Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

I think the guy could be lying, show us the evidence andvthe contradictions.

Did you seriously not read the thread for the last several pages and/or listen to all of the new evidence dump??

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by TheL8Elvis

Therefor, George was not involved with the specific activity of acting suspicious and wandering about like TM.

How can you seriously say that with a straight face? Perhaps you are typing it without a straight face...

I would love for you to flat out say that Z was not "acting suspicious and wandering about" in the eyes of M.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by WildCat

And that's just it, the posters here decrying the "inconsistencies" in Zimmerman's story are harping on minor details that are well within the range of honest mistakes due to fallible memory. There's nothing there as far as I can tell that shows any material inconsistencies.

Ask anyone to report an experience several times over several days, and you will get different variations with each telling, it's just the way memory works.

I'm going to ask you the same question. Did you listen to the latest document dump?

You can't explain some of this away with normal memory changes.

According to some of you, anything could be attributed to normal memory changes...

That's just not how it works and that is not what memory studies show happen.

You're taking the memory changes ball and running with it.

I can only assume why you would want to do that...

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Maybe they were both yelling?

I would say that in the 8 second clip posted recently it is quite possible that the first scream is one person and the person yelling "help" is another person. There's just no way to know for sure right now.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by 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.

Great post.

A skeptic should look at all available information and try very hard to turn off blinders and reduce bias to nil.

And be as polite as possible in the process.

Attacking the other person and nit-picking their arguments may be how you win in debate club, but a good skeptic should concentrate on finding, proving, and presenting solid evidence.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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.

Here's a great example.

If you are saying that what Bob001 says isn't true then back it up with what was really said! Even if it has been posted a thousand times before! That is how you drill the truth into peoples heads. If it is in fact the truth of course.

If you say the highlighted sentence above, then immediately follow it up with what you found the evidence says that Z "really" reported.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

Or political accountability.

Exactly. Any time someone makes an "official statement" it is probably more likely that it is the "official company answer" than their own personal opinion.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

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.

You are literally taking these things to extremes.

Memory studies are not proof of anything. You can never be sure. Some people have good memories some people have bad ones. Just like with most everything there is a bell curve.

We do know that, according to Z, he is on the lower end of that bell curve when it comes to memory. But then again, we have proof that he is a liar and a conspirator from the jailhouse phone calls.

I say they are a wash.

So, in light of that, and the size of the change in his story, and the clear motive for the change, I am going to have to err on the side of the he is trying to make his story show him in the best light as possible.

That's not to say that someone who truly used self defense wouldn't do the same as well.

There's just no way to know at this point if he is innocent or not.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

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.

Yes that is a very weird distinction to make.

Z must have been nervous or improperly felt he was being cornered.

That or Z knows, unlike many people earlier in the thread, that the 2nd definition of "follow" means "pursue with intent to catch".

[OnlyTellsTruths]

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.

Much earlier in the thread when everyone was listening to that call (it was about all we had) nearly everyone agreed that it sounded like he was running for at least several seconds.

Some people have backed off that even though the evidence is quite clear in that call. It is one of the many things that is telling of whether or not they have blinders on, even if they know it or not.

[Natural Born Skeptic]

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.

Originally Posted by Uniboogie

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?

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

A skeptic should look at all available information and try very hard to turn off blinders and reduce bias to nil.

And be as polite as possible in the process.

Attacking the other person and nit-picking their arguments may be how you win in debate club, but a good skeptic should concentrate on finding, proving, and presenting solid evidence.

You might want to hone those skeptic skills a little more. Then you'll notice that Unaboogie only "adjusted his conclusions" about Serino once he discovered that Serino said things he liked, because he thinks they now mesh with what he's believed from the beginning. It's rather humorous he believes that's a sign of "being a good skeptic". That would be like me suddenly doing an about face and embracing a new voice expert who confirms my beliefs and claims the screaming voice is GZ, after ranting the first 150 pages that the voice experts claiming it is TM are full of woo. And then making it all the more over the top hilarious by having the audacity to claim that my about face proves I'm "adjusting my position and being a good skeptic". No, it would suggest precisely the opposite.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by 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.

As I said earlier, that one is arguably understandable. He is nervous and feels like he is being cornered. An innocent person could be expected to act the same way in that situation.

This, and the normal memory lapse, is in sharp contrast to the big changes and the big lies.

Some of us may want all lies to be chalked up to memory lapse and nervous reactions.

Some of us may want all memory lapse and nervous reactions to be chalked up as lies.

We need to remember that nothing is ever 100% and to concentrate on what we have solid evidence of.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Natural Born Skeptic

You might want to hone those skeptic skills a little more. Then you'll notice that Unaboogie only "adjusted his conclusions" about Serino once he discovered that Serino said things he liked, because he thinks they now mesh with what he's believed from the beginning. It's rather humorous he believes that's a sign of "being a good skeptic". That would be like me suddenly doing an about face and embracing a new voice expert who confirms my beliefs and claims the screaming voice is GZ, after ranting the first 150 pages that the voice experts claiming it is TM are full of woo. And then making it all the more over the top hilarious by having the audacity to claim that my about face proves I'm "adjusting my position and being a good skeptic". No, it would suggest precisely the opposite.

Don't act like it's not possible for it to have both been something Unaboogie "liked" (using your word) and how a good skeptic would operate.

I seriously doubt you disagree with proper scientific method even if someone is satisfied with the results.

Please separate your thoughts of Unaboogie from his post. That is what a good skeptic would do. If you have evidence of someone making incorrect posts in the past it does not mean that every single one of their posts is incorrect.

Again with the voice experts. I don't see why you are 100% convinced it is impossible. Perhaps I am reading you wrong and that you are only 99% convinced, which I would agree with. Do not forget that in 100 or 1000 years or so, it is almost a guarantee that we would have sufficient technology to reliably analyze much worse audio that even that. If you are 100% and you disagree that that day will come then all I can only assume why you would do that.

[LTC8K6]

George Zimmerman : Witness Support and Legal Recap

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/6/24/122557/873

Jeralyn's take on the case so far.

(She's a defense attorney.)

[marplots]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

...(I clipped and rearranged to get to this):
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.

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.

This is worth noting, because internal consistency will tell you that someone is lying. Unfortunately, it won't tell you which version is a lie and which the truth (or if either is true at all).

There was a case last year in Florida where a mother was accused of killing her daughter. She was an inveterate and thorough liar. She lied about things you wouldn't think mattered and she did it consistently. She was found not guilty on the murder charge, but guilty of lying to investigators.

Will George face the same charges as Casey?

[OnlyTellsTruths]

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."

You must not have been here earlier in the thread when people were admonished for knowing the more obscure definition of follow that implies pursue to catch.

Now it turns out that those same people (not you marplots) would have us believe that Z was one of those few.

ETA: And that Z used one definition in his 26th answer, and then the other one the 29th answer.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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.

I don't mean to be mean or try and force everyone to go the extra mile, but if someone is using the wrong version please re-post the link when you admonish them! Even if you have posted it a million times before.

Please remember these forums are for the benefit of everyone and that includes lurkers and/or people who have not been following the thread.

I could try and find the link in your posts, but I assume you could do it faster than me. I assume that goes doubly the same for lurkers.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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.

Again you are taking the memory studies to heart and running with them! Just because the studies show that, on average, the most accurate testimony would be the earliest doesn't mean that it is always the case.

You must look at all available evidence that you can find, and see if there are any valid motives for changes as well.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

<snip>

Good info in that post for one.

But, I believe alot of that depends on whether or not Z goes for an immunity hearing.

AFAIK 2 situations will have different affects on what exactly happens at the trial and how some of what you pointed out in your post applies:

1) No immunity hearing
2) Yes immunity hearing, but Z loses it

The third option [3) Yes immunity hearing, and Z wins it] would, of course, preclude a trial from happening.

The differences between 1 and 2 were delved into way earlier in the thread by someone who was involved with the Florida legal system. I will try and find it.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by marplots

This is worth noting, because internal consistency will tell you that someone is lying. Unfortunately, it won't tell you which version is a lie and which the truth (or if either is true at all).

There was a case last year in Florida where a mother was accused of killing her daughter. She was an inveterate and thorough liar. She lied about things you wouldn't think mattered and she did it consistently. She was found not guilty on the murder charge, but guilty of lying to investigators.

Will George face the same charges as Casey?

Not based on anything reported so far.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

You must not have been here earlier in the thread when people were admonished for knowing the more obscure definition of follow that implies pursue to catch.

Now it turns out that those same people (not you marplots) would have us believe that Z was one of those few.

ETA: And that Z used one definition in his 26th answer, and then the other one the 29th answer.

I should clarify. I do think he got out of his truck to see where Trayvon was going, and in that sense, did follow him. I would have. After all, I'm talking to the cops and I want them to know where the guy is when they arrive. My semantic game was only at the request of someone who made the word into a rhetorical jab.

So, I do think he changed his story, at least if the "following" refers to the same instance (he could have started to follow and then lost TM, so wasn't "following" when the confrontation happened).

The overarching problem with putting a lot of meaning on this discrepancy is that it makes GZ out to be some sort of legal beagle mastermind who is carefully choosing his words like some Clarence Darrow wannabe. I fall in the camp that he's just winging it, at least the parts he doesn't think are all that significant. Surely the forum is familiar with how stories are altered to fit the audience -- the same dress is "pretty pricey" when I'm talking to my girlfriend, but "a good buy" when talking to my penny pinching husband. It's so common, it's hardly noticed. If I'm worried the police will think I'm stalking someone, I might shade things toward the innocent side.

The critical thing is whether the "following" is material and whether George knew it was when he changed his story. I don't know that it is material. The question I would ask is why he would purposely lie about such a thing other than stupidity? What is the point?

I see a suspicious person.
I call the police to report them.
Of course I follow him. How else do I get to where the incident happened? What other purpose can I have for leaving my truck in the first place? Was I going to park my truck there overnight?

Why would this need a lie? The place to lie is later on when the confrontation happens. That's where it matters.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Originally Posted by marplots

I see a suspicious person.
I call the police to report them.
Of course I follow him. How else do I get to where the incident happened? What other purpose can I have for leaving my truck in the first place? Was I going to park my truck there overnight?

Great post up until there.

First of all, you wouldn't know any "incident" was going to "happen".

Second of all he would leave his truck at home, obviously. So, you have no purpose for leaving the truck.

If you are in your vehicle and/or in your home and you report suspicious activity outside, the police do not want you to leave your house or your vehicle.

Nor is it in your best interest to do so.

ETA: I just noticed that you may perhaps be trying to say why we know Z followed M, not that that is literally "of course Marplots would follow him".

Z has the excuse that he was under the impression that the dispatcher wanted him to keep an eye on the suspect by leaving the truck and following. Z was immediately told by the dispatcher that that was an incorrect impression and that he was merely supposed to keep an eye on the suspect as well as he could without following the suspect.

Again, not to make it look like I am nit-picking, the rest of you most was mostly right on. Like the below:

Originally Posted by marplots

I fall in the camp that he's just winging it, at least the parts he doesn't think are all that significant. Surely the forum is familiar with how stories are altered to fit the audience -- the same dress is "pretty pricey" when I'm talking to my girlfriend, but "a good buy" when talking to my penny pinching husband. It's so common, it's hardly noticed. If I'm worried the police will think I'm stalking someone, I might shade things toward the innocent side.

Which goes along with what I was trying to say earlier:

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

As I said earlier, that one is arguably understandable. He is nervous and feels like he is being cornered. An innocent person could be expected to act the same way in that situation.

This, and the normal memory lapse, is in sharp contrast to the big changes and the big lies.

Some of us may want all lies to be chalked up to memory lapse and nervous reactions.

Some of us may want all memory lapse and nervous reactions to be chalked up as lies.

We need to remember that nothing is ever 100% and to concentrate on what we have solid evidence of.

[Bob001]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

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.

From GZ's initial call to the police:

Quote:

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

http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...zimmerman.html

It's entirely GZ's perception, NOT a statement of fact, that TM is "up to no good....walking around." TM and his father were staying at the father's fiancée's house. It was not his own home. He was walking back from the store, and if he looked like he was "walking around" maybe he wasn't sure of the right route. Maybe he made a wrong turn. Maybe he just looked around to see what kind of area he was staying in. You think nobody ever walks in the rain? Some people even like it. The point is that seeing somebody walking down the street in a townhouse development at 7 p.m. on a Sunday is not such weird, rare, suspicious behavior that it merits a call to the cops. It says a lot about GZ that he thought otherwise, and it's hard to believe that he would have thought the same way if he had spotted a middle-aged white guy carrying a grocery sack. And since you asked, where I live, in a big city, people are "walking around" at all hours of the day and night, even in the rain, and if they get shot to death we call it murder.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

... snipped out this part to clarify.

Second of all he would leave his truck at home, obviously. So, you have no purpose for leaving the truck.

If you are in your vehicle and/or in your home and you report suspicious activity outside, the police do not want you to leave your house or your vehicle.

Nor is it in your best interest to do so.

ETA: I just noticed that you may perhaps be trying to say why we know Z followed M, not that that is literally "of course Marplots would follow him".

I really was saying I would have done what Georgie did for that specific action. At least I would have if I thought the person I reported to the police was, well, worth reporting to the police (which I don't think TM was).

I'm applying what I hoped was a "reasonable man" standard. However, after slogging through this entire thread, I accept that my version of "reasonable" is far from universal. Still, the few times I've called the cops on someone (or something) I felt I was already involved and committed. In hindsight, following TM at all turned out to be a bad idea, but I'd have done the same, if for no other reason than not wanting to look like a jerk when the cops arrived.

The closest parallel I can think of is calling in a drunk driver while traveling on the expressway. I see a car swerving repeatedly across lanes of traffic. I call in the incident and try to get the plate number. And I follow -- at as safe a distance as I can manage. Even if the car pulls off the expressway. I grant this is dangerous, but I want to be there for the denouement. Maybe they'll need me as a witness or something.

"Are you following him?"
"Yeah."
"We don't need you to do that."
And now I'm thinking, but not saying: "Well, it's no trouble at all, I'll do it anyhow to be helpful."

Note, the difference between, "We don't need you to do that" and "Stop following him." That's where my reasonable man pegs it.

The point for me that separates getting involved and not getting involved comes with the 911 call. Once that happens, I feel like there's a kind of duty to follow through. Would that duty be broken off at some point? Certainly. I'm pretty far from being heroic. It's just that the same impulse that has me calling in the first place gets the ball rolling.

I think the reason the neighborhood watch material mentions not getting physically involved is precisely because others share the same instinct I have about such things -- in for a penny, in for a pound. The cops tell you not to do it because they are pretty sure that otherwise you would.

Please understand I am not trying to justify anything that happened that night. I'm trying to put myself in the same situation and ask whether GZ's actions were what I might do. For the "follow" part, they were. After that, I don't know. I want to hear what comes out at trial.

[johnny karate]

Originally Posted by marplots

Why would this need a lie? The place to lie is later on when the confrontation happens. That's where it matters.

The need for the lie is obvious. Zimmerman was crafting a narrative in which he did nothing wrong, and instead was an innocent victim.

At the time of the NEN call, he had no idea how things would turn out. So at that point, he had no reason to lie about what he was doing.

In the aftermath, he realized admitting he was following Martin could undermine his narrative and make him look like the aggressor, so he tried to walk it back.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by johnny karate

The need for the lie is obvious. Zimmerman was crafting a narrative in which he did nothing wrong, and instead was an innocent victim.

At the time of the NEN call, he had no idea how things would turn out. So at that point, he had no reason to lie about what he was doing.

In the aftermath, he realized admitting he was following Martin could undermine his narrative and make him look like the aggressor, so he tried to walk it back.

If that's so, it comes under the "stupid lie" exception. What reason, other than following, does he have for leaving the truck in the first place? Did he provide an additional lie to cover that? (Here my lack of detailed analysis of released interviews is showing.) That's a real, not rhetorical question. Did GZ explain in the second case why he got out of his vehicle? It seems like one lie would need a second, supporting lie.

[crimresearch]

Originally Posted by Bob001

From GZ's initial call to the police:



http://www.documentcloud.org/documen...zimmerman.html

It's entirely GZ's perception, NOT a statement of fact, that TM is "up to no good....walking around." TM and his father were staying at the father's fiancée's house. It was not his own home. He was walking back from the store, and if he looked like he was "walking around" maybe he wasn't sure of the right route. Maybe he made a wrong turn. Maybe he just looked around to see what kind of area he was staying in. You think nobody ever walks in the rain? Some people even like it. The point is that seeing somebody walking down the street in a townhouse development at 7 p.m. on a Sunday is not such weird, rare, suspicious behavior that it merits a call to the cops. It says a lot about GZ that he thought otherwise, and it's hard to believe that he would have thought the same way if he had spotted a middle-aged white guy carrying a grocery sack. And since you asked, where I live, in a big city, people are "walking around" at all hours of the day and night, even in the rain, and if they get shot to death we call it murder.

In other words, Zimmerman did *not* call the police to 'report a black person' in his neighborhood, he made no mention of race until directly asked.

He didn't say that being black was suspicious, he didn't say that being there was suspicious.

Second, I didn't ask if you lived in a big city, I questioned your blanket assertion that lots of people in that gated community must have been out walking around.

And of course, how could anyone from where I live know anything about murder without you to lecture us on the 'mean streets'?



Your selectively editing out what GZ actually said to fabricate motives for him, says a lot more about you than it does about him.

[Unabogie]

Originally Posted by marplots

If that's so, it comes under the "stupid lie" exception. What reason, other than following, does he have for leaving the truck in the first place? Did he provide an additional lie to cover that? (Here my lack of detailed analysis of released interviews is showing.) That's a real, not rhetorical question. Did GZ explain in the second case why he got out of his vehicle? It seems like one lie would need a second, supporting lie.

Yes, he claimed he only got out to look for a street sign on the other side of the row houses, which was where he just saw the kid by pure coincidence. But he assures us he wasn't following him. That goes with what Johnny said about changing the narrative so he can look innocent of any provocation.

[marplots]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Yes, he claimed he only got out to look for a street sign on the other side of the row houses, which was where he just saw the kid by pure coincidence. But he assures us he wasn't following him. That goes with what Johnny said about changing the narrative so he can look innocent of any provocation.

Thank you. I see I have been remiss in doing my homework. Do you have to get out of the truck to see the street sign? Was the truck shut off? Would I turn off my engine if I was just getting out for a second to check on something? Would I even go out in the rain instead of driving to the next landmark? I'm thinking stupid lies will be shown to be such. I hope his lawyer helps him out with the truth, whatever that may be.

Can we conclude from this that George may lie in his perceived self interest, but he's not a very sophisticated liar? I'd buy that.

Now I really want to see this go to trial. I need a large chart to look at; you know the kind, the kind they draw up so dumb jurors (and me) can get it.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

Yes, he claimed he only got out to look for a street sign on the other side of the row houses, which was where he just saw the kid by pure coincidence. But he assures us he wasn't following him. That goes with what Johnny said about changing the narrative so he can look innocent of any provocation.

More strangely, he looks for a street sign on Retreat View Circle in order together an exact address, but then moves to meet the cops next to his truck, which is parked on Twin Trees Lane, which is the address that the dispatcher asked him for. If he wanted to provide a useful address, he merely needed to look across the street from his truck, and had no need at all to move towards the bizarre hostile guy who had (supposedly) circled his truck and ran back and forth.

[Mumbles]

Originally Posted by sgtbaker

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."

Except in his own police call, immediately before saying "he's coming to check me out", Zimmerman states that Martin is next to the clubhouse. Thus, unless he's very confused, there's no way that Martin is re-emerging from behind the townhouses. That's one of the major problems with his re-enactment.

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Mumbles

More strangely, he looks for a street sign on Retreat View Circle in order together an exact address, but then moves to meet the cops next to his truck, which is parked on Twin Trees Lane, which is the address that the dispatcher asked him for. If he wanted to provide a useful address, he merely needed to look across the street from his truck, and had no need at all to move towards the bizarre hostile guy who had (supposedly) circled his truck and ran back and forth.

Even if he decided to go to the T-walkway, before he reached it he would see, almost directly in front of him, the House on the Corner

http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/k...3front1211.jpg

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

But, I believe alot of that depends on whether or not Z goes for an immunity hearing.

The immunity hearing does not affect the establishment of a self-defense claim at trial.

Peterson v. State

Quote:

We now hold that when immunity under this law is properly raised by a defendant, the trial court must decide the matter by confronting and weighing only factual disputes.   The court may not deny a motion simply because factual disputes exist.   Here, the trial court did what was required.   Petitioner is not precluded from submitting the matter to the jury as an affirmative defense in his criminal trial.

Pre-trial the defense may assert, by motion, statutory immunity to the charge. The judge will hold an evidentiary hearing to determine, by a preponderance of the evidence, if the defense has proved its claim to immunity. If the court denies the motion the matter is sent to a jury trial. At some point near the end of the jury trial, the judge will ask for proposed jury instructions. The defense at that time will make the claim for the self defense instruction. If the state objects to that instruction, the judge will have to review the testimony to see if some evidence was presented to support that instruction. It makes no difference in this instance if the judge believes the evidence at all - that's a matter for the jury. The sole question is if the evidence was presented and if that evidence meets the requirements of the statute.

[Cylinder]

Originally Posted by Unabogie

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?

"I would say maybe 45% [of his head and face] were covered in blood. He had a substantial amount of dried blood on his cheeks and on the back of his head."

Statement from SFD Firefighter/EMT Partick O'Rourke

Zimmerman was cleaned with peroxide before any photos were taken. The only pre-treatment photo was released by the state in the form of what appears to be a multi-generation copy of a plain paper printing of that photo.

SFD Rescue paramedic audio statement

Cuts and abrasions to his face and nose
Cuts on the back of his head
Informed SPD that Zimmerman needed to be transported to hospital and needed some stitches. SPD advised that they would transport.

Asked to describe Zimmerman's injuries

Laceration to back of head
Abrasions on forehead
Deformity on nose
Abrasions on cheek and face
Blood on arms amd hands


SFD Firefighter Livingston

Blood on face
Possible broken nose
Some blood had dried on back of head which was cleaned off (Ed:In hindsight, this was a mistake. The dried blood should have been documented first.)
Complained of dizziness and pain during treatment.
Advised SPD that Zimmerman may need transport to hospital.

SFD Firefighter/EMT O'Rourke

Interesting sidenote: It was this paramedic who probably led to the claim that SPD did not try to identify Martin for after the event. O'Rourke states in the interview that "He was a John Doe til several days later."

Laceration to back of head
Fractured nose
Cleaned blood from head and face - a "signifigant amount" of dried blood. "It took a while to clean him up."
45% of head and face covered with blood.

[Cylinder]

For everyone attributing every inconsistent statement by Zimmerman as lies, were the police lying about Martin's clothing? What about the drink that was found on Martin's body?

Unlike Zimmerman, the police are trained in observation and recording a crime scene, right?

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

The immunity hearing does not affect the establishment of a self-defense claim at trial.

Peterson v. State
....

Perils of GZ going the immunity hearing route:

1. He almost necessarily has to take the stand. No one can testify to what Z felt, what he reasonably believed was fear of imminent death or great bodily harm.

2. Opens himself up to cross.

3. What is revealed in the immunity hearing can be used against him at a jury trial. Two whacks at the apple for the prosecution.

Can he refuse to testify at an immunity hearing? Sure. How much weight do you think the same judge who was duped by a "potted palm" primrose-path style will give that refusal?

I've predicted long ago there will be no immunity hearing. I'll repeat what I said then: Mark it. Not gonnah happen.

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by Cylinder

"I would say maybe 45% [of his head and face] were covered in blood. He had a substantial amount of dried blood on his cheeks and on the back of his head."

Statement from SFD Firefighter/EMT Partick O'Rourke

Zimmerman was cleaned with peroxide before any photos were taken. The only pre-treatment photo was released by the state in the form of what appears to be a multi-generation copy of a plain paper printing of that photo.

SFD Rescue paramedic audio statement

Cuts and abrasions to his face and nose
Cuts on the back of his head
Informed SPD that Zimmerman needed to be transported to hospital and needed some stitches. SPD advised that they would transport.

Asked to describe Zimmerman's injuries

Laceration to back of head
Abrasions on forehead
Deformity on nose
Abrasions on cheek and face
Blood on arms amd hands


SFD Firefighter Livingston

Blood on face
Possible broken nose
Some blood had dried on back of head which was cleaned off (Ed:In hindsight, this was a mistake. The dried blood should have been documented first.)
Complained of dizziness and pain during treatment.
Advised SPD that Zimmerman may need transport to hospital.

SFD Firefighter/EMT O'Rourke

Interesting sidenote: It was this paramedic who probably led to the claim that SPD did not try to identify Martin for after the event. O'Rourke states in the interview that "He was a John Doe til several days later."

Laceration to back of head
Fractured nose
Cleaned blood from head and face - a "signifigant amount" of dried blood. "It took a while to clean him up."
45% of head and face covered with blood.

No matter the pile-on of cherry picked baskets of bloody sounding beat downs - the fact remains they were minor injuries requiring some peroxide for a few minutes in the back of a squad car, none requiring so much as a bandage.

Within minutes of the incident, all vital signs were fine, and heart rate, blood pressure normal.

EMT report:

Patient Conscious
Breathing Quality Adult Normal 12-20 [which is normal, not panting or out of breath]
No External Hemorrhage noted; Mucuous Membrane Normal
Central Body Color Normal
Extremities Normal

Within Normal Limits (Airway, Breathing Quality, Accessory Muscle Use, Chest Rise, Radial Pulse, Skin Temp, Skin Moisture [not sweating], Skin Turgor [not showing signs of dehydration], Cap Refill [blood circulation is normal], Pupil Size and Reaction.

Cause of Injury [to Zimmerman]: Struck by blunt/thrown object. (9640) Mechanism of Injury: Blunt

Patient says he was assaulted and his head was struck on the pavement.

Pt’s GCS = 15 [Glascow Coma Scale, which is a level of consciousness scale and 15 is normal] and he is warm and dry with normal skin color.

Pt has abrasions to his forehead + bleeding/tenderness to his nose and a small laceration to the back of his head.

All injuries have minor bleeding.

Pt also denies LOC [loss of consciousness], neck/back pain, and he has + PMS [pulse motor sensory function] X 4 [in all extremities] with – paresthesia [no tingling]"

[That means his pulse, motor, and sensory functions were all okay and functioning normally]

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93951121/S...-by-prosecutor

[Rare Truth]

Witness 13 here:http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html...PD02262012.wav

[If that doesn't open, it's W13_SPD02262012.wav on the righthand side of this link.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/dpp/new...to-the-public]

...made this audio statement a little after an hour of the incident in the back of a police car.

He states it happened in the back of his townhouse and was on the scene before the police arrived.

He remarks Zimmerman's first statement was "He was beating up on me so I had to shoot him," and Z asked this witness if he had blood on his face.

This witness then says he's going to call 911. GZ tells him no, I already called them, GZ tells him to call his wife, ('tell her I just shot someone') -
then he (sort of) jokes with Z: "did you use a 9 or a 40?"
GZ: "ah, I used a 9."

And you can hear in this immediate witness statement -- the police came "a couple minutes later.".

Another interview with that immediate witness, here:
http://media2.abcactionnews.com/html...2003262012.wav

He describes Zimmerman at first as "like he got his butt kicked" and "a little out of breath" and then Z's demeanor was "get to the point," "matter of fact," and in agreement with the questioner, "no big deal."

This witness is remarking on a man who just literally some 60-90 seconds earlier had killed someone.

Trayvon would be pronounced dead some 10 minutes later.

[Rare Truth]

Originally Posted by crimresearch

In other words, Zimmerman did *not* call the police to 'report a black person' in his neighborhood, he made no mention of race until directly asked.

He didn't say that being black was suspicious, he didn't say that being there was suspicious.
....

He didn't profile him because he was black, just that he fit the profile of the "**** ing punks" that were ******** that always got away.

One thing is clear: To Zimmerman, it was not an isolated incident. It was the culmination of mounting concern and frustration about crime in the subdivision where he was Neighborhood Watch captain.

Prosecutors say the unarmed 17-year-old from Miami Gardens, Fla., was an innocent victim of profiling. Zimmerman, charged with second-degree murder, says he fired during a struggle for his life.

In his video re-enactment for Sanford police the day after the shooting, Zimmerman explained why he found Trayvon suspicious.

Trayvon was in the yard of Frank Taaffe, a Neighborhood Watch buddy whose townhouse had recently been burglarized.

The teen was in the grass, not on the sidewalk, Zimmerman told officers.

"He was just leisurely looking at the house," Zimmerman said. "That’s what threw me off. It’s raining. I didn’t understand why somebody would be just stopping in the rain."

http://bostonherald.com/news/nationa...artin_shooting : Statements reveal George Zimmerman’s mind-set before Trayvon Martin shooting

[Rare Truth]

Some may find this interesting viewing, some may not: http://imgur.com/a/bcAII