In spite of Bricker’s desperate hope that there is something that we don’t know yet in the evidence that may salvage the prosecution’s case (his hope is for Corey’s sake, and for the sake of some kind of prosecutorial standards being upheld, not because he wants so much for Zimmerman to hang), I am becoming more and more sure that there isn’t. O’Mara has seen ALL the evidence by this time. I think the answer to your question is that his “brilliant master plan” is just the plain fact that he is sure the prosecution has no way of convicting his client. Which makes his job so much easier.
Okay, let’s take that part out then since its causing so much heart burn. Believe it or not, it’s the least important part of my theory.
Even if Zimmerman didn’t pull out his gun when he first spotted Martin, everything else in my version of events points to Zimmerman provoking the conflict and committing 2nd degree murder. For the criminal elements, there is evidence for each.
I challenge the naysayers to find any evidence–physical or circumstantial–that does not fit in with my theory.
Just to begin with - Zimmerman’s family says it is Zimmerman yelling on the tape, not Martin.
Why do the witnesses have to see them standing for their to be evidence that they were? A fast moving fight is unlikely if the players are tousling on the ground.
Doesn’t matter. Even if Zimmerman was the voice on that tape, the acoustics do not suggest he was being punched or smothered.
Gun forsensics suggests that Martin was shot from an upright position by someone also in an upright position. The relative lack of M’s blood on Zimmerman also suggests that Martin was some distance away from the shooter. Certainly not laying on top of him like he claimed. We are talking about a gunshot in the heart, after all.
Since this has not gone to trial yet, we haven’t had the State forensic experts give us their interpretation of the findings yet. It is possible I am interpreting these findings incorrectly, but calling it conjecture is stupid.
Well, that’s cute. Since this evidence is contradicted by Sabrina Fulton’s let’s consider that a wash. But that still leaves us multiple witnesses who said it was a despondent boy, plus the two experts who ruled out Zimmerman.
What else you got?
It is a great, impossible challenge. ;-o Besides, everybody posts theories, but some theories don’t jibe well with other theories. I just want to see if you can come up with a plausible one where Zimmerman murders Trayvon, matching most of the evidence.
Aha! But that’s where you’re mistaken.
715:23 - Approximate time call with Zimmerman ends
716:43 - 911 call placed by (blacked out name) where Zimmerman is heard screaming for help
That’s only an 80 second gap between Z hanging up the phone and the first call to 911. They had to have encountered each other a certain amount of time before the first call came in. But we’ll see.
On the actual street or down the walkway where he shot T-von? And you’re saying he went all the way down to the back entrance and back? Whatever the case, you are saying he eventually walks back across the T.
OK, notwithstanding the fact that I can’t see Zimmerman drawing his gun and charging towards Trayvon, I have a bigger problem. You’re telling me that Zimmerman charges over to Trayvon with his gun drawn and Trayvon asks, “What are you following me for?” Would he not be asking, “What in the fuck are you doing with a GUN pointed at me?!”
When you say wrestling, don’t you mean fighting over control of the gun? Because that would have to be Martin and Zimmerman’s only real concern at that point, right?
Why doesn’t Trayvon say to W6/John “No! Don’t help him! Help ME! This guy’s got a gun!”? And why didn’t W6 say he saw something shiny or that they looked like they were struggling over something. Also, this struggle for the gun has been going on for how long exactly at this point? 45 seconds? A minute? And nobody has gained full control over the gun in order to fire it?
Zimmerman has a gun and Martin just decides to “stop fighting”? To just say, “Ah hell, he can have his stupid gun.” What do you mean he stops fighting? And why did he decide to start screaming then- and not when Zimmerman initially charged towards him gun blazing or especially when W6 came out?
OK, so it was a long struggle over a gun that nobody saw, and that didn’t have Martin’s fingerprints or DNA on, and no noticeable injuries to Zimmerman’s wrists or hands but blood covering 45% of his head are not consistent with a struggle for a gun. The sprinkler head causing two lacerations doesn’t seem as likely as the concerete since witness 6 mentioned the struggle moving near the sidewalk and he even said something about how much it hurts to have your head hit on the concrete. Also W6 doesn’t describe a struggle over a gun.. he describes either an MMA style “ground and pound” attack or Trayvon holding Zimmerman down. There is virtually no evidence that Zimmerman had his gun drawn or that there was a struggle for a gun.
I haven’t even addressed how out of character murder is for Zimmerman. Groping, pushing and retaliatory open-handed slaps are not exactly on par with murder. And, in fact, even the person he slapped said he was the last person she’d expect to be involved in an incident like this. Most people have nothing but positive things to say.
It would seem out of character for someone who is relatively mild-mannered, almost meek, to pull out his pistol and charge after a kid- especially given his previous calls to the non-emergency line where he says "I don’t want to approach/confront him (some other kid). And if he wanted to kill this kid, why did it take him so long to finally fire the gun? It took place during a fight so even if his actions instigated it, it could still be self-defense.
In your account, you establish “ill will” or the “reckless disregard for life” by suggesting that Martin “stopped fighting” in the middle and just stood there screaming for help. Then Zimmerman executed him. But that makes no sense for Martin (or Zimmerman) to do such a thing.
Yes, I really don’t think any prosecutor, no matter how competent, can make a reasonable case for murder- that would even meet the preponderance of evidence, much less beyond a reasonable doubt. I’m not even sure they can legitimately meet probable cause.
My main point is that the prosecution can poke holes in Zimmerman’s account, but they have to present an account that the defense can’t poke holes in. And they can’t do it. They can’t prove their account. There is reasonable doubt no matter which way they go.
There is a chance for manslaughter- not under the law I don’t think, but if the jury decides that they just don’t like Zimmerman or something he did. And with Murder 2 as one of the options, finding him guilty of manslaughter might seem like he’s getting off easy, so the jurors might “compromise” with manslaughter. Which, of course, is one reason Corey overcharged him with that.
My dismissal of the murder charges is very easy. Frankly, the real debate has always been manslaughter- and I still think he comes out ahead on that, too.
That’s almost the definition of conjecture.
Can you show me some forensic expert’s opinion that claims that? I bet you can’t.
“Interpreting” the forensic evidence ignorantly is, in fact, conjecture. And I agree it is stupid.
The two expert’s opinion is called bunk by three other experts (would you like a link?) and any witnesses who said it was a “despondent boy” never said it at the time of the incident and are claiming it on the basis of TV watching afterwards. Got any more?
Hey you asked for “any evidence–physical or circumstantial–that does not fit in with my theory”. I gave it to you. I guess you got what you asked for.
The findings of those two “experts” were shown to be the charlatanism it was by the experts at the FBI who essentially concluded they were full of crap. Those voice experts have even less credibility with me than the voice stress test that ruled out Zimmerman lying.
Zimmerman is a dangerous fool. I would not shed a tear if he hung (metaphorically hung, that is).
But I would shed many tears if he hung contrary to the process of law.
Here’s the converse of the chiding I gave earlier. At trial, the prosecution will present Martin’s mother, who will testify that the voice is her son’s.
The defense will counter with other witnesses who identify the voice as Zimmerman’s.
The jury is entitled to conclude whatever they like. That is, from a standpoint of legal sufficiency, the prosecution can prove the voice was Martin. Maybe you think they won’t, but they can.
“Osterman” said Zimmerman’s elbow was on the ground. Will Zimmerman tell the court that his elbow was on the ground? Will Zimmerman tell the court that Zimmerman’s elbow was held close to his body or that it was several inches or even a foot away from his body?
*in the telling to the friend (or the friend’s telling to the police).
“…Zimmerman slapped Martin’s hand away from the handgun, pulled the hangun, ROTATED THE WEAPON and fired one round.”*
According to Osterman - Zimmerman’s elbow was on the ground at the time he fired.
The human wrist is very flexable and the elbow has a wide range of motion. So does the shoulder joint. Expecially when Zimmerman’s arm was NOT pinned to his body. Isn’t it then possible for Zimmerman to ROTATE the weapon to point directly at Martin’s chest during the struggle? Isn’t it also possible that Martin’s torso was turned slightly to one side to make a direct entry possible?
If the jury believes them beyond reasonable doubt, the prosecution can “prove” that black is white, that the Sun revolves around Earth, and that Bricker is the Queen of England.
But - when the jury is presented with Martin’s mother who claims the voice is Martin’s, Zimmerman’s father who claims the voice is Zimmerman’s, and both witnesses having obvious reasons outside of objective truth of things to have those claims, it is not reasonable for a jury to be convinced of one side over the other.
He seems like a decent guy. Mentored kids. Was active on behalf of a homeless black man. Friends and co-workers (but one) all have nice things to say. He is foolish, but seems likable to me, and certainly not dangerous. So long as you don’t attack him or his friends you have nothing to fear from him. He’ll even keep an eye on your house while you’re gone.
The timeline given in the document you cited (pg 40 of the PDF) was prepared by Investigator Singleton. She obviously doesn’t know how to read the NEN dispatch call record. The time line there is wrong and will be corrected.
How do we know it’s wrong? Because Singleton’s timeline says that at 7:13:19, 'Zimmerman says suspect is [del]gangsta-skipping[/del] running from him".
But the -actual- call record says that 7:13:41 that LEO (law enforcement officer) is requested to 1045 (call him) before 1056 (meeting him). I.e., call when they get to the complex.
This obviously can not be correct. From the recorded NEN call we know that GZ was on the phone with dispatch for two minutes -after- Martin ran, but according to the call record there is only a 21 seconds.
Singleton looked at the 7:11:12 that the call record was created and did her calculations from there, instead of realizing that the call actually connected two minutes earlier, at 7:09:34.
I don’t know how more obvious it can be. Singleton got her timeline wrong, but the actual evidence that will be used is the actual NEN call record.
But like I said, if you need to cling to clearly wrong evidence if it helps you ignore the fact that Zimmerman is clearly lying, be my guest.
Yes, a decent guy as long as you’re not a younger female relative, not an under-cover cop trying to do your job, not a fellow co-worker with a different ethnic background, and not a young black kid in a hoodie armed with Skittles trying to walk home in the rain. Yes, he sounds like a really wonderful person.
Yes, and against that, you have a man who voluntarily inserted himself and his firearm into a volatile situation. Make no mistake: on the available evidence, his actions appear legal. But they doesn’t translate into anything but foolish and dangerous, in my view. I don’t want him keeping an eye on my house, because I own nothing that’s worth the loss of a human life. The guy that I want watching my house is the guy who will call the police and then let them handle it, and if the assholes get away, he can give the police a good description and detail. Period.
Again, for those who my think I’m flipping back and forth between Team Zimmerman and Team Treyvon: in this post I am discussing my personal view of Zimmerman. From a legal standpoint, given Florida’s laws, I do not believe sufficient evidence has been made public to support a guilty verdict for second degree murder.
Not exactly, no. The jury’s findings must be reasonably grounded in the record. A factual finding that is patently incredible will be discarded on appeal, just as a finding made with no support in the record.
Absolutely untrue.
Unless you’re just expressing an opinion and not saying that the jury’s finding would be unreasonable as a matter of law. The jury is entirely within its province to believe, or disbelieve, testimony it hears. There is nothing inherently incredible about Martin’s mother’s testimony. The jury is absolutely reasonable if it credits that testimony and rejects Zimmerman’s father’s.
Particularly if they are asked to consider it in the context of all the other witness testimony about the quality of the cries.
I don’t know who screamed but that last scream, the one that gets cut off by the gunshot, I’m going with the person with two collapsed lungs.
Yes, but that statement actually undermines my point. Obviously, the more evidence for one proposition, the more likelihood the jury may credit it. But I am trying to emphasize the process: the jury may hear two contradictory pieces of evidence, and decide to believe one and disbelieve the other.
But the jury cannot decide to believe something that they have heard no evidence for. They can’t decide to believe something if the only evidence they heard was the contrary point and they disbelieved it.
If the clerk testifies that Nate was the man that robbed him, and a waitress across town testifies that Nate was eating lunch at her restaurant at the time of the robbery, then the jury can choose to believe the clerk, period.
But if the clerk doesn’t testify, the jury can’t hear the waitress, conclude she’s lying, and therefore find Nate guilty.
As long as there is something the jury can rely on, some evidence on the record that is not inherently incredible, their findings of fact are safe and won’t be disturbed.