# Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [April 18, 2012, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125 "2012-04-18T04:41:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/181 "2012-04-20T18:06:56Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > They also said that they have evidence in conflict with his statement. If we have verified lies about him going back to his truck, and about the ridiculous street sign excuse, then isn’t his whole story in doubt? What evidence is there that shows Zimmerman did not go back to his truck, or that proves that he did actually know what the sign said? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/182 "2012-04-20T18:07:21Z")
That they have evidence that contradicts his statement. So therefore his statement was not 100% true. What’s not clear about this? ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/183 "2012-04-20T18:08:38Z")
I said forget about those parts of my post I’m commenting on this: "Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman’s statements to police? Investigator: Yes" His statement is not 100% true. What causes a person to make false statements to the police? I wonder … ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/184 "2012-04-20T18:09:42Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > They also said that they have evidence in conflict with his statement. If we have verified lies about him going back to his truck, and about the ridiculous street sign excuse, then isn’t his whole story in doubt? How can we take anything he says with any credibility if his story has been proven to contain lies? If everything he did was on the up and up, then why lie to the police? Wait a second. Where did you get the verified lies business? > [@](#): > > O’Mara: Do you have evidence to refute Mr Zimmerman’s claim he turned around and was heading back in the direction of his truck? > > Gilbreath : No ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/185 "2012-04-20T18:10:17Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > That they have evidence that contradicts his statement. > > So therefore his statement was not 100% true. Wrong. They say they have evidence that contradicts his statement. That does not mean the evidence is correct, or that it is not contradicted by other evidence. As we saw from the affidavit of probable cause, the prosecution has this thing about not mentioning any evidence at all that may contradict their case. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/186 "2012-04-20T18:10:37Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > It only has been cited in these Zimmerman threads a few dozen times. > > [Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html) > > Section 776.041 Subsection 2(a) 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; [quote] I haven’t been following the other threads. I’d like to see more legal analysis on this topic. Since it’s Florida I wouldn’t be surprised if the law was intended to say you could attack someone and then kill them if they fought back, but I think it may require more interpretation than that. > [@](#): > > Apart from which, the prosecution during today’s hearings testified, under oath, that they have no evidence on who started the fight. I’m not clear on this response. I assumed it meant no eyewitnesses that could establish that. The evidence as a whole could still lead to a conclusion that Zimmerman started the fight. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/187 "2012-04-20T18:10:49Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > That they have evidence that contradicts his statement. > > So therefore his statement was not 100% true. > > What’s not clear about this? Nope. That conclusion does not necessarily follow from that premise. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/188 "2012-04-20T18:11:12Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Wait a second. Where did you get the verified lies business? Yeah, I misread that, sorry. I’ve tried to take it back. I’m concentrating on the part where the investigator said that they have evidence that contradicts with his statement. Not specifically what it is, but the fact that we know his statement is not 100% true. ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/189 "2012-04-20T18:12:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Okay, I can concede that depending on the wound and its location, this particular product might not require any secondary dressing. > > But I still think none of this applies to Zimmerman’s situation. Cool. Don’t know if this applies either, but it could be a possible explanation for the missing bandages and whatnot. I thought it was brilliant when I thought of it last night while gluing a laceration on my leg. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/190 "2012-04-20T18:13:40Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I said forget about those parts of my post I’m commenting on this: > > "Defense Attorney: Do you have evidence that contradicts any of Mr Zimmerman’s statements to police? > > Investigator: Yes" > > His statement is not 100% true. What causes a person to make false statements to the police? I wonder … No. What is the evidence? How strong is it? And how material is the contradiction? If the contradiction is that Zimmerman thought Martin was 25 years old, and it turns out that Martin was 17, the answer to your question is: an honest mistake. If the contradiction is more serious, then the answer to your question might be: a desire to conceal guilt. So which is it? ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/191 "2012-04-20T18:14:53Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > I’m concentrating on the part where the investigator said that they have evidence that contradicts with his statement. Not specifically what it is, but the fact that we know his statement is not 100% true. Again, no you don’t know it. You know that the prosecution claims they have evidence that it isn’t. Of course, they also may have evidence that it is. And you don’t know how strong or tenuous that evidence is. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/192 "2012-04-20T18:16:02Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Yeah, I misread that, sorry. I’ve tried to take it back. > > I’m concentrating on the part where the investigator said that they have evidence that contradicts with his statement. Not specifically what it is, but the fact that we know his statement is not 100% true. No. What we know from what you said is that there is evidence which contradicts. _ **The truth** _ is not established by any of it. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/193 "2012-04-20T18:19:50Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > No. What we know from what you said is that there is evidence which contradicts. _ **The truth** _ is not established by any of it. Two thumbs up. Exactly correct. ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/194 "2012-04-20T18:21:47Z")
Well Z saying that he thought M was 25 would not be contradicted by the fact that he was in fact 17, because it is a statement of what he believed at the time. The fact that he was actually 17 does not mean that Z didn’t actually think he was 25 at the time, right? I would think that evidence contradicting his statement would be something casting doubt on an assertion of events or circumstances of the events in his statement. You’re right though, of course I do not know the details of what the evidence is or what part of his story is contradicted by it. Just that there is evidence of a contradiction. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/195 "2012-04-20T18:28:01Z")
> [@Airbeck](#): > > Well Z saying that he thought M was 25 would not be contradicted by the fact that he was in fact 17, because it is a statement of what he believed at the time. The fact that he was actually 17 does not mean that Z didn’t actually think he was 25 at the time, right? > > I would think that evidence contradicting his statement would be something casting doubt on an assertion of events or circumstances of the events in his statement. > > You’re right though, of course I do not know the details of what the evidence is or what part of his story is contradicted by it. Just that there is evidence of a contradiction. Yes. Without knowing how material the contradiction is, how strong the evidence is that creates the contradiction, and how reasonable the existence of a contradiction might be, you can’t really make any judgment about it at all, can you? ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/196 "2012-04-20T18:30:24Z")
So many people have jumped to so many conclusions in this case. It reminds of the Duke rape case in the knee-jerk reaction particularly with those of a liberal bent. All that being said, I do think the prosecutor was right to move forward with the charges. There is certainly enough evidence to suggest that Zimmerman went above and beyond self-defense. However, it also seems that Zimmerman will have a very strong defense and absent the jury being biased is likely to beat the charges (unless there is a plea bargain). One thing that has bugged me is the continued use of Martin’s photo from several years ago. He did indeed look a lot different when Zimmerman confronted/attacked/defended himself from Martin. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/197 "2012-04-20T18:37:58Z")
Also keeping in mind that it is not the purpose of the trial or the hearing to arrive at “the truth”. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Airbeck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/airbeck/32/6574_2.png) [@Airbeck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airbeck)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/198 "2012-04-20T18:43:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes. Without knowing how material the contradiction is, how strong the evidence is that creates the contradiction, and how reasonable the existence of a contradiction might be, you can’t really make any judgment about it at all, can you? That’s correct. I appear to have _ahem_ jumped the gun a little bit as far as what the significance of this is, if you’ll pardon the pun. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/199 "2012-04-20T18:45:09Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > a very strong defense I am curious to know why you think it’s very strong. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2012, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/200 "2012-04-20T18:49:10Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Two thumbs up. Exactly correct. Did you ever read Heinlein’s “Stranger in a Strange Land”? If so do you recall what a “Fair Witness” is? It had a huge impact on me, it’s such a fantastic concept: > [@](#): > > Fair Witness is a fictional profession invented for the novel. A Fair Witness is an individual trained to observe events and report exactly what he or she sees and hears, making no extrapolations or assumptions. An eidetic memory is a prerequisite for the job, although this may be attainable with suitable training. > > In Heinlein’s society, a Fair Witness is a highly reputable source of information. By custom, a Fair Witness acting professionally, generally wearing distinctive white robes, is never addressed directly, and is never acknowledged by anyone present. > > A Fair Witness is prohibited from drawing conclusions about what they observe. For example, a character in the book is asked to describe the color of a house seen in the distance. The character responds, “It’s white on this side”; whereupon it is explained that one would not assume knowledge of the color of the other sides of the house without being able to see them. Furthermore, after observing another side of the house one should not then assume that any previously seen side was still the same color as last reported, even if only minutes before. I love that. And it suddenly occurs to me that the Fair Witness should actually say: “it appears to be white on this side”… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=11)