Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Terr

Not according to the law.

Actually, it does. Unless Zimmerman can convince a jury that he had no alternative. And given the evidence, I don't think he can.

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:
(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

"Mr. Zimmerman, what did you do to try and escape the danger you were facing before you actually shot Mr. Martin?"

"There wasn't anything I could do! He had me pinned and he was smashing my head into cement!"

"So he was pinning you down with one arm and smashing your head with the other, and you had no way of freeing yourself?"

"No!"

"But you were able to get your hand on your gun?"

"Yes, finally! It was very difficult, though!"

"And you were able to point it directly at Mr. Martin's chest and the squeeze the trigger?"

"Yes, but just barely! He was still smashing my head into the cement and holding me down!"

"Once your arm was free, the one that had the gun, did you try using your arm to push him off or hit him?"

"No, I couldn't!"

"Well, what about your legs, did you try to kick him or menuever him off of you in any way?"

"How could I? He had me pinned!"

"Yes, you said that... he pinned you with one arm, and used the other to smash your head repeatedly into the cement. Even after you had one arm free with a gun in your hand. And the only thing available to you to do at that point was to shoot?"

"Yes, exactly! I was desperate! I thought for sure he was going to kill me by smashing my head into the cement!"

"Mr. Zimmerman, once you got the gun out, did you try showing it to Mr. Martin and simply telling him that you would blow a hole in his chest if he didn't stop smashing your head into the cement?"

"No, I couldn't! He was smashing my head into the cement! The only thing I could do was shoot!"

"I'm sorry, I don't understand...why couldn't you tell him to stop or you'd shoot him?"

"Because I couldn't! He was smashing my head! I was nearly passing out! I couldn't speak!"

"I'm sorry, Mr. Zimmerman, I'm very confused... didn't you tell us that it was you screaming so loudly that at least four or five apartments nearby calling 911 captured your cries for help? And weren't you screaming like that right up until the actual second you squeezed the trigger? That's what we heard on multiple 911 tapes... how is it possible that you could scream like that but you couldn't quietly inform Mr. Martin that you would shoot him if he didn't stop?"

"Well, I, um, I was so panicked and confused, wait, I DID tell him! And he didn't care! That just made him do it harder!!"

"Really? You showed Mr. Martin the loaded gun and told him you would kill him with it and he just got worse, even though he had no weapon himself?"

"Well, I didn't know he didn't have a weapon!"

"True, but HE did. And so if you did say this to Mr. Martin and he just got worse, do you think you can describe, listening to the 911 tapes again, at what point you said this to him, between your desperate screams for help?"



And so on. If the prosecutor has two brain cells and the jury has at least 4 or 5 between them I can't see how Zimmerman is going to sell anyone on the idea that he exhausted every option available to him to stop Martin. Because he didn't.

So under the law, no self-defense.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

Unless an expert or a state official has vouched for the authenticity of that pic and the credibility of the person who took it, then yes I think it's stupid not only to assume that it's admissible, but to decry the state for not citing it in their arrest affidavit.

Even if that pic is legitimate, we have no reason to believe anyone involved in the investigation knew about it.

Oh, I agree that inveighing against the prosecution for not having the picture is foolish.

But I don't agree that it's a stupid assumption that it is admissible.

And it is not necessary to have an expert or a state official vouch for it to make it admissible.

Here's what needs to happen to make it admissible:

• The person who took the picture takes the witness stand
• the defense attorney asks the witness if s/he took the picture, when he took it, and if it is a fair and accurate representation of George Zimmerman's head at that time.
• the witness answers 'yes'

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

(2) is inaccurate. If we get to trial, then George must do (1). If he does, then the burden shifts to the prosecution, who must prove to the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the killing was NOT justified.

Yes, I understand that. But in practical terms, if he doesn't make it fly with a preponderance, he can't just say "Self-defense" without making any attempt to back it up for the jury- that makes it no job at all for the prosecution. They spin it the way they want, present their evidence, and GZ does nothing except hang a sign around his neck that says "self-defense"? I'm sure he's legally entitled, of course, and I'm also sure the jury would say guilty unless he made an effort to prove that it was actually self-defense. Otherwise the only story they have is the prosecution's and that won't support self-defense.

So no, he doesn't "have to prove it"... but he does if he wants to make the jury believe it.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

Here's what needs to happen to make it admissible:

• The person who took the picture takes the witness stand
• the defense attorney asks the witness if s/he took the picture, when he took it, and if it is a fair and accurate representation of George Zimmerman's head at that time.
• the witness answers 'yes'

I had a very funny exchange with the judge in the second half of the trial over this "foundation" stuff...niggling little details, very pesky. But important...

[DaHarder]

Originally Posted by Magiver

That's not not what Zimmerman "solely" described. He said Martin was acting suspicious and appeared messed up. Believe it or not, people can act suspicious and not be doing anything wrong.

...nor did I ever say that's what Zimmerman 'solely' described.

Rendering your (already weak) point is moot.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

But I don't agree that it's a stupid assumption that it is admissible.

If it was discovered that it was photoshopped or had a fradulent time stamp, would it be still admissible? I'm just wondering what exactly what would make it inadmissible, if all someone has to do is get on the witness stand and claim that it's real.

[you with the face]

I still stand by my statement that it's a stupid thing to say, by the way. The witness may not have any problems selling the pic to the press, but could be reluctant to take the stand for Team Z.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Yes, I understand that. But in practical terms, if he doesn't make it fly with a preponderance, he can't just say "Self-defense" without making any attempt to back it up for the jury- that makes it no job at all for the prosecution. They spin it the way they want, present their evidence, and GZ does nothing except hang a sign around his neck that says "self-defense"? I'm sure he's legally entitled, of course, and I'm also sure the jury would say guilty unless he made an effort to prove that it was actually self-defense. Otherwise the only story they have is the prosecution's and that won't support self-defense.

So no, he doesn't "have to prove it"... but he does if he wants to make the jury believe it.

Yes, but that's an issue with every defendant. Theoretically, every defendant is entitled to sit there and say nothing, and require the prosecution to prove each and every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In this case, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of self-defense to meet the defense's burden, which means that the prosecution must disprove the self-defense idea beyond a reasonable doubt. But of course every little bit helps.

The defense can introduce its case without Zimmerman's testimony, though in this case I don't see why they would want to.

Bottom line, though: the prosecution must prove there was no self-defense, and they must do so beyond a reasonable doubt. In other words, if the jury ends up thinking, "Well, it probably wasn't self-defense, but it might have been," then they cannot convict. They must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt in order to convict.

"Yeah, it coulda happened that way, but it probably didn't?" = not enough to convict

[Stoid]

Magiver, you have had so many difficulties with correctly tracking what's being said… I strongly urge you to more carefully examine what you think you're reading before you respond.

Originally Posted by dngnb8

1. Zim was Ricky Rescue with a trigger finger
2. Trayvon was a wannabe thug
JMHO, but this is what I believe was the scenario. These confronting aggressive personalities caused the powder keg to go boom

Originally Posted by Stoid

I know that there is a lot of solid evidence for the portrayal of George Zimmerman as Ricky Rescue, can you share the copious matching evidence for Martin as a wannabe thug?

Originally Posted by DaHarder

I've been following this story since the day it broke, and I'd reason that said 'evidence' (read: [U ignorance[/u]) is based solely upon the fact that Martin was a young black male wearing a hoodie while walking at night, and very little else.

Originally Posted by Magiver

That's not not what Zimmerman "solely" described. He said Martin was acting suspicious and appeared messed up. Believe it or not, people can act suspicious and not be doing anything wrong.

Originally Posted by DaHarder

...nor did I ever say that's what Zimmerman 'solely' described.
.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Bricker

In this case, in my opinion, there is sufficient evidence of self-defense to meet the defense's burden,

This really amazes me.

As for juries... If only we could peer inside their hearts...

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

If it was discovered that it was photoshopped or had a fradulent time stamp, would it be still admissible? I'm just wondering what exactly what would make it inadmissible, if all someone has to do is get on the witness stand and claim that it's real.

Originally Posted by you with the face

I still stand by my statement that it's a stupid thing to say, by the way. The witness may not have any problems selling the pic to the press, but could be reluctant to take the stand for Team Z.

Well, unless reluctance means, "Willing to perjure myself," no. The witness can be subpoenaed and asked under oath the questions I mentioned above.

Now, as to the first question... questions like that are usually directed to the weight of the evidence, not to it's admissibility. As long as the proper foundation is laid, via the questions I laid out, it's admissible. Or to use your words, yes: all someone has to do is get on the witness stand and claim that it's real.

If there is a claim it's been faked, then the other side presents its evidence and the jury weighs it, deciding how much weight to accord the picture.

It is possible to imagine such strong, incontrovertible evidence of alteration that the judge could rule that, as a matter of law, the photo was unreliable and not admissible. But that would require... er... strong, incontrovertible evidence of alteration.

So to be sure I understand you... You say it's stupid to assume the photo is admissible, because the photographer might be reluctant to testify?

I'm sorry, but I don't agree. I agree that some problem might arise affecting the admission of the photo as evidence, but it would be a rare event. Under the ordinary course of events as we see them now, it's very likely that the photo is admissible, and it would be a rare or unusual event that would make it not admissible. Do you disagree?

[you with the face]

If we take Zimmerman's statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don't see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

The 911 call tells us 3 things: Zimmerman had prejudged the kid as a bad person (state of mind), he actively pursued this supposedly bad person against 911 advice (poor judgement, impulsiveness, and lack of respect for authority), and he really really didn't want Martin to get away (intent to restrain or stalk him).

Martin was unarmed and smaller than Zimmerman. We have no evidence of any agenda on Martin's part to start shit with Zimmerman. His apparent mission had been to get snacks and talk to his girlfriend.

Zimmerman had a gun and an agenda. His apparent mission was to keep Martin the Asshole from getting away.

Martin ends up being killed by Zimmermans gun. The location suggests he was on his way home. There is no decent explanation for why Zimmerman was back there though. His truck was parked some distance away on the street. This suggests he got out of his car to go after Martin.

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Witnesses report some conflicting things. But there's some audio of someone yelling desperately for help, that abruptly ends when the gunshot goes off. Multiple witnesses say it was a boy who was yelling. Martins mother says it was her son. Two forensic voice experts rule out Zimmerman.

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it's undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn't have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

[you with the face]

And that's not even factoring in Zimmerman's previous arrests and employment history, and the statement from Martin's gf.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by you with the face

If we take Zimmerman's statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don't see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

'zackly.

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Oh PLEASE dont' forget the physical scene! That has to be part of the picture! Zimmerman's back is wet with grass clinging to it, the very strange position of Martin's body: facedown, arms underneath, body on the grass, legs partially on the sidewalk.

Witnesses report some conflicting things.

Including (just to be thorough... I can't remember all of them):

• Guy in red was on the bottom, guy in gray on top
• Someone saw martin screaming
• Someone saw two shadows, one chasing the other
• Two people (I believe) report seeing the guy in red on top of the dead guy, pushing on his back, it appeared.

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it's undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn't have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

By jove I think you have it on the NOSE.

Nicely done, you.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Yes, I understand that. But in practical terms, if he doesn't make it fly with a preponderance, he can't just say "Self-defense" without making any attempt to back it up for the jury- that makes it no job at all for the prosecution. They spin it the way they want, present their evidence, and GZ does nothing except hang a sign around his neck that says "self-defense"? I'm sure he's legally entitled, of course, and I'm also sure the jury would say guilty unless he made an effort to prove that it was actually self-defense. Otherwise the only story they have is the prosecution's and that won't support self-defense.

So no, he doesn't "have to prove it"... but he does if he wants to make the jury believe it.

The defence still don't have to prove anything - they have to cast doubt on the prosecution's case. If they can prove he's innocent, of course they will, but there's no need for them to do that. All they need to do is show that there is a plausible alternative to what the prosecution claim.

Now, in practical terms, if a great deal of the evidence points to it not being self defence, the defence will have a tough job doing this. In this particular case, where the evidence against Zimmerman is weak, showing the holes in the prosecution's case may well suffice.

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

If we take Zimmerman's statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don't see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

The 911 call tells us 3 things: Zimmerman had prejudged the kid as a bad person (state of mind), he actively pursued this supposedly bad person against 911 advice (poor judgement, impulsiveness, and lack of respect for authority), and he really really didn't want Martin to get away (intent to restrain or stalk him).

Martin was unarmed and smaller than Zimmerman. We have no evidence of any agenda on Martin's part to start shit with Zimmerman. His apparent mission had been to get snacks and talk to his girlfriend.

Zimmerman had a gun and an agenda. His apparent mission was to keep Martin the Asshole from getting away.

Martin ends up being killed by Zimmermans gun. The location suggests he was on his way home. There is no decent explanation for why Zimmerman was back there though. His truck was parked some distance away on the street. This suggests he got out of his car to go after Martin.

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Witnesses report some conflicting things. But there's some audio of someone yelling desperately for help, that abruptly ends when the gunshot goes off. Multiple witnesses say it was a boy who was yelling. Martins mother says it was her son. Two forensic voice experts rule out Zimmerman.

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it's undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn't have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

The thing is that the defense is also allowed a chance to present a theory of the case to the jury. Many of the arguments you urge on the finder of fact have other arguments that can be presented.

For example, you say that Martin was smaller than Zimmerman. He wasn't: he towered over the 5'8" Zimmerman by a full seven inches. I have no idea how you saw Zimmerman breathing through his nose; I saw a man with a broken nose breathing through his mouth. His head had no bandages because the EMTs used cyanoacrylate, the GluStitch product they carry, to close his wounds. The jury can't hear from the forensic experts because their technique doesn't meet the Frye standard for admissibility. And the defense has experts who will testify to the contrary anyway.

All of these points have been raised before. Why did you fail to include them in your summary?

And then we get to this gem: "... it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn't have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world."

The jury cannot rest a verdict on imagination. Even though the scenario you paint is possible - for this discussion I'd even go "probable" - but you can't say that this is the only reasonable scenario, can you? The jury has to be able to rest a verdict on so etching beyond, "It probably happened this way."

[Bricker]

Originally Posted by you with the face

And that's not even factoring in Zimmerman's previous arrests and employment history, and the statement from Martin's gf.

Not admissible.

Well, the GF statement might be. Zimmerman's arrest is definitely not.

And you suggest it's stupid to assume the picture is admissible, when it most likely is, and you assume Zimmerman's previous arrest is admissible when it certainly is not.

Why?

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Stoid

• Guy in red was on the bottom, guy in gray on top
• Someone saw martin screaming
• Someone saw two shadows, one chasing the other
• Two people (I believe) report seeing the guy in red on top of the dead guy, pushing on his back, it appeared.

Just to be thorough:

1. Guy in red on bottom, beaten up by guy on top of him, and screaming for help, yes.
2. No one "saw martin screaming".
3. Rumor from prosecutor.
4. They claimed they saw Zimmerman standing (emphasize: standing) over the dead guy, leaning over and touching his back. Bear in mind that it's the same witness (and her partner) that called the police after the shots and reported black guy standing over the dead guy.

[JoelUpchurch]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mari-f...b_1441261.html

I tend agree with her, but she overlooked the most important member of O'Mara's audience, Judge Kenneth Lester. I think Lester's comments when he granted bail sound like O'Mara made his point. If Judge Lester rules in Zimmerman's favor during the self-defense hearing, then a jury is never going to see the evidence.

If you think that is unlikely, then you need to read up on the Garcia case.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/2...-the-back.html

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

If we take Zimmerman's statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don't see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

We can't take Zimmerman's statement off the table, as it's the single most important piece of evidence in this case - that is, the statement of the only person who actually knows what happened. However, that doesn't mean that, even if we did, the evidence proves his guilt.

Originally Posted by you with the face

The 911 call tells us 3 things: Zimmerman had prejudged the kid as a bad person (state of mind), he actively pursued this supposedly bad person against 911 advice (poor judgement, impulsiveness, and lack of respect for authority), and he really really didn't want Martin to get away (intent to restrain or stalk him).

The only one of those that's true is that he showed poor judgement. You can't say he prejudged Martin as a bad person, merely because he considered he was acting suspiciously. It's a good thing to call the police if one sees someone acting suspiciously! There's no reason to assume he intended to restrain Martin, and as far as I'm aware he'd had no prior contact with him, so stalking him is impossible.

Originally Posted by you with the face

Martin was unarmed and smaller than Zimmerman. We have no evidence of any agenda on Martin's part to start shit with Zimmerman. His apparent mission had been to get snacks and talk to his girlfriend.

Martin was 6 inches taller than Zimmerman, and an athlete compared to a couch potato. We also do have evidence that Martin was the one to initiate contact - the statements from both Martin's girlfriend and Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by you with the face

Zimmerman had a gun and an agenda. His apparent mission was to keep Martin the Asshole from getting away.

He had a gun he was legally entitled to carry, and an agenda to ensure the police could find Martin the Suspicious Person.

Originally Posted by you with the face

Martin ends up being killed by Zimmermans gun. The location suggests he was on his way home. There is no decent explanation for why Zimmerman was back there though. His truck was parked some distance away on the street. This suggests he got out of his car to go after Martin.

Zimmerman was there because he wanted to make sure he knew where Martin was when the police arrived. If Martin had gone straight to the place he was staying (not his home) he would not have encountered Zimmerman, based on the times of Zimmerman's 911 call and Martin's call to his girlfriend. Zimmerman told the 911 operator he was following Martin, that fact isn't in doubt, and whilst he was advised not to, he had every right to do so.

Originally Posted by you with the face

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Zimmerman certainly has injuries of that nature, which were treated to some extent before he was interviewed by the police, and fully treated the next day.

Originally Posted by you with the face

Witnesses report some conflicting things. But there's some audio of someone yelling desperately for help, that abruptly ends when the gunshot goes off. Multiple witnesses say it was a boy who was yelling. Martins mother says it was her son. Two forensic voice experts rule out Zimmerman.

As you say, the witness reports conflict. One of Zimmerman's relatives, I think his father, says it was Zimmerman screaming. Other voice experts have claimed that the tests used aren't conclusive. In short, doubt all round.

Originally Posted by you with the face

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it's undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn't have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

We cant ignore his claim of self defence. But even if we do, I've been able to cast significant doubt on every single claim you've made against Zimmerman. Reasonable doubt equals no conviction.

There may of course be more evidence that shows he is guilty, but having seen the testimony at the bail hearing I'm inclined to doubt it. I'm actually starting to change my position from Zimmerman being quite possibly factually guilty, but unconvictable, to actually being entirely innocent. Which would be the best outcome all round at this stage.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Stoid

This really amazes me.

As for juries... If only we could peer inside their hearts...

What the hell do you know about getting beaten? Have you ever, in your entire life, been in a street fight?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by DaHarder

...nor did I ever say that's what Zimmerman 'solely' described.

Rendering your (already weak) point is moot.

to date, nothing Zimmerman did was inconsistent with the story so far.

[not what you'd expect]

Originally Posted by Bricker

I have no idea how you saw Zimmerman breathing through his nose; I saw a man with a broken nose breathing through his mouth.

I've not been able to keep up with this case much lately, is there new video that shows a broken nose?

The wounds on the back of the head don't look serious enough to warrant killing someone in my opinion. The blood amount doesn't impress me much. Head wounds bleed a lot. Provided those new pictures are real anyway.

I do have doubts about the murder charge though. I'd vote manslaughter with the little I know so far.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Bricker

The thing is that the defense is also allowed a chance to present a theory of the case to the jury. Many of the arguments you urge on the finder of fact have other arguments that can be presented.

So what? That applies for any murder trial. The defense can come up with all kind of theories. Doesn't mean that their theories will be all that persuasive.

For example, you say that Martin was smaller than Zimmerman. He wasn't: he towered over the 5'8" Zimmerman by a full seven inches.

Okay, take Martins size out of it then. The kid was unarmed, Zimmerman was not. To assume their respective behavior wouldn't have reflected this disparity is far fetched.

I have no idea how you saw Zimmerman breathing through his nose; I saw a man with a broken nose breathing through his mouth.

Look at the video. His mouth is closed throughout most of the footage.

His head had no bandages because the EMTs used cyanoacrylate, the GluStitch product they carry, to close his wounds.

How likely is it that they are going to claim this, when Zimmermans lawyers had claimed early on the guy had needed stitches but didn't get them because it was too late. You might imagine them saying something like this, but if they do, the state can easily refute it. All it takes is one EMT to say they dont use glue for dirty head wounds, and Zimmerman didn't receive that treatment from them. So what would be the point?

The jury can't hear from the forensic experts because their technique doesn't meet the Frye standard for admissibility. And the defense has experts who will testify to the contrary anyway.

Okay, but how believable will those experts likely be?

The jury cannot rest a verdict on imagination. Even though the scenario you paint is possible - for this discussion I'd even go "probable" - but you can't say that this is the only reasonable scenario, can you? The jury has to be able to rest a verdict on so etching beyond, "It probably happened this way."

Okay, so answer me this. Do you think it's rare to score a murder conviction with the level of evidence that the state has against Zimmerman? What exactly makes this case so difficult to prove relative to other murder cases? What facts have come to light which suggests that the state has an inordinately steep uphill battle to fight? Because I dont see it at all.

[you with the face]

I didn't say his arrests were admissible. That's why I didn't factor them in.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Magiver

What the hell do you know about getting beaten? Have you ever, in your entire life, been in a street fight?

And this is appropos of what, exactly?

(No, never been in a fight. Yes, been randomly attacked by a large - 6'3", 300 pound - crazy man with huge fists who punched me in the mouth and split my lip. Four stitches worth of fun.)

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by not what you'd expect

The wounds on the back of the head don't look serious enough to warrant killing someone in my opinion. The blood amount doesn't impress me much. Head wounds bleed a lot. Provided those new pictures are real anyway.

The wounds on the back of his head are consistent with being struck against a hard object. In this case, the blood shows trauma to the head which is the real danger. He wasn't in danger of bleeding to death but he was in danger of brain damage assuming his story is true. And has been so often repeated, the state has to prove his story is false.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Terr

Just to be thorough:
1. Guy in red on bottom, beaten up by guy on top of him, and screaming for help, yes.

Really? Nah, I don't think so. Unless you can link to the source you have for a witness claiming:

• the guy on the bottom was beaten up at all
• beaten up BY the guy on top of him
• AND that the guy on the bottom was the one screaming for help.

(And George Zimmerman is not a source.)

2. No one "saw martin screaming".

Oops! You're right. They saw the two men, the heard the cries. But the police were kind enough to correct the witnesses who heard it, wasn't that helpful of them too straighten people out about what they heard and saw? Gosh, it's good to know the police are there to keep us on track.

Another officer corrected a witness after she told him that she heard the teen cry for help.

12. A police officer “corrected” a key witness. “The officer told the witness, a long-time teacher, it was Zimmerman who cried for help, said the witness. ABC News has spoken to the teacher and she confirmed that the officer corrected her when she said she heard the teenager shout for help.” [ABC News]

They might also investigate allegations of police misconduct, including a charge by one eyewitness that an officer on the scene of Martin's shooting told her to change her story. The witness says she stated that Martin had been screaming for help before he was shot, but that the officer "corrected" her and insisted it was Zimmerman who'd called for help, according to ABC News.

3. Rumor from prosecutor.

"rumor"? On what basis do you dismiss it as a rumor?

4. They claimed they saw Zimmerman standing (emphasize: standing) over the dead guy, leaning over and touching his back. Bear in mind that it's the same witness (and her partner) that called the police after the shots and reported black guy standing over the dead guy.

You are KILLING me with this crap. If GZ's story is true, why not stick to the truth?

She and her friend say they heard the sounds from a few steps away, where they were inside beside an open window. Seconds later, they dashed out to find a boy face down on the ground and a man standing over him, a foot on each side of the body on the ground, with his hands pinning the shooting victim down.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by Stoid

I don't care if his nose was broken and he had a goose egg on the back of his head, because that does NOT prove that at the moment he pulled the trigger, blowing a hole in Martin's chest, he was defending himself from Martin's ongoing "attack". It proves that he got hurt, and maybe it proves that Martin helped him get hurt. But since the only way that a man with a gun can sell the idea that he has to kill an unarmed man to save himself is if he is physically prevented from getting away from the attack, Zimmerman had to claim that martin was on top of him, holding him down and preventing him from getting away so he had to shoot him to stop the attack. And that's horseshit, from all the evidence we have available. Pure, unadulterated horseshit. Almost nothing supports Gz's (purported!) version of what happened, and I have no doubt at all that his statements to police were very contradictory. He had to think on his feet to come up with a good enough story to get away with killing Martin, and I'm sure he fucked it up plenty.

You've done generally a better job of keeping a more nuanced/dispassionate view of this than most of your compatriots but you really go off the rails here.

A few things:

1. No, Zimmerman does not have to claim Martin was on top of him and holding him down to justify his shooting legally. Legal self defense shootings do not require the shooter to be physically touched by the other person, even in non-SYG states.

2. I have no idea how you can have no doubt at all about Zimmerman's statements to the police. That's like me showing you a black box and telling you I have a baseball card in the box, and you saying you have no doubt at all it is a Babe Ruth card, that's the height of ridiculousness. You're asserting you have no doubt at all about something you cannot know, which means you position of no doubt is not based on facts.

3. I agree with you Zimmerman's injuries do not prove much of anything on their own, I think ywtf has been overly focused on them. I think it very likely though, that since we've now heard Zimmerman's attorney discuss a broken nose in court there is a high likelihood of un-ambiguous medical records showing a broken nose.

However, I've never felt the issue of the injuries was important. Early on, we had no idea what Zimmerman's claims were about his injuries, we had just heard second hand information from his father. At that point, the only important issue with the injuries was some people felt the police said that Zimmerman had "injuries consistent with his story" when he was not injured at all (based on a grainy video in a police station.)

The only way I could see the injuries being important, is if Zimmerman had no injuries whatsoever--because that would cast severe doubt on his story as we know it. Since I don't believe very many rational people will say there were no injuries at all at this point, I think most people should recognize severity of the injuries is essentially irrelevant. Zimmerman's justification or lack thereof is not based on how injured he was but whether or not he had a reasonable fear for his life or health and safety; legally Zimmerman could have shot Trayvon without a scratch on him and been legally justified. Zimmerman also could have shot Trayvon and himself suffered immense wounds and been legally unjustified. The wounds themselves are demonstrative of anything in the inherent legality of the shooting.

[Martin Hyde]

Originally Posted by DaHarder

Now you're just being ridiculous, as any reasonable individual knows full-well that 'late teens' would be from 17-19 years of age, and 'around' the age of 28 (Zimmerman's actual age, not the one you made up) is far beyond that age-group.

You would never be able to sustain a perjury conviction against someone based on them saying one night on a phone call (right before a traumatic incident) that they saw someone "who appeared in their late teens" and who then later said they thought the person was "only a few years younger than myself."

Further, it's plausible that when Zimmerman spoke with the 911 dispatcher, seeing Trayvon from a distance, he thought he was late teens. It's possible when he pulled the trigger (after potentially getting his ass whipped) he thought Trayvon was older, perhaps early 20s to early-mid 20s (24/25.)

I know that just by talking about a plausible explanation I will be considered acting in Zimmerman's defense, but I'll go through the fruitless exercise of saying: I'm not. Zimmerman obviously probably practiced at least parts of his apology before hand to some degree so he may have added things in to try and make his actions seem more sympathetic and may have intentionally fudged things a little bit. But the discrepancy is not significant enough to be able to say, prosecute Zimmerman for lying under oath. And since a jury isn't empaneled yet (to my knowledge), the statements won't really matter when it comes to the trial at large.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Stoid

And this is appropos of what, exactly?

(No, never been in a fight. Yes, been randomly attacked by a large - 6'3", 300 pound - crazy man with huge fists who punched me in the mouth and split my lip. Four stitches worth of fun.)

I ask you because you said you were amazed when Bricker said there is sufficient evidence of self-defense to meet the defense's burden.

Maybe I misunderstood your meaning but it appears to me that you don't understand what it's like to get your head slammed into a solid object. Getting punched in the face hurts. It's nothing compared to getting your head slammed into concrete. That's a serious, life threatening event.

So far..... SO FAR..... Zimmerman's story is consistent. The major part of this case is whether or not his life was threatened. The rest of the story is window dressing leading up to the event.

It would be nice if there was a video of Zimmerman starting the fight. It would conflict with his story. However, it's more LOGICAL that he maintained sight of Martin knowing the police were minutes away and continued to pursue him.

It's more LOGICAL that Martin was insulted by Zimmerman's challenge when the 2 met up and started a fight. In the absence of this information we're left with: Zimmerman's account, physical evidence, and eye witnesses. Right now now, all that lines up with his story.

[Steophan]

One reason the injuries could be significant in a trial is to cast doubt on any claim by the prosecution that Zimmerman was in no danger. Another reason is that if it can be shown that Zimmerman was injured and Martin not it will cast doubt on the idea that Zimmerman started the confrontation.

Conversely, if there are no injuries to Zimmerman, it may impair his credibility as a witness.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Really? Nah, I don't think so. Unless you can link to the source you have for a witness claiming:

• the guy on the bottom was beaten up at all
• beaten up BY the guy on top of him
• AND that the guy on the bottom was the one screaming for help.

(And George Zimmerman is not a source.)

This information has only been posted a hundred times:

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news...od-altercation

"The guy on the bottom, who had a red sweater on, was yelling to me, 'Help! Help!' and I told him to stop, and I was calling 911," said the witness, who asked to be identified only by his first name, John.

John said he locked his patio door, ran upstairs and heard at least one gun shot.

"And then, when I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on the top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point."

Oops! You're right. They saw the two men, the heard the cries. But the police were kind enough to correct the witnesses who heard it, wasn't that helpful of them too straighten people out about what they heard and saw? Gosh, it's good to know the police are there to keep us on track.

Not one person saw Martin screaming for help. Some heard screams for help and claim it was Martin, without ever hearing Martin before the incident.

"rumor"? On what basis do you dismiss it as a rumor?

Link to the evidence.

You are KILLING me with this crap. If GZ's story is true, why not stick to the truth?

Sticking to the truth: She and her friend say they heard the sounds from a few steps away, where they were inside beside an open window. Seconds later, they dashed out to find a boy face down on the ground and a man standing over him, a foot on each side of the body on the ground, with his hands pinning the shooting victim down.

Do you want me to link to you the article that says this witness called the police to report a black man standing over a dead man? And if I do, will that convince you as to the reliability (well, lack of such) of this witness?

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Magiver

The wounds on the back of his head are consistent with being struck against a hard object.

What hard object?

[pohjonen]

Originally Posted by Steophan

...You can't say he prejudged Martin as a bad person, merely because he considered he was acting suspiciously...

Yes we can, and we need only his own words ("These assholes always get away") to do it.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Steophan

We can't take Zimmerman's statement off the table, as it's the single most important piece of evidence in this case

Really? The guy who is going on trial for second degree murder is the guy we can trust to give us the straight story? For god's sake...

You can't say he prejudged Martin as a bad person, merely because he considered he was acting suspiciously.

No, we can say it because he referred to "thse assholes", meaning martin as a member of the "assholes" - do you think he thought Martin was a great guy and asshole was an endearment?

It's a good thing to call the police if one sees someone acting suspiciously!

And what was suspicious abotu Martin again? I mean, aside from being a black male in a hoodie, which I understand is inherently suspicious.

There's no reason to assume he intended to restrain Martin,

No, of course not, if you pretend you never heard the 911 call.

Martin was 6 inches taller than Zimmerman, and an athlete compared to a couch potato.

A string bean kid compared to a former fat guy who worked out and got himself in good shape because he wanted to be a hero-cop.

Zimmerman was there because he wanted to make sure he knew where Martin was when the police arrived. If Martin had gone straight to the place he was staying (not his home) he would not have encountered Zimmerman, based on the times of Zimmerman's 911 call and Martin's call to his girlfriend.

So Martin's at fault for not running home immediately, thereby giving Zimmerman the opportunity to be the asshole playing hero?

he had every right to do so.

I'm getting really sick of people saying that Zimmerman "had every right" to follow and question Martin as though it is identical in meaning to saying that Zimmerman was not prohibited from doing it. Not really the same thing. And if you doubt it, let's have you followed and questioned randomly and see if you want to characterize the people doing it as "having every right" to do it. People also have a right to be unmolested when they are innocent of wrongdoing, what about that right?

As you say, the witness reports conflict. One of Zimmerman's relatives, I think his father, says it was Zimmerman screaming. Other voice experts have claimed that the tests used aren't conclusive. In short, doubt all round.

Not really. Zimmerman's dad saying it was zimmerman means nothing. Zimmerman saying it was zimmerman means nothing.

But if you think there's a genuine possibility that it really was Zimmerman, I urge you to take a crack at the prosecution questioning Zimmerman as I did above, show us how Zimmerman answers those questions, how the idea of him screaming for help when he had a gun in his hand makes sense. Please.

And FTR: pretty much everyone who was there and heard it in person, along with experts and everyone else, does not find it remotely credible that the voice in the background is Zimmerman's. It does not in any rational way square with his version of events, and it does not in any way sound like a 28 year old man, and it for sure doesn't sound like a 28 year old man holding a gun and getting ready to shoot this boy. What it absolutely DOES sound like is a deeply terrified young man. Like a young man looking at a gun, maybe holding the arm that's holding the gun, trying to keep it from being aimed at him because he doesn't want to die.

How anyone could listen to that sound and not be heartsick is beyond my ability to understand.

But even if we do, I've been able to cast significant doubt on every single claim you've made against Zimmerman. Reasonable doubt equals no conviction.

Not.

Originally Posted by Magiver

to date, nothing Zimmerman did was inconsistent with the story so far.

What does this mean?

[DaHarder]

Originally Posted by you with the face

If we take Zimmerman's statement off the table and simply look at the picture communicated by both the circumstantial and physical evidence, I don't see how one can assume Zimmerman shot Martin for self defense.

The 911 call tells us 3 things: Zimmerman had prejudged the kid as a bad person (state of mind), he actively pursued this supposedly bad person against 911 advice (poor judgement, impulsiveness, and lack of respect for authority), and he really really didn't want Martin to get away (intent to restrain or stalk him).

Martin was unarmed and smaller than Zimmerman. We have no evidence of any agenda on Martin's part to start shit with Zimmerman. His apparent mission had been to get snacks and talk to his girlfriend.

Zimmerman had a gun and an agenda. His apparent mission was to keep Martin the Asshole from getting away.

Martin ends up being killed by Zimmermans gun. The location suggests he was on his way home. There is no decent explanation for why Zimmerman was back there though. His truck was parked some distance away on the street. This suggests he got out of his car to go after Martin.

Zimmerman possibly has injuries but none that leave him so incapacitated by pain or discomfort that he needed emergency care before enduring a 5 hour stay at the PD. He is seen breathing out of his nose on a surveillance video and his head is in without bandageds.

Witnesses report some conflicting things. But there's some audio of someone yelling desperately for help, that abruptly ends when the gunshot goes off. Multiple witnesses say it was a boy who was yelling. Martins mother says it was her son. Two forensic voice experts rule out Zimmerman.

Question: how does any of this paint a picture of self-defense? It seems to me we have more compelling evidence against Zimmerman than we do for most murder cases. The only difference is that it's undisputable that Zimmerman killed Martin. If we ignore his claim of self-defense and just connect the dots, it takes little imagination to paint of picture of an impulsive, stupid man with a need to feel important and heroic, who jumps to conclusions about Martin, assumes an authority that he doesn't have by going after him, corners the boy and incites a struggle that causes him to panic and pull out of his gun, the boy screams for help at that point, and Zimmerman shoots him to restore control to his world. The end.

Well Done... and if there's any justice this world, this is exactly the criteria on which Zimmerman will be judged.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

What hard object?

well from all the accounts that would be the sidewalk that runs between the houses. That squares with the witness who said he locked his screen door which would be at the back of the house (condo's really) and the witness who said she saw people run by. They're connected condo's with a common sidewalk in the back.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Magiver

well from all the accounts that would be the sidewalk that runs between the houses. That squares with the witness who said he locked his screen door which would be at the back of the house (condo's really).

There is an eyewitness that said the struggle took place entirely on the grass, well away from the sidewalk.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

There is an eyewitness that said the struggle took place entirely on the grass, well away from the sidewalk.

His head wound suggests otherwise. That's physical evidence.

[you with the face]

Originally Posted by Magiver

His head wound suggests otherwise. That's physical evidence.

It's not evidence that Martin gave him that wound though.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Really? The guy who is going on trial for second degree murder is the guy we can trust to give us the straight story? For god's sake...

Now who's prejudging someone? Look, Zimmerman's statement is the single most important piece of evidence. If his story is consistent with the physical evidence, he walks. If it's not, he goes to prison for a long time. That's how this will go in practice. Of course, the reason people like you and you with the face want to ignore it is because it is consistent with the evidence we've seen so far.

I'm getting really sick of people saying that Zimmerman "had every right" to follow and question Martin as though it is identical in meaning to saying that Zimmerman was not prohibited from doing it. Not really the same thing. And if you doubt it, let's have you followed and questioned randomly and see if you want to characterize the people doing it as "having every right" to do it. People also have a right to be unmolested when they are innocent of wrongdoing, what about that right?

If you "have me followed" I'll have you done for harassment, unless you are a law enforcement official with a warrant. If Zimmerman harassed Martin, it's a crime. If he followed him for a short period of time to ensure the police could find him, and asked him what he was doing in the neighbourhood, he's done nothing wrong. Not only is it perfectly legal, it's perfectly fine.

Zimmerman's dad saying it was zimmerman means nothing. Zimmerman saying it was zimmerman means nothing.

Exactly as much as Martin's mum saying it was Martin. That was my point...

But if you think there's a genuine possibility that it really was Zimmerman, I urge you to take a crack at the prosecution questioning Zimmerman as I did above, show us how Zimmerman answers those questions, how the idea of him screaming for help when he had a gun in his hand makes sense. Please.

Zimmerman has claimed that he was in fear of serious injury or death. I think the screaming is quite consistent with that of someone in that state. You are assuming that he had the gun in his hand for some time before he fired it, but you have nothing to base that on - it's quite possible that he was screaming whilst he tried to push Martin off him for long enough to get his gun and fire.

And FTR: pretty much everyone who was there and heard it in person, along with experts and everyone else, does not find it remotely credible that the voice in the background is Zimmerman's. It does not in any rational way square with his version of events, and it does not in any way sound like a 28 year old man, and it for sure doesn't sound like a 28 year old man holding a gun and getting ready to shoot this boy. What it absolutely DOES sound like is a deeply terrified young man. Like a young man looking at a gun, maybe holding the arm that's holding the gun, trying to keep it from being aimed at him because he doesn't want to die.

It could just as easily be the sound of a man terrified of the guy on top of him, who's punching his face and slamming his head into the ground. You know, the guy who had to kill someone because he was in fear of, at minimum, serious injury. The kind that comes from brain damage from having his head pounded into the ground.

How anyone could listen to that sound and not be heartsick is beyond my ability to understand.

Oh, someone was certainly in great fear, and it's certainly deeply unpleasant to hear. I'm astonished that you think you can tell who it was simply from the screams, when you've never heard either of them scream before. I'm even more astonished that you'd pick the one that, according to witnesses, was on top of the other guy, and who had succeeded in injuring the other guy pretty significantly.

It is possible that Zimmerman held Martin at gunpoint, and it was Martin screaming. The only evidence we have for that is Martin's mother identifying his voice from a low-quality recording - and if you want to ignore Zimmerman's testimony because of bias, you must surely ignore Martin's mother's opinion for the same reason.

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by you with the face

It's not evidence that Martin gave him that wound though.

No, but the witness who saw the fight with Martin on top is.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

There is an eyewitness that said the struggle took place entirely on the grass, well away from the sidewalk.

according to Martin's father the police said his son's body was next to the sidewalk with his feet on the sidewalk.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

There is an eyewitness that said the struggle took place entirely on the grass, well away from the sidewalk.

There is no eyewitness that saw the entire struggle.

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by you with the face

It's not evidence that Martin gave him that wound though.

[Stoid]

Originally Posted by Martin Hyde

You've done generally a better job of keeping a more nuanced/dispassionate view of this than most of your compatriots

A sincere thanks for the acknowledgment. Very much appreciated.

Now to the blasting...

but you really go off the rails here.

A few things:

1. No, Zimmerman does not have to claim Martin was on top of him and holding him down to justify his shooting legally. Legal self defense shootings do not require the shooter to be physically touched by the other person, even in non-SYG states.

My point was and is: let's say Martin punches Zim, knocks him down. Gets on top and punches again. Zim manages to push him off and stand up, or even get to his knees and pull his gun. He is not restrained, he can get up and walk or run, he is not facing a weapon, he has a deadly weapon out and ready. He is no longer in need of defending himself by shooting because he can threaten Martin, he can walk away, he can run away, he can hit Martin with the gun, hell, he can shoot martin in the knee. But what he actually does is shoot Martin in the chest.

In order to be self-defense he has to be facing an immediate threat. Which is why the injuries don't mean much. They certainly do not prove that at the moment Zimmerman pulled the trigger he was actually being attacked and had no alternative. They merely suggest that there was an altercation and martin got a couple good ones in. It says nothing about the moment when Zimmerman actually killed Martin and if you genuinely believe it does, then you, too, please go back to my prosecution scene and do it differently. Make it make sense. Pretend to be pinning Zimmerman to the wall and tell us the answers you think are reasonable and believable. Seriously. I may be blind to it so show me because with what we have so far I simply cannot see how those pieces fit.

2. I have no idea how you can have no doubt at all about Zimmerman's statements to the police. That's like me showing you a black box and telling you I have a baseball card in the box, and you saying you have no doubt at all it is a Babe Ruth card, that's the height of ridiculousness. You're asserting you have no doubt at all about something you cannot know, which means you position of no doubt is not based on facts.

This is about the head on the concrete, right? I am not coming from gut feelings, I'm talking about the evidence. Zimmerman's wet shirt and grass, Martin's position, the timing. Did you review the timeline breakdown that someone posted that was written by a woman named Susan?It was in the closed thread towards the end. It was like she was in my head...read that and you will understand why I do not believe for a second that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into concrete at any time, much less at the moment Zimmerman pulled the trigger. I very much doubt he was bashing his head into soft, wet earth, but if he was bashing his head into anything at all, that's what it was.

Zimmerman's justification or lack thereof is not based on how injured he was but whether or not he had a reasonable fear for his life or health and safety;

YES...AT THE MOMENT HE ACTED. (Also my earlier breakdown of all that was directly related to the issue of Zimmerman being the aggressor - Bricker agreed that my example woman scenario would show the woman entitled to attack the man... transfer that to Martin attacking Zimmerman, which he would be entitled to do. That would make Zimmerman the aggressor, and others would immediately rush to point out that he still has the right to claim self defense if he feared for his life, which makes ME rush to point out that he has to show that he exhausted all the alternatives before going for the killshot. If his arm was free and had a gun in it, I think right then and there he's got alternatives that he obviously failed to exhaust before killing Martin...hence he's the aggressor, hence he doesnt' get to claim self-defense, hence my prosecution script.)

Originally Posted by Magiver

I Getting punched in the face hurts.

Actually it didn't. Blood spurting everywhere I didn't feel any pain at all, I was stunned and my lips felt numb. It didnt' hurt until after the novacaine wore off after the stitches. THEN it hurt.

It's nothing compared to getting your head slammed into concrete.That's a serious, life threatening event.

I agree. And the evidence says it never happened.

Originally Posted by Terr

Do you want me to link to you the article that says this witness called the police to report a black man standing over a dead man? And if I do, will that convince you as to the reliability (well, lack of such) of this witness?

I'm very familiar. First, I was laying out all the various statements, you were the one who felt the need to try and discredit them individually. Having made such an effort, I hope you are intellectually honest about it and recognize that your favorite witness is the ONLY one who says it was Zimmerman, and he didn't show up until later?

I think we should all know by now that eyewitness testimony has been proven to be extremely imperfect. So to the extent we must rely on it, we need to consider many other factors in conjunction with it, no matter who it appears to favor. Does the physical evidence match? How many people seem to be in agreement? Etc.

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Magiver

His head wound suggests otherwise. That's physical evidence.

I saw blood on his head. I still don't know whose blood it is.

[Terr]

Originally Posted by Stoid

I'm very familiar. First, I was laying out all the various statements, you were the one who felt the need to try and discredit them individually. Having made such an effort, I hope you are intellectually honest about it and recognize that your favorite witness is the ONLY one who says it was Zimmerman, and he didn't show up until later?

And you're wrong yet again. He didn't "show up until later". He talked to the press "later" (that is, the day after the incident). He reported his eyewitness account to the authorities immediately. From the article published the day after the incident: "A man who witnessed part of the altercation contacted authorities."

And yes, he's the only one reporting Martin on top of Zimmerman. That's one more eyewitness than the zero that report seeing Zimmerman sitting on top of Martin beating him up.

And if you're "very familiar" with the obviously wrong testimony that Cutcher gave the police, why are you citing her as a witness in your list?

[Magiver]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

I saw blood on his head. I still don't know whose blood it is.

It's clear from the picture it's coming from a wound and the police report notated his injuries.