Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[Magiver]

@betenoire39

Read closely, Terr. Again, page 41. Start with the first paragraph.

Draw some inferences.

It correlates with Zimmerman’s account. What’s your point?

[Terr]

@betenoire39

Watch this interview

Better?

The interview doesn’t support your claim.

I really don’t expect to get any coherent response from you but:

1. You do understand that this is an unknown witness, you have no idea where he is from, that the testimony is not included in prosecution’s discovery, and thus cannot be introduced at trial.

2. He also doesn’t claim that he saw Zimmerman on top during the fight. He claimed that it was Zimmerman that got up after the shot. Duh. Zimmerman says so as well.

3. He didn’t watch Zimmerman get up, he explicitly says that in those words. He also says he has no idea whether Zimmerman was on top or not. Explicitly. He says it wasn’t clear to him who was on top.

4. He claims several shots. We know there was only one. There was only one bullet used. Unless you’re the “grassy knoll” type and think there was someone else there shooting.

5. Why do you think the prosecution didn’t include this witness in its documents? Or if they did (we don’t know which witness it is in the documents then) why is there nothing there in his testimony about, as he claims, watching while Martin was shot?

[Terr]

@Magiver

" He says both men were on the ground and he watched them struggle as the gun went off. The witness also says he thinks the shooter, George Zimmerman, was on top of Trayvon and that Zimmerman didn’t appear hurt."

Magiver, you’re going by the blurb on the video. That blurb is a lie. The witness didn’t say Zimmerman was on top of Martin during the fight. He says he has no idea who was on top, it was too dark for him to see, he didn’t watch while Zimmerman got up, but he thinks that since Zimmerman walked away that Zimmerman must have been on top.

That kind of testimony, even if allowed in court, will be completely destroyed by any half-way competent attorney.

[Magiver]

@Terr

Magiver, you’re going by the blurb on the video. That blurb is a lie. The witness didn’t say Zimmerman was on top of Martin during the fight. He says he has no idea who was on top, it was too dark for him to see, he didn’t watch while Zimmerman got up, but he thinks that since Zimmerman walked away that Zimmerman must have been on top.

That kind of testimony, even if allowed in court, will be completely destroyed by any half-way competent attorney.

he would have been on top just before he walked away per his own testimony.

[hmarvin]

Zimmerman did tackle Martin after the shot, to prevent him from getting away. Since the 911 tape verifies that Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher told him to, his breathing slowed down, he was heard repeatedly clicking his inoperative flashlight, and pounding it on the dog potty, while talking to the dispatcher (a witness), the claim that he followed Martin has apparently little merit.

[Steophan]

@hmarvin

Zimmerman did tackle Martin after the shot, to prevent him from getting away. Since the 911 tape verifies that Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher told him to, his breathing slowed down, he was heard repeatedly clicking his inoperative flashlight, and pounding it on the dog potty, while talking to the dispatcher (a witness), the claim that he followed Martin has apparently little merit.

I’m sure bete will be along shortly to tell you to stop confusing the issue of railroading Zimmerman by introducing FACTS!

[Shodan]

@betenoire39

1. You are really heartless. No obligation. Of course not.

No evidence he provoked the assault? HAHAHAHA!!!

If you have evidence, why don’t you cite it instead of asking for emoticons?

So the cries were Zimmerman’s too, right–of course they were.

Yes, that’s what the evidence seems to indicate, and what makes sense.

Zimmerman could have called and let the police do their job rather than playing cop.

He did call, and he was waiting for the police to arrive when Martin doubled back and attacked him.

All the evidence?

All of the evidence that I have presented, yes. You haven’t presented any evidence, so it is not a difficult comparison. But you keep making stupid and unfounded statements and refusing to provide any evidence for it. And when you are confronted you change the subject and get testy.

I am done.

You were done as soon as we started talking about evidence.

Regards,
Shodan

[Saraya]

Betenoire you have to consider this that was mentioned:
*
“The jury will never hear unfounded theories. The prosecution has to show how Martin came to be where he was given what he said to Dee Dee and Zimmerman’s call to the Dispatcher. They cannot simply make stuff up. Zimmerman’s testimony will be entered into court. The phone call to the Dispatcher will be entered into court. Dee Dee might be called to testify which means her recount will be entered into court.”*

My long post earlier was full of what if scenarios, that had little evidence. Even if highly logical and plausible, they are the example of what will NOT be heard by a jury as there is no evidence to give them a stable foundation.

It does not mean that the jurors individually or as a small group may come to these same speculations, however as a honest juror they will not act on them.

[doorhinge]

@betenoire39

…Hard to see how someone going home with skittles and iced tea would cause something and not the man in a car following him with a loaded gun–very hard.

You have to say, even on face value, something just doesn’t add up.

…You can take evidence and have differing interpretations of what it means.

???

Martin did not buy “iced tea”. He bought an Arizona brand watermellon flavored drink. That fact has been established by the evidence photos and store records.

[dimmy_derko]

@hmarvin

Zimmerman did tackle Martin after the shot, to prevent him from getting away. Since the 911 tape verifies that Zimmerman stopped following Martin when the dispatcher told him to, his breathing slowed down, he was heard repeatedly clicking his inoperative flashlight, and pounding it on the dog potty, while talking to the dispatcher (a witness), the claim that he followed Martin has apparently little merit.

With regards to the underlined bit, why would he be trying to get his flashlight operative if he was really heading straight back to his vehicle? Isn’t this instead indicative that he wanted to have it working before heading into a darkened area, ie, down the path in the direction he last saw Trayvon Martin heading? This is assuming he was ever at the top of the T in the first place, as there still doesn’t appear to be any conclusive evidence of where Zimmerman parked his vehicle.

[Saraya]

@dimmy_derko

With regards to the underlined bit, why would he be trying to get his flashlight operative if he was really heading straight back to his vehicle? Isn’t this instead indicative that he wanted to have it working before heading into a darkened area, ie, down the path in the direction he last saw Trayvon Martin heading? This is assuming he was ever at the top of the T in the first place, as there still doesn’t appear to be any conclusive evidence of where Zimmerman parked his vehicle.

Between community watch and it being night time, seems pretty logical.. who knows maybe he would have had to run after Martin.

Maybe he’s just afraid of the dark.

Being prudent would be my guess.

[PatriotX]

@doorhinge

???
Martin did not buy “iced tea”. He bought an Arizona brand watermellon flavored drink. That fact has been established by the evidence photos and store records.

Well then, that changes EVERYTHING!!!

[dimmy_derko]

@Saraya

Between community watch and it being night time, seems pretty logical..

Not really. If he’d been where he said he had, his vehicle would have been in direct line of sight and he wouldn’t have needed any illumination to head back towards it.

@Saraya

who knows maybe he would have had to run after Martin.

Whatever for? It’s not like he’d seen TM commit any crime. He can tell everyone that he just wanted to keep his suspect in sight, but if TM had ran and Zimmerman then pursued to “keep him in sight,” TM is not going to know that Z’s intentions are innocent of any malice.

@Saraya

Maybe he’s just afraid of the dark.

There’s a lot of maybe’s that need to be accepted as definitely’s if you want to believe Zimmerman’s tale.

@Saraya

Being prudent would be my guess.

Prudence is the last trait I’d associate with George Zimmerman.

[betenoire39]

@dimmy_derko

Not really. If he’d been where he said he had, his vehicle would have been in direct line of sight and he wouldn’t have needed any illumination to head back towards it.

Whatever for? It’s not like he’d seen TM commit any crime. He can tell everyone that he just wanted to keep his suspect in sight, but if TM had ran and Zimmerman then pursued to “keep him in sight,” TM is not going to know that Z’s intentions are innocent of any malice.

There’s a lot of maybe’s that need to be accepted as definitely’s if you want to believe Zimmerman’s tale.

Prudence is the last trait I’d associate with George Zimmerman.

Thank you.

Glad to know I am not alone.

[betenoire39]

@PatriotX

Well then, that changes EVERYTHING!!!

I know.
That’s a real game changer there.

[Bricker]

@betenoire39

Or is it plausible that the guy in the car, former bouncer, armed with a gun, on medications and with a HISTORY of violence and going ham on people (and there are people who can testify to this) was just “keeping an eye on him” and didn’t provoke anything?

People would have to be living on MARS to think a jury isn’t going to weigh this.

I’m sorry, betenoire, but I don’t agree.

When a person is being tried for a crime, it’s generally not permitted to introduce evidence of any past criminal or other negative accusations against them. This is known in the trade as 404(b) evidence, “prior bad acts,” after the section of the evidence code that forbids them.

There are exceptions to this rule, but it’s not clear to me how any of those exceptions would apply here.

Can you explain how you believe that a jury would be permitted to hear testimony about Zimmerman’s history of violence and “going ham” on people, in light of the prohibition against the introduction of prior bad acts?

[hmarvin]

@dimmy_derko

With regards to the underlined bit, why would he be trying to get his flashlight operative if he was really heading straight back to his vehicle? Isn’t this instead indicative that he wanted to have it working before heading into a darkened area, ie, down the path in the direction he last saw Trayvon Martin heading? This is assuming he was ever at the top of the T in the first place, as there still doesn’t appear to be any conclusive evidence of where Zimmerman parked his vehicle.

You have to assume that the SPD also clicked a flashlight, and pointed it on the dog pot5ty,. to verify his story. They aren't inept. S

[dimmy_derko]

@Bricker

Can you explain how you believe that a jury would be permitted to hear testimony about Zimmerman’s history of violence and “going ham” on people, in light of the prohibition against the introduction of prior bad acts?

When the accused is relying on an attack on the reputation of the person he has admitted killing - eg, claiming TM was an irrational thug with murderous intent - isn’t it only right that the prosecution can bring the reputation of the person making the allegations into the equation? Or does the defence get a pass because TM isn’t around to hear the accusations?

[dimmy_derko]

@hmarvin

You have to assume that the SPD also clicked a flashlight, and pointed it on the dog pot5ty,. to verify his story. They aren’t inept. S

That sounds like a very scientific process - can you break it down for a layman?

[hmarvin]

[quote=“dimmy_derko, post:6352, topic:619125”]

With regards to the underlined bit, why would he be trying to get his flashlight operative if he was really heading straight back to his vehicle? Isn’t this instead indicative that he wanted to have it working before heading into a darkened area, ie, down the path in the direction he last saw Trayvon Martin heading? This is assuming he was ever at the top of the T in the first place, as there still doesn’t appear to be any conclusive evidence of where Zimmerman parked his vehicle.[/QUOT
then ran the st

It also implies he had no idea where Martin was. Standing there and clicking a flashlight while talking to the dispatcher is not following anyone. How did he know Martin was still around? He could just have easily been walking east, to check the street sign on the corner, and not south.