It’s a very common thing to find someone in questionable circumstances who lies about the how or why they are in those circumstances and then to conclude that the reason the person is lying is because they’re trying cover up their involvement with those circumstances.
kid
chair
broken cookie jar
cookie crumbs
He says he came in to the room because he heard it fall and got the chair to see if there was a mouse, cat or something on the top of the fridge which knocked the jar over.
What’s the conclusion that many people will reach about the kid and the cookie jar?
Granted, that kid wouldn’t be convicted in a court of law if there was no way to eliminate the reasonable possibility that he did not try to get illicit cookies.
But, it seems quite natural for laypeople to look at the situation of the lie inside of questionable circumstances as a sign that the liar is guilty.
You really shouldn’t let this tendency of humans bother you. imho.
Actually, iirc, what has to be proven in court is that Z committed murder, not that his story is false.
Try t he June 29th edition of the Orlando Sentinel. At the hearing, Kevin O’R
ourke, a Sanford firefighter, testifiedd at the hearing that then when he and his crew arrived, they cleaned up Zimmerman’s face, because it was 45% covered with blood.
Like I said, there are not photos to support this claim.
I really do hope the defense tries to play up the bloody face thing, though. The bloodier his face, the more unlikely it is Martin would have been as clean as he was if he attacked Zimmerman, and the more hysterical it’ll be at trial when O’Mara has to explain this discrepancy away.
It’s highly likely that that WILL know the details of Zimmerman’s story. While it’s true that Zimmerman does not have to testify, in this circumstance, it’s virtually certain that he will.
Zimmerman either killed Martin in self-defense, or he did not.
The prosecution doesn’t have to counter or explain every single detail.
I also want to add that the prosecution will also argue the following: who was more likely to be engaged in self-defense: Zimmerman or Martin?
They honestly believe that the only thing the jury will look at is the so called moment the shot was fired. How laughable. And they claim I don’t know about the legal system.
Even if Martin “doubled back” which I personally doubt, that still might not save Zimmerman. The jury could just turn around and say: he should have identified himself or handled it differently or stayed in his car or something else: he didn’t have to shoot him.
All of the things we have been talking about WILL be talked about by a jury, whether they like it or not.
I know, I have been on one.
I am curious: have these people sat on juries before?
The prosecution still is under no requirement to “explain away” Zimmerman’s claims. So it’s false to say that the absence of Z’s blood on Martin’s hands means nothing. The absence of evidence is evidence. And that evidence suggests Martin didn’t come in contact with Zimmerman, who supposedly was dripping in blood.
The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. If the defense can come up with even one reasonable scenario that fits the evidence wherein Zimmerman did act in self-defense, then Zimmerman must be acquitted.
You are trying to argue (not very successfully) that Zimmerman’s face was not bloody, and therefore Zimmerman did not act in self-defense. The trouble is, you do not have a reasonable explanation as to why the disinterested party who testified at the hearing said that his face was bloody.
There is, in other words, reasonable doubt about his face not being bloody. You claim it wasn’t; an eyewitness with no reason to lie says it was.
The absence of evidence doesn’t really “prove” anything. You could claim that the absense of evidence “suggests” something.
Finding no fingerprints of any kind suggests that an item had been wiped clean or the suspect had been wearing gloves. Finding the fingerprints of two individuals on a car fender doesn’t mean that a third person hadn’t touched the car earlier and the print had been smudged or smeared. Finding your fingerprints on a busy cooks butt suggests that you were in the kitchen but doesn’t mean the cook didn’t visit your table.
I’m glad you say “reasonable scenario”, because that will be their biggest hurdle. But not only that, this reasonable scenario has to be consistent with Zimmerman’s prior statements. It can’t be something dreamed out of air on the fly, to make it fit with inconvenient evidence. It has to be consistent with his prior claims to be credible. Good luck with that, Z.
I am not surprised that this foolishness is what your reading comprehension has produced.
Go look at the evidence. Zimmerman’s blood was found under Martin’s undershirt, beneath his hoodie. The investigators stated that Martin’s hands were under his body. One way for that to happen is by transfer from Martin’s hands. The Paramedics certainly compromised the evidence,. By wiping away a lot of the blood, they prevented any evidence of transfer. Of course, they were trying to help.
I think the real question would be - If “dimmy derko” claimed that GZ claimed GZ was being mounted mma-style by TM as TM rained blows down on GZ, would anyone know what being “mounted mma-style” would even look like?