Magiver, do you believe that the reason Zimmerman was out of his truck when he’d encountered Martin was because he was checking a street sign? Despite the shooting occurring behind the houses on Twin Trees?
but that puts Zimmerman there too which was my point.
Well that depends if the grass was wet from rain or sprinklers or evening dew. If the ground was soft then he wouldn’t have multiple wounds (IMO).
That would mean Zimmerman was committing a crime in the close proximity of possible witnesses with the knowledge that the police were en-route.
Yes. I’ve lived in my neighborhood for over 20 years and I only know the names of a couple of streets. what I believe is not relevant to anything. Clearly Zimmerman tried to keep Martin within sight hoping the police catch up with him. Nothing illegal occurred until a fight broke out and Zimmerman’s claim of self defense. That’s all that’s relevant.
I think it is a possibility that he got out to check in order to respond to the 911 operator. I think it is likely that either when he got out, or after looking at the sign he noticed Martin again (whom I believe he had lost sight of).
I do doubt he was jumped returning to the truck. I think it more likely that this is the point where he approached Martin and the confrontation ensued.
The guy has shown himself to be impulsive and a poor judge of prudent behavior, based on what his former lawyers have reported (reaching out the prosecutor without a lawyer present, talking to Hannity by himself) and based on his blurting out an ill thought apology containing not one but two damning statements in a single breath.
So I find it easy to believe he would do something like this.
Sure, of course stones or a hard patch of ground, this was the cut through I believe, could give the results we have seen.
Given what we know about Zimmerman and his comments to the 911 operator, I don’t think he would see trying to keep the kid from walking off as a crime.
Close (as possible) examination of the photo in question indicates that the the ‘injuries’ appear to be nothing more than rudimentary capillary bleeding, and NOT “consistent with being struck against a hard object”, which is is usually slow and oozing due to their small size and low pressure… the majority of capillary bleeding is considered minor and is easy to control. Capillary bleeding is usually the result of mild abrasions aka scrapes, and certainly not the end-product of repeated slamming of the skin surface (the head in this case) against a concrete sidewalk/walkway.
Additionally: The color of capillary bleeding is usually bright red (just as in the picture), with the major medical concern being minor infection resulting from possible contaminants becoming embedded in the skin.
So… The rather minor nature of the injuries shown in the picture is most likely why the EMT/ambulance was called off for Zimmerman, which seriously undermines his ‘claim’ that his head was so severely battered/wounded etc.
If Zimmerman claimed that he never followed Martin at any time, not even when he was on the phone with 911, does it change how you evaluate the rest of his story?
The street sign excuse doesn’t mesh with the physical evidence either. There is no way you can brush this off as insignificant. If Zimmerman was ambushed by Martin when he was returning to car after checking the sign, we need an explanation for how Martin ended up killed no where near the street. Nothing in this statement that has to light accounts for how their conflict traveled and ended not far from Martins intended destination.
I don’t need to. It’s a wound. It doesn’t prove anything unless there are chunks of cement in it. And as I said, it doesn’t look like a head-banged -on-concrete wound to me at all.
“near the sidewalk” is mush.
Where eactly? Positioned how exactly? And how does that position square with the story? It doesn’t.
Proximity is garbage.
Where was Martin’s head? According to reports, he was positioned perpendicular…in other words, as far from the sidewalk as its possible for his head to be while his feet are actually on it. Why would he be in that position, if mere seconds before Zimmerman was having his head smashed into the concrete and shot him while that was going on? What in the world would account for his facing the opposite way entirely from where he would have had to be facing to smash Z’s head into concrete? Magic?
Proximity is garbage. Close is garbage. Nearby is meaningless goo. Where, what position, and what explains it consistent with the story? (Hint: nuthin.)
Can you say to a medical certainty, based on the photo, that Zimmerman’s head was not striking against a hard object?
I think Dr. Wayman will be plenty credible. Here is a list of his publications.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=20&q=%22james+wayman%22+speech+science&hl=en&as_sdt=1,10
Fun!
Zimmerman gives an address, so he knew what street his truck was parked on. The only way looking for a street sign makes sense is if he went through the cut through to the road behind the neighborhood. Looking at the map, it doesn’t seem odd that he wouldn’t know the name of that road.
I direct your attention again to the post that breaks it all down, with links, and this:
Didja look up Owen? He’s got it all over Wayman.
Yes, but you laid out that list of arguments as though it were the only reasonable set of conclusions.
So what? If Martin did not know Zimmerman was armed, he might have attacked Zimmerman, trusting his superior height and athleticism to win.
The video’s resolution makes it impossible to tell if his mouth is closed so tightly he couldn’t be breathing through it.
That’s why Zimmerman stopped communicating with his lawyers; they were saying things that weren’t true.
You’ve seen the CV of one expert, but again: the jury won’t hear from either set of experts.
But you don’t have any particular experience with criminal cases at all, do you?
Why would you expect to have some insight into how much evidence is necessary to convict?
I have never tried a murder case. But I have tried many, many self-defense cases.
I think that if the only evidence is what we know now, it will be effectively impossible for the state to secure a conviction that will survive appeal.
I assume that the state has other evidence. Since I don’t know what it might be, I cannot guess how strong it is.
But with only what’s on the table? No.
Well neither of our medical opinions really matter. His head is bleeding from a wound and it coincides with his story. The police documented it. You’re trying to add qualifiers to facts in an attempt to disqualify them.
head on sidewalk, body pointed toward house. His back is on the wet grass and his head is on the edge of the sidewalk. from the perspective of someone in the house, he’s in the grass with his head obscured by Martin’s body. This occurred at dusk. Not a hard thing for the defense to diagram out consistent with his story.
No, no … medical opinions matter. Maybe not yours or Stoid’s, but the EMTs and any doctors that treated Zimmerman.
If they conclude that his wounds were superficial and Zimmerman said he was bashed into concrete, he has a serious problem.
Geeze, I’m hopping back and forth between quashing pro-Zimmerman excess and pro-Zimmerman-conviction excess.
If Zimmerman’s head was bashed into grass, there could be no wounds except maybe a concussion.
If you’re in a fight near a sidewalk and your head is bashed on something that is hard enough to cause the back of your head to bleed, you may be excused thinking that it was bashed on the sidewalk (and not on some rocks in the grass or something). The “serious problem” would have been no injury at all.