So if he’s carrying the gun in the small of his back, how does he get it out when Martin is on top of him? I don’t see how he gets the gun out and shoots Martin if it was holstered behind his back when he was laying on his back with Martin on top. Wouldn’t one of these have to be true then:
the gun was already out of the holster before he was knocked down and had Martin on top of him.
or
Martin had already gotten off before Zimmerman got the gun out and shot him.
How does he get the gun out and shoot Martin if it is holstered in the small of his back and he is laying down with Martin pinning him down. I don’t see how that’s possible.
There were two flashlights found on the ground at the crime scene. One was a a larger flashlight, and one was a keychain flashlight attached to key(s). I’ve been going on the assumption that the larger one was GZ’s and the keychain flashlight was TM’s. It doesn’t make sense that TM would be carrying the larger flashlight to go to 7-11, and it makes much more sense that GZ had that flashlight in his car and brought it with him before going into the darkness to follow a “criminal.”
The reason I ask is that I was just reading the police reports and noticed that on page 80, lead detective Serino notes that upon his survey of the scene, the keychain flashlight was still turned on.
It was also noted frequently by witnesses and the police themselves, that it was pretty dark and there was very little ambient light in the area.
Seems to me it’s pretty likely that at some point, both GZ and TM were shining flashlights in each other’s faces, probably coinciding with the initial dialog. If true, I’m not sure how useful this info would be, but if anyone is still holding to the (IMO, ludicrous) theory that TM sneaked up on GZ and sucker punched him, this would seem to dispel such a notion, at least. You don’t sneak up on someone with a flashlight on.
And, just because that’s where the gun was when the officer took it from Z (even though more than one witness says that Z placed it on the ground), it doesn’t mean that’s where the weapon was during the struggle. It could have been in Z’s coat pocket for all I know.
Yet again, Z’s version of events is kind of important.
my thoughts exactly. I don’t see how it could have been holstered there and he was still able to get it out to shoot Martin, unless it was already drawn before he was on the ground, or Martin was no longer pinning him down.
Either it was holstered somewhere else, or there is some serious explaining necessary if it was a small of the back holster.
What could possibly be in Zimmerman’s statement that could hurt the prosecution’s case? I have a hard time picturing it.
At worst (with respect to the prosecution’s case), Zimmerman’s statements are not blatantly contradictory with other evidence. But big whoopty do. Scott Peterson’s statement didn’t contradict other evidence either, AFAIK.
At best (with respect to the prosecution’s case), Zimmerman’s statements are blatantly contradictory with other evidence. And since Zimmerman was arrested and charged with 2nd degree murder, that strikes me as much more likely than there not being anything there.
One reason why the State may not be eager to release his statement is that it contains so many holes and contradictions that it’s going to put heat on the Sanford PD and/or State Attorney’s office. If Zimmerman told a major whopper and yet they still didn’t arrest him even though legally they could have done so, that raises embarrassing questions about their conduct. So maybe the prosecution is trying to keep the heat off the PD and SA for as long as they can.
Instead of writing a long post with “what ifs” why not check first? Zimmerman had an IWB holster. Here are some videos that would show to you how it is worn:
The “tests” mentioned by the prosecutor that the police performed on Zimmerman would likely be the voice lie detector test that Zimmerman passed. That wouldn’t help their case.
But it is a big whoopty do, since (unlike the Scott Peterson case) the prosecution has already taken the public position that Zimmerman’s statement is contradicted by physical evidence. One of their lead investigators answered that question affirmatively under oath.
So at this point, a Zimmerman statement with no contradictions is not simply neutral; it’s a blow to the prosecution.
That’s possible, although I don’t regard it as all that likely. Still, as you point out, they charged him. They must have something. (Or they were using the Mike Nifong Playbook).
This statement disappoints me, because in post 642 of this very thread, I laid out the summary of the Scott Peterson evidence and mentioned that there were contradictions between the statement he gave and the physical evidence.
Actually one of the reasons I favor a small of the back holster is that it took so long for Zimmerman to get his pistol out. We know, based on the 911 call, that it took over 30 seconds from the start of the fight until Zimmerman fired his pistol.
All Zimmerman had to do is roll onto his left hip and give a couple of inches clearance so he could grab his pistol. If Zimmerman had his pistol on his right hip, then is shouldn’t have taken that long.
I don’t recall ever seeing someone suggest that this happened. GZ himself is alleged to have said that TM confronted him and asked if he had a problem. So your observation appears to be of no significance.
The “sneak up” notion has to do with the idea that GZ thought TM continued going along his way, and he thus thought he was following TM from a distance (having lost sight of him) and suddenly became aware that he was in close proximity when he was confronted by TM. But no one (AFAIK) has suggested that his first contact with TM was when he got punched out.
How about Zimmerman telling the police “I remember saying to him ‘I’m begging you’”?
How likely do you think it is that the prosecution has something dealing with motive? They charged him with second degree murder, so I would think they have to establish a willful act in some way.
Or might this just be over-charging due to public pressure, in hopes of a better plea bargain?