# 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:** 326
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6503 "2012-10-25T20:16:03Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > That you, or anyone, including the jury, believe Zimmerman to be lying does not prove him guilty. You are, for some reason, focussing on disproving Zimmerman’s story. It’s a very common thing to find someone in questionable circumstances who lies about the how or why they are in those circumstances and then to conclude that the reason the person is lying is because they’re trying cover up their involvement with those circumstances. kid chair broken cookie jar cookie crumbs He says he came in to the room because he heard it fall and got the chair to see if there was a mouse, cat or something on the top of the fridge which knocked the jar over. What’s the conclusion that many people will reach about the kid and the cookie jar? Granted, that kid wouldn’t be convicted in a court of law if there was no way to eliminate the reasonable possibility that he did not try to get illicit cookies. But, it seems quite natural for laypeople to look at the situation of the lie inside of questionable circumstances as a sign that the liar is guilty. You really shouldn’t let this tendency of humans bother you. imho. > [@Steophan](#): > > Fine, doubt it. So what? You **have to prove it false**. Actually, iirc, what has to be proven in court is that Z committed murder, not that his story is false. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6504 "2012-10-25T20:28:09Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > None of the photos that have come out in discovery support the idea his face was covered with that much blood. Try t he June 29th edition of the Orlando Sentinel. At the hearing, Kevin O’R ourke, a Sanford firefighter, testifiedd at the hearing that then when he and his crew arrived, they cleaned up Zimmerman’s face, because it was 45% covered with blood. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6505 "2012-10-25T20:32:01Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > Try t he June 29th edition of the Orlando Sentinel. At the hearing, Kevin O’R > > ourke, a Sanford firefighter, testifiedd at the hearing that then when he and his crew arrived, they cleaned up Zimmerman’s face, because it was 45% covered with blood. Like I said, there are not _photos_ to support this claim. I really do hope the defense tries to play up the bloody face thing, though. The bloodier his face, the more unlikely it is Martin would have been as clean as he was if he attacked Zimmerman, and the more hysterical it’ll be at trial when O’Mara has to explain this discrepancy away. ---
**Author:** ![dimmy\_derko](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/43a26b/32.png) [@dimmy\_derko](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dimmy_derko)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6506 "2012-10-25T20:34:40Z")
> [@hmarvin](#): > > Try t he June 29th edition of the Orlando Sentinel. At the hearing, Kevin O’R > > ourke, a Sanford firefighter, testifiedd at the hearing that then when he and his crew arrived, they cleaned up Zimmerman’s face, because it was 45% covered with blood. Is it likely that not a trace of it would be on the cuffs of TM’s hoody, if he’d used both hands to try and smother Z’s cries at any point? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6507 "2012-10-25T20:43:23Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > It’s highly likely the jury won’t even know the details of Zimmerman’s story. What is only assured is that they will know the prosecution’s story. I don’t agree. It’s highly likely that that WILL know the details of Zimmerman’s story. While it’s true that Zimmerman does not have to testify, in this circumstance, it’s virtually certain that he will. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6508 "2012-10-25T20:47:04Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > No, we get that. It’s you, dear heart, who can’t seem keep his facts divorced from fantasy and supposition. > > You keep acting like the prosecution has to supply an attack against every lil ole thing Zimmerman has claimed. That’s why you choose to frame the lack of evidence of blood on Martin as being inconclusive with respect to the crediblity of Zimmerman’s story. That’s why you choose to interpret the nano scratch on Martin’s finger through the lens of Zimmerman’s narrative, rather than appraise it as a stand alone data point. But this is retarded. > > \*You keep forgetting that Zimmerman doesn’t even have to take the stand. \* You have no reason to assume his claims will even be offered up as testimony as to what happened that night. For all intents and purposes, Zimmerman’s account is completely irrelevant to the prosecution. > > The defense is only required to assert self-defense. Which means the prosecution’s task is to prove murder, not self-defense, occurred that night. In that light, these are the facts: > > - from the blood/DNA forensics, there is no evidence that Martin laid hands on Zimmerman > > When we put all the evidence together starting with the dispatcher call and ending with the gun shot, there is no requirement that we twist ourselves into pretzels to make \*anything \* fit with Zimmerman’s story. It’s highly likely the jury won’t even know the details of Zimmerman’s story. What is only assured is that they will know the prosecution’s story. > > So let me make this even more basic for you . The prosecution will supply the evidence they think makes their case for murder. They will call experts and witnesses to the stand, each offering testimony that hurts Zimmerman in some shape or form. Unless the defense puts Zimmerman on the stand, O’Mara will be stuck in the laughable position of “explaining away” anything that reflects badly on Zimmerman. > > The way you frame your arguments make me think you’re believe t the prosecution is the one that has to come up with alternative explanations for the evidence. Again, I wish there was a clapping emoticon. Zimmerman either killed Martin in self-defense, or he did not. The prosecution doesn’t have to counter or explain every single detail. I also want to add that the prosecution will also argue the following: who was more likely to be engaged in self-defense: Zimmerman or Martin? They honestly believe that the only thing the jury will look at is the so called moment the shot was fired. How laughable. And they claim I don’t know about the legal system. Even if Martin “doubled back” which I personally doubt, that still might not save Zimmerman. The jury could just turn around and say: he should have identified himself or handled it differently or stayed in his car or something else: he didn’t have to shoot him. All of the things we have been talking about WILL be talked about by a jury, whether they like it or not. I know, I have been on one. I am curious: have these people sat on juries before? Beautifully said \*\*ywtf. \*\* ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6509 "2012-10-25T20:48:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. > > It’s highly likely that that WILL know the details of Zimmerman’s story. While it’s true that Zimmerman does not have to testify, in this circumstance, it’s virtually certain that he will. Fair enough. In this circumstance, say you were Zimmerman’s lawyer: would you advise him to take the stand? Putting aside my personal feelings, personally, I wouldn’t. I would not allow him to open his mouth again. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6510 "2012-10-25T20:56:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I don’t agree. > > It’s highly likely that that WILL know the details of Zimmerman’s story. While it’s true that Zimmerman does not have to testify, in this circumstance, it’s virtually certain that he will. Wonderful, if that’s the case. The prosecution still is under no requirement to “explain away” Zimmerman’s claims. So it’s false to say that the absence of Z’s blood on Martin’s hands means nothing. The absence of evidence _is_ evidence. And that evidence suggests Martin didn’t come in contact with Zimmerman, who supposedly was dripping in blood. ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6511 "2012-10-25T20:58:12Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > Do you have a link to that drawing? Zimmerman says TM was sat straddling his chest. If TM had simply slipped to the floor with Z while struggling to get away from him, and was then only trying to get back up and pull himself free from Z’s grasp, would you expect to see the same markings on his trousers that he’d have if he’d been knelt astride someone using all his weight to keep them down? Try the evidence dump. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6512 "2012-10-25T21:00:44Z")
> [@betenoire39](#): > > Putting aside my personal feelings, personally, I wouldn’t. I would not allow him to open his mouth again. O’Mara has no control over Zimmerman. None. **Bricker** is probably right that Zimmerman will testify. We can safely assume he will do so against his lawyer’s advice. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6513 "2012-10-25T21:04:35Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > \*\*O’Mara has no control over Zimmerman. None. > \*\* > **Bricker** is probably right that Zimmerman will testify. We can safely assume he will do so against his lawyer’s advice. Tis true. I personally hope he does testify. I really want him to. O’Mara is doing what he can…but Zimmerman marches to the beat of his own drummer, that’s for sure. A guy like that I guess makes the worst possible client for a lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![betenoire39](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/839c29/32.png) [@betenoire39](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/betenoire39)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6514 "2012-10-25T21:05:39Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Wonderful, if that’s the case. > > The prosecution still is under no requirement to “explain away” Zimmerman’s claims. So it’s false to say that the absence of Z’s blood on Martin’s hands means nothing. \*\*The absence of evidence _is_ evidence. \*\*And that evidence suggests Martin didn’t come in contact with Zimmerman, who supposedly was dripping in blood. Preach on. Preach on. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6515 "2012-10-25T21:51:35Z")
> [@PatriotX](#): > > …Actually, iirc, what has to be proven in court is that Z committed murder, not that his story is false. It has to be proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that GZ committed 2nd degree murder. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6516 "2012-10-25T22:03:26Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > The prosecution still is under no requirement to “explain away” Zimmerman’s claims. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. If the defense can come up with even one reasonable scenario that fits the evidence wherein Zimmerman did act in self-defense, then Zimmerman must be acquitted. You are trying to argue (not very successfully) that Zimmerman’s face was not bloody, and therefore Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. The trouble is, you do not have a reasonable explanation as to why the disinterested party who testified at the hearing said that his face _was_ bloody. There is, in other words, reasonable doubt about his face not being bloody. You claim it wasn’t; an eyewitness with no reason to lie says it was. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6517 "2012-10-25T22:15:04Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Wonderful, if that’s the case. > > The prosecution still is under no requirement to “explain away” Zimmerman’s claims. So it’s false to say that the absence of Z’s blood on Martin’s hands means nothing. **The absence of evidence is evidence**. And that evidence suggests Martin didn’t come in contact with Zimmerman, who supposedly was dripping in blood. The absence of evidence doesn’t really “prove” anything. You could claim that the absense of evidence “suggests” something. Finding no fingerprints of any kind suggests that an item had been wiped clean or the suspect had been wearing gloves. Finding the fingerprints of two individuals on a car fender doesn’t mean that a third person hadn’t touched the car earlier and the print had been smudged or smeared. Finding your fingerprints on a busy cooks butt suggests that you were in the kitchen but doesn’t mean the cook didn’t visit your table. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6518 "2012-10-25T22:17:14Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. If the defense can come up with even one reasonable scenario that fits the evidence wherein Zimmerman did act in self-defense, then Zimmerman must be acquitted. I’m glad you say “reasonable scenario”, because that will be their biggest hurdle. But not only that, this reasonable scenario has to be consistent with Zimmerman’s prior statements. It can’t be something dreamed out of air on the fly, to make it fit with inconvenient evidence. It has to be consistent with his prior claims to be credible. Good luck with that, Z. > [@](#): > > You are trying to argue (not very successfully) that Zimmerman’s face was not bloody, and therefore Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. I am not surprised that this foolishness is what your reading comprehension has produced. ---
**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:** [October 25, 2012, 10:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6519 "2012-10-25T22:30:25Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > The absence of evidence doesn’t really “prove” anything. You could claim that the absense of evidence “suggests” something. Yes, of course. You did read where I wrote “suggest” and not "prove"in the part you responded to, right? ---
**Author:** ![hmarvin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/858c86/32.png) [@hmarvin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hmarvin)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6520 "2012-10-25T22:41:56Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Wonderful, if that’s the case. > > The prosecution still is under no requirement to “explain away” Zimmerman’s claims. So it’s false to say that the absence of Z’s blood on Martin’s hands means nothing. The absence of evidence _is_ evidence. And that evidence suggests Martin didn’t come in contact with Zimmerman, who supposedly was dripping in blood. Go look at the evidence. Zimmerman’s blood was found under Martin’s undershirt, beneath his hoodie. The investigators stated that Martin’s hands were under his body. One way for that to happen is by transfer from Martin’s hands. The Paramedics certainly compromised the evidence,. By wiping away a lot of the blood, they prevented any evidence of transfer. Of course, they were trying to help. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6521 "2012-10-25T22:48:50Z")
> [@dimmy\_derko](#): > > For example, if Z says he was being mounted “mma-style” as TM rained blows down on him, and there are no corresponding marks on the areas of TM’s trousers where his knees would have been pressing into the wet grass, there’s another reason to doubt Z’s tale. I think the real question would be - If “dimmy derko” claimed that GZ claimed GZ was being mounted mma-style by TM as TM rained blows down on GZ, would anyone know what being “mounted mma-style” would even look like? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2012, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125/6522 "2012-10-25T23:01:08Z")
> [@you\_with\_the\_face](#): > > Yes, of course. You did read where I wrote “suggest” and not "prove"in the part you responded to, right? You’re trying to make the case that the lack of evidence is evidence. You’re suggested that the non existing evidence is somehow evidence??? Part A - The absence of evidence is evidence. Part B - And that (non existing) evidence suggests Martin didn’t come in contact with Zimmerman, [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=325) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/martin-zimmerman-humble-opinions-and-speculation-thread/619125.md?page=327)