Thank you.
Doubt this will change the chorus, but thanks for saying this.
Apparently, Martin “pounded his head into the pavement”, put his hands over Zimmerman’s mouth, yet where’s Zimmerman’s saliva on Martin’s hands and the blood?
Anything that supports their narrative however how much of a stretch.
Anything.
He’s definitely a victim of something.
Subtracting the gunshot wound doesn’t seem increase the significance of the small, incidental scrape on M’s finger.
That small scrape would still not be much of an indicator that M was punching someone.
But, what we could do is imagine that M had some busted, bruised knuckles as though he had been pounding on someone’s head. And we could imagine that Z had bruises up and down his forearms etc as if from shielding his head from the blows being rained down on him.
Now that would provide some substantiation for Z’s narrative.
imho
Until then we’re left with only Z’s narratives about certain pivotal events. Well Z’s narratives and speculation.
The sad thing is that no matter what kind of injuries Martin had or didn’t have, folks would be spinning it as evidence to support Zimmerman’s tale.
If the kid was completely blemish free, why that’s proof of course that he’d had the upper hand in the fight.
If the kid had been covered in scrapes and bruises, why that’s proof that he’d hurt himself while beating Zimmerman.
I wish people would just be honest and say that the physical evidence doesn’t matter in their assessments. Martin’s outer clothing had none of Zimmerman’s blood on it. His hands were clean too. Forget about the damn near microscopic scratch on his finger that he probably sustained while zipping his hoodie. The forsenic evidence does not support the claim that Martin had gripped Zimmerman’s head.
And the wonderful thing about this is that the more dramatic Zimmerman tries to portray his hemorrhaging injuries, the more obvious it is that the objective evidence doesn’t match up. The defense is in catch 22 with this.
It’s a rock solid fact that Zimmerman called the police. In court you have to prove what he said is false. Internet psychics don’t count.
We know where his truck was. We know where his flashlight was found. It corresponds exactly with his account. So unless there is evidence to the contrary, that’s where he was as far as the court is concerned.
Yes, Zimmerman is not a great orator. That’s not a requirement for calling the police. Hell, it’s not even a requirement to be Vice President.
You’ve got it backwards. Any doctor who says the injuries could not have occurred in the manner described would be a liar. The court has to prove it couldn’t happen and thus, Zimmerman is lying.
You stated your opinion based on an image. Isn’t that the basis of bigotry? Assumptions based on appearance.
In a fight between 2 people the injuries incurred (Zimmerman’s) indicate that Martin caused them. Martin’s abrasion is just additional evidence, which is located where you would expect it to be based on Zimmerman’s testimony.
I’ve broken multiple bones of an opponent in a martial arts tournament. Not a scratch on me. The broken bones were evidence that I caused the injury.
Not proof, evidence. Have you still not figured out the difference?
No, you’re the one claiming that the person covered in bruises is the one who was attacking. Perhaps this statement of yours will show you how stupid that position is, but I doubt it.
What, exactly, would you expect to find on Martin’s clothes and hands? He was above him, and blood doesn’t flow upwards, so there’s no reason to expect blood on his clothes, and, as you’ve been repeatedly told, absence of DNA on his hands isn’t proof he didn’t grab him.
If Martin didn’t inflict the injuries on Zimmerman, who did? We know he had injuries to the front and back of his head, and we know Martin was on top of him during the fight. Given all of that, why do you doubt he injured Zimmerman?
So, who do you think caused the injuries to Zimmerman? Those injuries, in case you’ve forgotten, are a broken nose, two black eyes, and abrasions to the forehead and the back of his head. None of which would necessarily be haemorrhaging, and all of which are documented by medical reports and photographic evidence.
Not really. You just have to create enough doubt in his testimony in the eyes of a jury.
How do we know? Is there a police log of its location when they arrived at the scene, or was it actually driven away by Z’s wife before the police on scene were even aware he’d been driving it?
Knowing where it was found is no guarantee that’s where it was initially dropped. Z could just as eaily have tossed it there to try and back up his narrative that the fight started around that spot.
And a jury can either believe it or think he is lying, depending on how things pan out in that court. They’re fairly fluid environments and strange things happen in them.
Yeah, give the guy with a severe stutter a job as dispatcher, while you are at it.
Okay, so every mark on Zimmerman corresponds with some form of attack by TM, but the attacker only has one miniscule mark on a knuckle or finger. One mark, one punch. How could TM have been repeatedly hitting Z while he had him mounted, yet only have sustained one tiny scratch? Z isn’t saying that the only time TM hit him was when he punched him on the nose initially, causing Z to bounce/stumble 30 ft down a pathway, in the opposite direction from which he’d been punched.
I wouldn’t have such an image if his interviews didn’t provide the clues for surmising he is a racist pos.
The only likely thing to cause a break in skin on a puncher’s fist is the teeth of the person being punched, and if TM had caught someone’s tooth with a fist, there’d be a far more significant mark than he had.
Have you punched an opponent repeatedly about the head and face with uncovered fists and come away almost blemish-free?
You have it backwards. Prosecution has to prove things beyond reasonable doubt. Defense is the one that “has to create enough doubt in the eyes of the jury”.
Zimmerman is the defendant, therefore he has the benefit of the doubt. Disbelieving his testimony doesn’t mean the jury can assume the opposite is true, it means they can ignore it and judge solely on the other evidence.
This page seems to once again highlight what Bricker mentioned earlier about some people attempting to discuss ‘what ifs’ and getting them confused with how it actually works in court.
Benefit of the doubt can be weakened or strengthened depending on how an accused person explains themself. If a person says his attacker spoke 2 sentences to his one prior to being assaulted, yet witnesses say they heard a heated argument before the screams began, straightaway we have reason to doubt the accused’s version of events. Additional discrepancies should increase a jury’s disbelief of the account being given.
For example, if Z says he was being mounted “mma-style” as TM rained blows down on him, and there are no corresponding marks on the areas of TM’s trousers where his knees would have been pressing into the wet grass, there’s another reason to doubt Z’s tale.
So if Martin’s clothes and hands had in fact been found to be covered in Z’s blood, what would your assessment then be? Somehow I doubt you’d be saying this is evidence that Zimmerman’s story defies belief on the basis that blood “doesn’t flow up”. We all know you’d be screaming from rooftops that this means the kid was the aggressor.
So Martin is practically pristine of Zimmerman’s DNA, and what’s your assessment? That this too is consistent with Zimmerman’s story. Brilliant. Lets just call your thought process “heads Zimmerman wins, tails Martin loses”.
So the possibility that Z slipped on the wet grass is entirely ruled out because…? Of what? Z’s say-so?
To convince me, you’d have to walk me through like I was a 3 yr old.
all I see is injuries on one guy who is making some claims which are not supported by any other witnesses. The fact that he has some injuries doesn’t link those injuries to the narrative he describes. His say-so links his injuries to his narratives.
As I have said more than once, the “injury” on M is not at all as I would expect. So any conclusion drawn from the fact that M’s injuries are as I would expect is suspect at best.
In your world perhaps that sort of reasoning holds. But it doesn’t work for me.
I need more data to reach that conclusion. It’s not as if everyone who has broken bones had them broken by you. There has to be more data which actually ties the broken bones to you. The mere fact that someone has broken bones doesn’t mean that you’re the on who broke them. At least afaict. ymmv.
Personally, I would accept things like multiple witnesses at the tournament describing your conduct, as evidence which ties you to the injuries. But the mere fact that some has injuries doesn’t really tie them to you in particular. ymmv.
Seeing someone with injuries doesn’t tell me the who or why. If the injuries are specific enough, the injuries can tell the how–f’rinstints burns can be distinguished from lacerations, etc.
But if the injuries are especially non-specific or especially insignificant, like the tiny scrape on M’s finger, they don’t seem to offer much purchase for basing further conclusions. Maybe you have some more advanced building techniques which allow you to build quite a bit more on the insinuation of a toe-hold rather than what I consider a firm foundation.
idk.
But I can’t in good conscience sign off on the idea that a minuscule scratch on M’s finger is any indication that Z’s narrative holds water. ymmv.
OK, go ahead and be honest - admit that the physical evidence doesn’t matter in your assessment.
Regards,
Shodan
Have a listen to Zimmerman’s interview at the 40 minute mark here, where he explains how he’s familiar with criminal types usually running like rabbits and taking advantage of their knowledge of the neighbourhood, then ponder whether that tallies with TM’s behaviour on first being discovered acting “suspiciously” by George. By Z’s own judgement and previous experience, TM’s response should have had Z continuing with his trip to Target, not following an innocent youth and putting himself in close enough proximity to possibly provoke a panicked reaction.
That they disbelieve his account would not allow them to assume the opposite of his statement is true, it simply means they can discount the statement and make their judgement based on the other evidence. Evidence that, overall, supports hos story.
It shows that the lack of blood and DNA doesn’t inform us whether Martin was attacking Zimmerman. Are you seriously claiming that you don’t believe Martin punched Zimmerman?
And yes, if there was blood and DNA on Martin, it would be proof he attacked him. Such proof is not relevant to the case, though, as Zimmerman doesn’t have to prove his innocence. Your coin-toss analogy proves, if more proof were needed, that you really don’t understand this, and that a trial is not conducted with both sides on an equal footing. The evidence should be interpreted in the way most favourable to the defendant, and only if it still shows him guilty can he be convicted.
Yes and no. I find the lack of blood on Martin odd given Zimmerman’s account, but for different reasons than most.
I am not too surprised that Martin had no blood on him if he was on top of Z hitting him, even with the broken nose. If Z was on his back the blood flow very likely would have gone back into the sinus cavity. So to me it isn’t too odd that no blood was transfered at this time.
I am surprised though that when Z tackled him after the shot and was over him there was no transfer of blood from Z to Martin’s clothing at that time. This I find quite odd as I would expect him to not be in a head back position so he should have been dripping all over.
Of course there is the possibility no bleeding accompanied the nose injury. But then I have a hard time believing Z’s response was justifiable.
The only indicator that Z’s injuries came from M sucker punching Z and starting the physical altercation is Z’s say so.
Once Z’s say-so is discounted, I see no compelling reason to believe that M initiated the physicality by sucker punching Z.
I don’t feel compelled to disbelieve it either.
Obviously it is, otherwise it wouldn’t be brought up so much.
Perhaps you mean to limit your comment to certain aspects of the trial.
Since this line of reasoning comes up with regularity, it seems possible that juror may take a trip down the line. The implications of a juror doing so are even more conjecture built upon conjecture.
Of course the fact that this line of reasoning seems not unusual doesn’t relieve the state of their burden of proof or anything. But I think that the line of thought is something other than wholly irrelevant. It’s something which people think about and has a bearing on how some people ascertain what they think happened. And that’s relevant to the case whether or not it sees the inside of a court room or not.
imho.