This is my first post on this site.
I have been following this thread for months, and I finally decided to join to voice my opinions and ask questions to some of the posters.
I have my own personal opinions about the case, but I am somewhat puzzled by some of the arguments that are being made in favor of Zimmerman.
Why is there this focus simply on the exact moment of the fight and who was on top or not? Isn’t CONTEXT a factor and the moments leading up to the fight? Afterall, wouldn’t a jury be looking at the context rather than simply the fight itself and what led up to it?
I initially gave Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt. But as I looked over the evidence that was released and especially the police interviews, I changed my opinion. The timelines are off. Zimmerman’s makes statements that do not add up.
I can’t simply throw aside Serino’s assessment.
I can’t throw aside his GF’s statements.
I can’t throw aside some of the things Zimmerman HIMSELF said in the police interviews.
Zimmerman’s account of the fight doesn’t make sense to me and I base this on my martial arts knowledge and experience–I will go into detail later.
Zimmerman was played a tape of the screams (at the police station) and said that it didn’t sound like him. I agree.
It seems some people are repeating verbatim the words that comes out of Zimmerman’s mouth.
I am puzzled by the term “doubled back” (???). What exactly does that mean? Is that a southern expression? Where did Martin “double back” from and where did he “double back” to? I don’t get it.
You can shoot away with your responses.
P.S You in the face: I love your analysis!