# 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:** 238
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4743 "2012-08-04T22:20:40Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why would such evidence not have been released, if it exists? Text messages have not been released, due to an exception in Florida’s Sunshine laws. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4744 "2012-08-04T22:21:55Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t believe that kids scuffing at a playground routinely get broken noses. Since, under Florida law, a broken nose can qualify as “serious bodily injury” and since Zimmerman can show he had a broken nose… Zimmerman can’t show that he had a broken nose because he never received a definitive diagnosis of such. His [doctor](http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/zimmerman_bond_hearing_exhibits/george_zimmerman_medical_report.pdf) examined his nose and reported that he “likely” had a broken nose but he needed to be evaluated by an ENT. Since Zimmerman did not follow though with that, we really don’t know if he had broken nose. No radiographs were taken and there was no septal deviation. You either have a broken nose or you don’t. A “likely broken nose” is about as much of a diagnosis as “likely being pregnant”. If Zimmerman was seriously injured, he sure did a great job giving the opposite impression. Not only did he turn down repeated offers to go to the ER, but when he finally did seek medical care, it was a day later and with a family care doc. He turned down a referral to see a ENT, too. But that’s not all! The only reason Zimmerman sought care from him was so that he could be medically cleared to return to work. The doc wrote explicitly on page 3 of the report that Z was there to get a return to work note. Not to receive treatment. Seriously injured my ass, in other words. And the bandages on his head and nose during the reenactment? His wife had put those on him. Not even his doctor had felt it necessary to dress those pitifully tiny injuries. If Zimmerman’s injuries are the strongest evidence he has for being in reasonable fear of Martin, he’s in trouble. > [@](#): > > You’re trying to cast me in disagreement with the lawyers handing the states case – but you asked me to render an opinion on the public evidence. The lawyers handling the state’s case have the advantage; they have seen all the evidence. All I have asked you to do is answer some questions, dude. You seem to be unable to do that without giving unsolicited and obfuscating lectures about Florida’s statutes in a condescending fashion. That’s the only reason why I even mentioned the prosecutors. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4745 "2012-08-04T22:21:58Z")
> [@JoelUpchurch](#): > > There is certainly evidence that hasn’t been made public, but what evidence are you talking about that **O’Mara** hasn’t seen? He has already said that there isn’t isn’t enough evidence to get an indictment from a grand jury. I would think he would avoid making a statement like that in his motion if evidence like that was in discovery. Especially when you are talking about evidence, that he doesn’t have to wait until discovery to examine, like his client’s cell phone records. No, he wouldn’t avoid it. His motion is public, and can influence readers who may become jurors. The evidence isn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4746 "2012-08-04T22:31:46Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Zimmerman can’t show that he had a broken nose because he never received a definitive diagnosis of such. His [doctor](http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/zimmerman_bond_hearing_exhibits/george_zimmerman_medical_report.pdf) examined his nose and reported that he “likely” had a broken nose but he needed to be evaluated by an ENT. Since Zimmerman did not follow though with that, we really don’t know if he had broken nose. No radiographs were taken and there was no septal deviation. > > You either have a broken nose or you don’t. A “likely broken nose” is about as much of a diagnosis as “likely being pregnant”. > > If Zimmerman was seriously injured, he sure did a great job giving the opposite impression. Not only did he turn down repeated offers to go to the ER, but when he finally did seek medical care, it was a day later and with a family care doc. He turned down a referral to see a ENT, too. > > But that’s not all! The only reason Zimmerman sought care from him was so that he could be medically cleared to return to work. The doc wrote explicitly on page 3 of the report that Z was there to get a return to work note. Not to receive treatment. Seriously injured my ass, in other words. > > And the bandages on his head and nose during the reenactment? His wife had put those on him. Not even his doctor had felt it necessary to dress those pitifully tiny injuries. > > If Zimmerman’s injuries are the strongest evidence he has for being in reasonable fear of Martin, he’s in trouble. I disagree. > [@](#): > > All I have asked you to do is answer some questions, dude. No. You also said, “It’s the lawyers who clearly disagree with your opinion and who actually have some skin in the game that you should be reserving your condenscension for.” That’s not a question. And in response to that observation, I pointed out that they don’t disagree with my opinion. Their opinion is based on all the evidence; mine is based on the available evidence. I’d be curious to know if any lawyers who are commenting on this case but are not part of the prosecution or defense team – in other words, any lawyers who have seen only the evidence I have seen – disagree with me. I don’t know of any, but I can hardly claim a complete review of the field. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4747 "2012-08-04T22:38:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Because the State would have to prove it _didn’t_ happen beyond a reasonable doubt. “Difficult if not impossible” leaves room for reasonable doubt. > > Regards, > Shodan No. I hate to say this now, because I feel it will further encourage misunderstanding in the other direction, but “reasonable doubt” is not the same as “not impossible.” **you with the face** is correct when she says, “A claim doesn’t have to be proven impossible for a jury to rightfully reject it as false.” It’s “beyond a _reasonable_ doubt,” as opposed to beyond any possible doubt. The jury could very well hear testimony that such movement after your heart is destroyed is highly unlikely, and choose to believe it did not happen. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 4, 2012, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4748 "2012-08-04T23:16:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’d be curious to know if any lawyers who are commenting on this case but are not part of the prosecution or defense team – in other words, any lawyers who have seen only the evidence I have seen – disagree with me. > > I don’t know of any, but I can hardly claim a complete review of the field. You must not be looking very hard. Pages ago, I linked to a blog that is written by a criminal lawyer who seems to think there is plenty of evidence against Zimmerman. ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4749 "2012-08-05T00:07:14Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You must not be looking very hard. Pages ago, I linked to a blog that is written by a criminal lawyer who seems to think there is plenty of evidence against Zimmerman. Well let’s see what happens at trial, if I recall you were saying something very similar during the Duke rape trial fiasco. perhaps you get too close to these sorts of things…or perhaps I have entirely the wrong person which is possible. This is a different scenario as there appears to be actually some evidence of wrong doing in this instance. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4750 "2012-08-05T00:20:50Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You must not be looking very hard. Pages ago, I linked to a blog that is written by a criminal lawyer who seems to think there is plenty of evidence against Zimmerman. I must have missed it. Would you mind reposting it? ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4751 "2012-08-05T00:34:55Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > Well let’s see what happens at trial, if I recall you were saying something very similar during the Duke rape trial fiasco. I find your recall fascinating. My position on that case is that we didn’t have enough information to say whether the lacrosse players were guilty or innocent. Or to put it another way, my stance is that we didn’t have enough information to pronounce the accuser a lying whore. My stance in this thread is that we do have enough evidence to disbelieve Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Thanks to Florida’s sunshine laws, we know a lot more about the evidence involved than we ever did about the Duke case. See that? Two completely different positions. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4752 "2012-08-05T00:37:13Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > You must not be looking very hard. Pages ago, I linked to a blog that is written by a criminal lawyer who seems to think there is plenty of evidence against Zimmerman. Are you talking about the Leatherman blog? I’ve investigated his blog and was not impressed with his reasoning. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4753 "2012-08-05T00:41:41Z")
> [@Honesty](#): > > So, in other words, it’s OK that Zimmerman is flat-out lying as long as you call it embellishment? I don’t think he is flat-out lying, and neither did Investigator Serino. ---
**Author:** ![JoelUpchurch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f05b48/32.png) [@JoelUpchurch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JoelUpchurch)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4754 "2012-08-05T00:44:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > No, he wouldn’t avoid it. > > His motion is public, and can influence readers who may become jurors. The evidence isn’t. And the prosecution wouldn’t mention it during their rebuttal? I’m also curious about why the prosecution wouldn’t allude to it in their affidavit. Especially after they tried to withhold Zimmerman’s statements to the police because they were calling that a confession. If they had an actually confession in their hands. If seems odd that they wouldn’t mention it. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4755 "2012-08-05T00:51:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I must have missed it. Would you mind reposting it? > **[Frederick Leatherman Law Blog](https://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/)** The SDMB is not the only message board that is discussing this case, btw. If you really think there is a consensus among lawyers that the State’s case against GZ is insufficient based on available info, you really need to get out more. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 12:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4756 "2012-08-05T00:57:14Z")
> **[Zimmerman Did Not Shoot Trayvon Martin In Self-Defense: UPDATED](https://frederickleatherman.wordpress.com/2012/03/30/zimmerman-did-not-shoot-trayvon-martin-in-self-defense/)** > > George Zimmerman claims that he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in self-defense to prevent Martin from seriously injuring or killing him. According to news reports, Martin punched him in the nose fr… This was his very first post on the Zimmerman case. After a series of hastily established, and specious premises, he concludes: “Therefore, Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense should be rejected and he should be charged with intentional murder.” Note that this was written before Zimmerman was even charged, much less any discovery to speak of. He is a nut. (Edit: There is definitely a consensus among attorneys that the State’s case is currently weak. Go find another one besides the nutty professor.) ---
**Author:** ![Lochdale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/edb3f5/32.png) [@Lochdale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lochdale)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4757 "2012-08-05T03:43:56Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > I find your recall fascinating. My position on that case is that we didn’t have enough information to say whether the lacrosse players were guilty or innocent. Or to put it another way, my stance is that we didn’t have enough information to pronounce the accuser a lying whore. > > My stance in this thread is that we do have enough evidence to disbelieve Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense. Thanks to Florida’s sunshine laws, we know a lot more about the evidence involved than we ever did about the Duke case. > > See that? Two completely different positions. In fairness, you were more aggressive than that and seemed fairly convinced of the guilt of the students despite the lack of evidence. In this instance I agree with you as there is a lot more evidence here. My real point or observation, however, is that you might get too close to issues with a racial element. Just something to consider as it can colour your arguments and makes you a less effective advocate for your position. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 4:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4758 "2012-08-05T04:17:40Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > My real point or observation, however, is that you might get too close to issues with a racial element. Just something to consider as it can colour your arguments and makes you a less effective advocate for your position. Unless you can point to a specific argument or position to criticize me about, all your opinion amounts to is a batch of unsolicited unpersuasiveness. With a touch of irony mixed in, since the only one bringing race into this discussion right now is you. ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4759 "2012-08-05T05:28:32Z")
> [@Lochdale](#): > > In fairness, you were more aggressive than that and seemed fairly convinced of the guilt of the students despite the lack of evidence. It’s amazing that you are not only accusing **you with the face** of taking a position she did not take, but that you are saying she did so aggressively. No matter that she was 100% correct and her opponents were crudely ad homineming her to Kingdom Come. In your mind, _she_ was the aggressive one. Gotcha. If you’re going to bring up irrevelant details, the very least you could do is get them right. ---
**Author:** ![enomaj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/59ef9b/32.png) [@enomaj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enomaj)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 9:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4760 "2012-08-05T09:50:07Z")
[http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/04/2933157/the-trayvon-martin-truth-squad.html](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/04/2933157/the-trayvon-martin-truth-squad.html) ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 11:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4761 "2012-08-05T11:50:50Z")
> [@emeraldia](#): > > There is definitely a consensus among attorneys that the State’s case is currently weak. Without examples, I can only conclude this is your unsupported personal opinion. ---
**Author:** ![emeraldia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c2a13f/32.png) [@emeraldia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emeraldia)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2012, 2:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/4762 "2012-08-05T14:02:06Z")
> [@enomaj](#): > > [http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/04/2933157/the-trayvon-martin-truth-squad.html](http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/04/2933157/the-trayvon-martin-truth-squad.html) Interesting article [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=237) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=239)