the claim.

Quote:

I lied last week when I told my wife I had checked the mail when I hadn't yet done it. Am I a liar? Did I kill someone even though I say I didn't?

Yes, because it's the exact same thing. Zimmerman lied about checking the mail, and now I think he's a murderer. That was my exact thought process.

Let me know when you start colluding with your wife to defraud a court of law, or contradicting yourself regarding material details about the night you shot someone, and I'll tell you how trustworthy I think you are.

But until then, I will at the very least view with suspicion anytime you claim to have checked the mail.

Quote:

Character assassination seems shallow when you are trying to decide if someone should be jailed for murder or not.

Wait... we get to decide if Zimmerman should be jailed for murder? When did that happen? I thought we were just expressing our opinions.

Quote:

If you are keen on liars though, you should check out the police. Apparently, lying about what evidence they have during an interrogation is standard practice. Lying is part of the job. Or is it OK if the good guys lie but not the bad guys?

I'm not "keen on liars", I'm keen on determining if the man who killed someone can be believed when he said he did it in self-defense.

Quote:

As to GZ, I expect he got much more careful about shaping things to support his case once he understood the cops weren't his allies. And I expect he is lying about some of the things he said happened to make his story more coherent and believable.

I doubt that coherence and believability were his motivations. Zimmerman lied to cover his ass. The narrative he's concocted completely exonerates him of any wrongdoing, and makes him out to be the innocent victim of a random and lethal attack by a teenage boy walking home from the store.

Such a narrative is implausible on its face, and that's before we get into the contradictory details and Zimmerman's established dishonesty.

Quote:

But that doesn't tell me just which pieces those are. The only way to do it would be to have another, conflicting, independent statement or forensics. So, for example, if Trayvon had been shot in the back, it would indicate GZ was lying about shooting him from the front.

Actually, internal consistency is another way to establish veracity of a statement. Zimmerman couldn't have both followed and not followed Martin at the same time. Someone making such glaringly contradictory claims is clearly not telling the truth.

Quote:

This is what happened with the bond hearing stuff. The wife is caught lying because there is evidence she was lying. Pretty simple, really.

I'm actually surprised that you would acknowledge Zimmerman's wife lied.

Surely, you could devise some semantic wizardry to argue that she wasn't lying as you just did with Zimmerman.

Quote:

I'll wait and see what lies the prosecution comes up with at trial and how they are explained or not explained.

I'll just take the more direct route of recognizing a lie for a lie since logic dictates that two contradictory statements cannot be simultaneously true.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

That's evidence that he walks his dog there. My community is set up like this; there is a main road that is the shape of a circle. Four mini-subdivisions surround the circle, each on a different road. I use that circle road, every single day to drive out of my neighborhood. For a change of scenery, I walk down to the circle to run, because it is exactly a quarter mile. I know the name of one road, the one I live on. I hope I am never in a situation where I would have to recall the names of the other roads because, well, I've never bothered to look at the road signs.

This would be a more persuasive comparison if, in addition to your dog walking ritual you were also the self-appointed captain of your Neighborhood Watch and had made dozens of phone calls to the police from the neighborhood in the past couple of years reporting your concerns about suspicious activities in the area.

Originally Posted by Unabogie

<snip>

Yes, I agree that it's plausible he didn't know his streets.

<snip>

I don't.

Three streets. Three!

Hell, as much neighborhood watching as he seems to have been doing he should know the names of all the people on all of the (three) streets ... and all their dogs' names too.

Okay. Maybe that was a bit of hyperbole, but I still ain't buyin' it.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

Yeah, I asked for what rationalization could be offered to explain the inconsistency, and you certainly delivered. Your laughable semantic hair-splitting did not disappoint.

Just out curiosity (and this is not a rhetorical question) what would it take for you to acknowledge Zimmerman lied if a denial of something he previously admitted to doesn't quite cut it?

If he denied the sky was blue or water was wet, would you find ways to make those truthful statements as well?

And as a follow up question, why the investment in offering contortions to rationalize everything this guy says? Wouldn't it be simpler just to acknowledge the obvious fact that he's being dishonest?

It's like watching an inerrant bible believer pretzel his way around an inconvenient verse in the bible.

It's an article of faith for gun nuts that packing heat makes things safer so their faith forces them to deny that a registered gun toter could do harm.

[tsig]

Originally Posted by marplots

"I did not shoot Trayvon Martin" would be a good one.



You mean frozen water or liquid water?



It's hard to know. I appreciate that dishonesty is in the eye of the beholder sometimes, but it's hard to distinguish it from simply making a mistake when you are talking about nuances in testimony. To say that someone who is caught in a lie always lies or "is a liar" seems silly. Will you now stipulate, that because GZ is a liar, that his claim to have been at the crime scene was also a lie? I lied last week when I told my wife I had checked the mail when I hadn't yet done it. Am I a liar? Did I kill someone even though I say I didn't? Character assassination seems shallow when you are trying to decide if someone should be jailed for murder or not.

If you are keen on liars though, you should check out the police. Apparently, lying about what evidence they have during an interrogation is standard practice. Lying is part of the job. Or is it OK if the good guys lie but not the bad guys?

As to GZ, I expect he got much more careful about shaping things to support his case once he understood the cops weren't his allies. And I expect he is lying about some of the things he said happened to make his story more coherent and believable. But that doesn't tell me just which pieces those are. The only way to do it would be to have another, conflicting, independent statement or forensics. So, for example, if Trayvon had been shot in the back, it would indicate GZ was lying about shooting him from the front. This is what happened with the bond hearing stuff. The wife is caught lying because there is evidence she was lying. Pretty simple, really.

I'll wait and see what lies the prosecution comes up with at trial and how they are explained or not explained.

It's called ice.

Then he's a liar. Why do you believe a liar?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I think you are really asking two different questions. If the question is can a person that is telling the truth experience such a lapse, the incontrovertible answer is yes. As has been explained, that's the way memory works, and we have a mountain of evidence to know that. If you are asking if I think he is telling the truth about all aspects of the encounter, I don't know.

I seriously doubt a change that huge is accountable via normal memory lapse.

That's just not what the memory studies show happening. It's a whole 'nother ballgame of memory problem.