The Zimmerman case disintegrates

[Lonestar_logic]

Present the evidence that shows he didnt

Oh dear, you really are stupid.

 

[katsteve2012]

By: John Hayward, 5/21/2012 12:57 PM

The release of evidence in George Zimmerman’s murder trial quickly made a mockery of his second-degree murder charges, and threw a further layer of shame upon media and political opportunists who misrepresented a tragic, but fairly straightforward, case of lethal force employed in self-defense.

Read more @ The Zimmerman case disintegrates | Conservative News, Views & Books

As I've posted before, he'll go free and some blacks will riot.

This is old news. the story was published back in May.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It happens to be constistent with eyewitness accounts.


Zimmerman will walk. Deal with it.

What eye witness saw Zimmerman walking back to his vehicle and that Martin jumped him at the "T" intersection?



My understanding was the only "eyewitnesses" appeared after the fight had already started and was occurring down the path from where Zimmerman said it started. If there is an eyewitness who saw Zimmerman walking back to his truck please provide a link - it's the first I've heard of it.



>>>>

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was walking back or not, he committed no crime either way.

Actually I think the contradictions in Zimmerman's stories will be very important to the jury in determining if Zimmerman was being truthful. If the jury views Zimmerman as the aggressor, the Martin was fully within his right to defend himself under Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

The fact is Zimmerman was being beaten and calling for help.

No it is not a fact that Zimmerman was calling for help. That is Zimmerman's claim, early reports that witnesses said it was Zimmerman have been retracted because they couldn't identify who was really yelling and forensic examination of the audio tapes were not conclusive although then tended to exclude Zimmerman.

You don't seem to trust Zimmerman's testimony. So who's testimony do you trust?

1. Correct I don't "trust" Zimmerman's testimony where there is no confirmation for a couple of reasons. One, forensic evidence (as in non-eyewitness evidence) conflicts with Zimmerman's account of what happened. Two, Zimmerman has shown himself to be a liar before the court by attempting to hide approximately $150,000 in assets while submitting a request before the court to be considered indigent and conspiring with his wife to accomplish the hiding of those assets and his second passport.

2. I tend to trust personal testimony the conforms to forensic evidence and distrust personal testimony when forensic evidence conflicts with that testimony. For example we know that Zimmerma claimed to have parked after dark in the clubhouse parking area on Retreat View Cricle, yet video cameras from inside the clubhouse showing those windows show no vehicle parking there at the time of the event. Zimmerman claims Martin punched him repeatedly in the face, yet there was no Zimmerman DNA on Martin's hands or the cuffs of his sweater. Zimmerman claims Martin was on top of him at the time the weapon was fired. This places Zimmerman and Martin close together but in two different plains, yet the bullet traveled in a line perpendicular to Martins chest near the center - something that would be difficult to achieve with two people struggling close together. In this "close struggle" Zimmerman discharged his weapon at close range into Martin's chest. Zimmerman was below and close to the discharged weapon yet there was no GSR on the front of Zimmerman's Jacket which would indicate his arm was actually extended away from his body at the time the weapon was discharged, not being maneuvered between to chests. Now it's obvious that Martin got at least one good shot into Zimmerman's face during the struggle resulting in the bloody nose that was photographed on scene by the police officer. Zimmerman claimed that Martin covered Zimmerman's face (trying to cover his mouth and bloody nose) during the struggle, but again there was no Zimmerman DNA on Martin's hands or cuffs which would have resulted from a bloody nose. Zimmerman claimed that Martin jumped him at the "T" intersection and knocked him to the ground and then mounted him, yet the location of the body is inconsistent with that scenario. We also know for a fact that Martin was on the phone during a large portion of the non-dispatcher call and not once during the call, during the descriptions of the events that night at the police station or during the video reenactment the next day did Zimmerman ever mention once that Martin was talking on the phone, we know Martin was on the phone because there are phone records that confirm this. Zimmerman never mentioned the phone and would not have known about it that night or the next day.





Now with all that said, does that means I believe the state has (through the evidence released) shown Murder 2? Not in the least, at most (IMHO) they could support negligent homicide/manslaughter in that Zimmerman's actions led to the confrontation after Martin tried to depart the area twice. But none of the above go to show a depraved disregard for human life which is the standard in Florida for Murder 2. If asked for a vote now as a member of the jury on that charge - I'd have to go with "not guilty".



>>>>

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What eye witness saw Zimmerman walking back to his vehicle and that Martin jumped him at the "T" intersection?



My understanding was the only "eyewitnesses" appeared after the fight had already started and was occurring down the path from where Zimmerman said it started. If there is an eyewitness who saw Zimmerman walking back to his truck please provide a link - it's the first I've heard of it.



>>>>

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was walking back or not, he committed no crime either way.

Actually I think the contradictions in Zimmerman's stories will be very important to the jury in determining if Zimmerman was being truthful. If the jury views Zimmerman as the aggressor, the Martin was fully within his right to defend himself under Florida's Stand Your Ground law.

The fact is Zimmerman was being beaten and calling for help.

No it is not a fact that Zimmerman was calling for help. That is Zimmerman's claim, early reports that witnesses said it was Zimmerman have been retracted because they couldn't identify who was really yelling and forensic examination of the audio tapes were not conclusive although then tended to exclude Zimmerman.

You don't seem to trust Zimmerman's testimony. So who's testimony do you trust?

1. Correct I don't "trust" Zimmerman's testimony where there is no confirmation for a couple of reasons. One, forensic evidence (as in non-eyewitness evidence) conflicts with Zimmerman's account of what happened. Two, Zimmerman has shown himself to be a liar before the court by attempting to hide approximately $150,000 in assets while submitting a request before the court to be considered indigent and conspiring with his wife to accomplish the hiding of those assets and his second passport.

2. I tend to trust personal testimony the conforms to forensic evidence and distrust personal testimony when forensic evidence conflicts with that testimony. For example we know that Zimmerma claimed to have parked after dark in the clubhouse parking area on Retreat View Cricle, yet video cameras from inside the clubhouse showing those windows show no vehicle parking there at the time of the event. Zimmerman claims Martin punched him repeatedly in the face, yet there was no Zimmerman DNA on Martin's hands or the cuffs of his sweater. Zimmerman claims Martin was on top of him at the time the weapon was fired. This places Zimmerman and Martin close together but in two different plains, yet the bullet traveled in a line perpendicular to Martins chest near the center - something that would be difficult to achieve with two people struggling close together. In this "close struggle" Zimmerman discharged his weapon at close range into Martin's chest. Zimmerman was below and close to the discharged weapon yet there was no GSR on the front of Zimmerman's Jacket which would indicate his arm was actually extended away from his body at the time the weapon was discharged, not being maneuvered between to chests. Now it's obvious that Martin got at least one good shot into Zimmerman's face during the struggle resulting in the bloody nose that was photographed on scene by the police officer. Zimmerman claimed that Martin covered Zimmerman's face (trying to cover his mouth and bloody nose) during the struggle, but again there was no Zimmerman DNA on Martin's hands or cuffs which would have resulted from a bloody nose. Zimmerman claimed that Martin jumped him at the "T" intersection and knocked him to the ground and then mounted him, yet the location of the body is inconsistent with that scenario. We also know for a fact that Martin was on the phone during a large portion of the non-dispatcher call and not once during the call, during the descriptions of the events that night at the police station or during the video reenactment the next day did Zimmerman ever mention once that Martin was talking on the phone, we know Martin was on the phone because there are phone records that confirm this. Zimmerman never mentioned the phone and would not have known about it that night or the next day.





Now with all that said, does that means I believe the state has (through the evidence released) shown Murder 2? Not in the least, at most (IMHO) they could support negligent homicide/manslaughter in that Zimmerman's actions led to the confrontation after Martin tried to depart the area twice. But none of the above go to show a depraved disregard for human life which is the standard in Florida for Murder 2. If asked for a vote now as a member of the jury on that charge - I'd have to go with "not guilty".



>>>>

Let's use a little common sense here. If Martin was running away (as you have stated), then Zimmerman must have chased him down and caught him, thus Martin had to defend himself at that time.

If Martin was defending himself, then it makes no sense why Zimmerman was the one calling for help?

If Martin was defending himself, wouldn't he sustain defensive wounds. Thew only wound to Martin was his knuckle. Therefore Zimmerman must have attacked him with his head.

Why did Zimmerman call 911 if he was planning on attacking Martin?

 

[WorldWatcher]

It doesn't matter if Zimmerman was walking back or not, he committed no crime either way.

Actually I think the contradictions in Zimmerman's stories will be very important to the jury in determining if Zimmerman was being truthful. If the jury views Zimmerman as the aggressor, the Martin was fully within his right to defend himself under Florida's Stand Your Ground law.




No it is not a fact that Zimmerman was calling for help. That is Zimmerman's claim, early reports that witnesses said it was Zimmerman have been retracted because they couldn't identify who was really yelling and forensic examination of the audio tapes were not conclusive although then tended to exclude Zimmerman.

You don't seem to trust Zimmerman's testimony. So who's testimony do you trust?

1. Correct I don't "trust" Zimmerman's testimony where there is no confirmation for a couple of reasons. One, forensic evidence (as in non-eyewitness evidence) conflicts with Zimmerman's account of what happened. Two, Zimmerman has shown himself to be a liar before the court by attempting to hide approximately $150,000 in assets while submitting a request before the court to be considered indigent and conspiring with his wife to accomplish the hiding of those assets and his second passport.

2. I tend to trust personal testimony the conforms to forensic evidence and distrust personal testimony when forensic evidence conflicts with that testimony. For example we know that Zimmerma claimed to have parked after dark in the clubhouse parking area on Retreat View Cricle, yet video cameras from inside the clubhouse showing those windows show no vehicle parking there at the time of the event. Zimmerman claims Martin punched him repeatedly in the face, yet there was no Zimmerman DNA on Martin's hands or the cuffs of his sweater. Zimmerman claims Martin was on top of him at the time the weapon was fired. This places Zimmerman and Martin close together but in two different plains, yet the bullet traveled in a line perpendicular to Martins chest near the center - something that would be difficult to achieve with two people struggling close together. In this "close struggle" Zimmerman discharged his weapon at close range into Martin's chest. Zimmerman was below and close to the discharged weapon yet there was no GSR on the front of Zimmerman's Jacket which would indicate his arm was actually extended away from his body at the time the weapon was discharged, not being maneuvered between to chests. Now it's obvious that Martin got at least one good shot into Zimmerman's face during the struggle resulting in the bloody nose that was photographed on scene by the police officer. Zimmerman claimed that Martin covered Zimmerman's face (trying to cover his mouth and bloody nose) during the struggle, but again there was no Zimmerman DNA on Martin's hands or cuffs which would have resulted from a bloody nose. Zimmerman claimed that Martin jumped him at the "T" intersection and knocked him to the ground and then mounted him, yet the location of the body is inconsistent with that scenario. We also know for a fact that Martin was on the phone during a large portion of the non-dispatcher call and not once during the call, during the descriptions of the events that night at the police station or during the video reenactment the next day did Zimmerman ever mention once that Martin was talking on the phone, we know Martin was on the phone because there are phone records that confirm this. Zimmerman never mentioned the phone and would not have known about it that night or the next day.





Now with all that said, does that means I believe the state has (through the evidence released) shown Murder 2? Not in the least, at most (IMHO) they could support negligent homicide/manslaughter in that Zimmerman's actions led to the confrontation after Martin tried to depart the area twice. But none of the above go to show a depraved disregard for human life which is the standard in Florida for Murder 2. If asked for a vote now as a member of the jury on that charge - I'd have to go with "not guilty".



>>>>

Let's use a little common sense here. If Martin was running away (as you have stated),

I stated that Martin departed the area twice, it's not what "I" stated, that's what Zimmerman stated - don't you believe Zimmerman?

then Zimmerman must have chased him down and caught him, thus Martin had to defend himself at that time.

Martin departed the area twice, per Zimmerman's account and then Zimmerman followed him.

If Martin was defending himself, then it makes no sense why Zimmerman was the one calling for help?

Forensic evidence and eyewitness accounts are inconclusive as to who was yelling.

Yelling during the struggle does not indicate who started the struggle.

If Martin was defending himself, wouldn't he sustain defensive wounds.

Defending himself from someone that was pursuing him on a dark, rainy night does not mean that Martin was loosing the struggle. It means he was defending himself from a perceived threat. It could be very likely that he was defending himself and winning the struggle.

Thew only wound to Martin was his knuckle. Therefore Zimmerman must have attacked him with his head.

Having only one wound on his finger (the autopsy report does not say knuckle), is inconsistent with the extensive "pounding" about the face that Zimmerman described and Zimmerman's lack of facial injuries are also inconsistent with the type of "pounding" to the face that Zimmerman described.

Why did Zimmerman call 911 if he was planning on attacking Martin?

Zimmerman didn't call 911, he called a non-emergency dispatch number.

That is one reason I don't think Zimmerman's action rise to the level of "depraved disregard for human life" required under the Florida statute for Murder 2. I don't think Zimmerman's plan was to hunt down and kill an unknown person in the community. Personally I think Zimmerman and Martin got into an altercation precipitated by Zimmerman's pursuit that resulted in the death of Martin. I don't see the 6 jurors (it's 6 in Florida not 12) returning a unanimous verdict of guilty on the Murder 2 charge. I'm not sure on whether they would be allowed to consider a lesser included charge of Manslaughter if they consider Zimmerman to be responsible for the actions that let up to Martin's death.



>>>>

 

[Wry Catcher]

A few of the things I know from the 'debate' on this issued: 1) if the race of the alleged killer and the victim were transposed, so would the opinions of most of those who posted above; 2) a jury will decide based on the evidence, not all of which has been released or reported or reported accurately, for the reason stated in number one; and 3) the shooter and many others who 'carry' (a weapon of any kind) have an impaired judgment and do things they would not ordinarily have done had they not had a weapon upon their person.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The legal standard is simple: If Zimmerman reasonably believed that Martin would cause him death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to use deadly force. He did not have to wait until he actually received serious bodily injury. You may not like the law, but that is irrelevant.

And the jury will be asked to weigh the same standard, Martin attempted to evade Zimmerman twice (once by walking away that the club house and once by running away from the truck) yet Zimmerman continued pursuit (from Martins perspective). So Zimmerman's actions leading up to the incident will be something the Jury will be asked to consider.

(Personally I don't think his actions rise to Murder 2, but that will be for the jury to decide.)

Zimmerman had multiple injuries to his face and head, but there was not a scratch on Martin (except for the knuckle that was split while pounding Zimmerman).

The autopsy report describes a 1/8 x 1/4 inch abrasion on the forth finger of the left hand (Martin's non-dominant hand). It was not described as a split knuckle and the was no indication in the autopsy report that it was even fresh.

Then then goes to counter Zimmerman's claims because if he as being "pounded" as you and he claim with Martin's fists there would have been more damage to Martin's hand's as the head is a pretty boney structured to "pound" upon. If you look at the police photographs from that night you will see very little damage to Zimmerman's face after the blood from a bloody nose was wiped off.




And another eyewitness claimed it was Martin yelling showing that he was attacked.



The evidence shows that Zimmerman was loosing the fight, the evidence does not show who attacked whom.

When you're defenseless and someone is beating the crap out of you, a minute is a long, long time.

Very true. If it is shown and accepted by the jury that Martin attacked Zimmerman then it will be all over.

On the other hand if the jury is convince that Zimmerman initiated hostilities and that Martin was therefore defending himself against an aggressor, then Zimmerman can be held responsible for leading up to the killing of Martin.


It will be interesting to watch how that plays out in front of the jury.

By the way, Zimmerman did not shoot a kid; he shot a fully grown man, a man who knocked him to the ground, sat on him and pounded him relentlessly. When a was a few weeks younger than Martin, I was in the Marine Corps. The Corps doesn't take kids, dear fellow.

If you were a few weeks younger than Martin (who had turned 17 two weeks before) that would have made you 16 years old. The Corps takes 16 year olds?



>>>>

 

[paperview]

...and a few hours after that picture...

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

 

[earlycuyler]

He shot an unarmed man because he started a fight and got his ass kicked. If he gets away free, he got away with murder.

Its that simple.

Well, it is Florida, and it seems that its ok to kill kids there. Its almost fashionable to do so.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The legal standard is simple: If Zimmerman reasonably believed that Martin would cause him death or serious bodily injury, he had the right to use deadly force. He did not have to wait until he actually received serious bodily injury. You may not like the law, but that is irrelevant.

And the jury will be asked to weigh the same standard, Martin attempted to evade Zimmerman twice (once by walking away that the club house and once by running away from the truck) yet Zimmerman continued pursuit (from Martins perspective). So Zimmerman's actions leading up to the incident will be something the Jury will be asked to consider.

(Personally I don't think his actions rise to Murder 2, but that will be for the jury to decide.)



The autopsy report describes a 1/8 x 1/4 inch abrasion on the forth finger of the left hand (Martin's non-dominant hand). It was not described as a split knuckle and the was no indication in the autopsy report that it was even fresh.

Then then goes to counter Zimmerman's claims because if he as being "pounded" as you and he claim with Martin's fists there would have been more damage to Martin's hand's as the head is a pretty boney structured to "pound" upon. If you look at the police photographs from that night you will see very little damage to Zimmerman's face after the blood from a bloody nose was wiped off.




And another eyewitness claimed it was Martin yelling showing that he was attacked.



The evidence shows that Zimmerman was loosing the fight, the evidence does not show who attacked whom.




Very true. If it is shown and accepted by the jury that Martin attacked Zimmerman then it will be all over.

On the other hand if the jury is convince that Zimmerman initiated hostilities and that Martin was therefore defending himself against an aggressor, then Zimmerman can be held responsible for leading up to the killing of Martin.


It will be interesting to watch how that plays out in front of the jury.

By the way, Zimmerman did not shoot a kid; he shot a fully grown man, a man who knocked him to the ground, sat on him and pounded him relentlessly. When a was a few weeks younger than Martin, I was in the Marine Corps. The Corps doesn't take kids, dear fellow.

If you were a few weeks younger than Martin (who had turned 17 two weeks before) that would have made you 16 years old. The Corps takes 16 year olds?



>>>>

Yep that's the one taken by the police at the scene. Now remember Zimmerman claimed that Martin tried to cover his mouth and nose, which is obviously bloody.


See any smearing?

Add to that there was no Zimmerman blood/DNA found on Martins hands nor was there any on the cuffs of his sweater.




Thanks for the photo.


>>>>

 

[Wry Catcher]

Always worth repeating after CrusaderFrank adds his .00002 sense to any thread:

A few of the things I know from the 'debate' on this issued: 1) if the race of the alleged killer and the victim were transposed, so would the opinions of most of those who posted above; 2) a jury will decide based on the evidence, not all of which has been released or reported or reported accurately, for the reason stated in number one; and 3) the shooter and many others who 'carry' (a weapon of any kind) have an impaired judgment and do things they would not ordinarily have done had they not had a weapon upon their person.

 

[Aristotle]

Didn't the cops say

"do not approach, wait until police arrive?"

Even if Trayvon approached him while Zimmerman was shaking like a little b*tch, there is a difference between hand-to-hand combat, and use of lethal force.

 

[Papageorgio]

He shot an unarmed man because he started a fight and got his ass kicked. If he gets away free, he got away with murder.

Its that simple.

That's seems to be your little old opinion.

 

[Zoom]

He shot an unarmed man because he started a fight and got his ass kicked. If he gets away free, he got away with murder.

Its that simple.

An unarmed man does not automatically translate to an innocent man.

It's that simple.

It does when that unarmed man was being profiled, followed, and confronted.