We haven’t seen the autopsy yet, so we don’t know that. We have the statements of the funeral director, but I don’t consider him reliable. There should been marks from the autopsy that he should have noticed, so I call BS on his statement.
Are you familiar with the evidence that was used to convict Scott Peterson?
It’s true that there was no direct evidence. But there was plenty of evidence from which the jury could infer consciousness of guilt. Peterson told Amber Frey that his wife had died, and that he was free to spend Christmas with Amber… fifteen days before Laci died. Forensic evidence included Laci’s hair in a pair of pliers on Peterson’s boat. He sold Laci’s car a few days after she was “missing.” His own testimony established he was fishing at the time she disappeared, and testimony from an expert witness used tides and waterflow analysis to track her body back to the same fishing route Peterson used.
Taken together, a reasonable jury could conclude that Laci was on the boat when she went into the sea, that Scott knew LAci would be gone before she was gone, and that he knew she was dead while claiming she was merely missing.
Now, if his story had been that they’d been together on the boat, she lunged at him and tried to kill him, and he defended himself, the outcome might have been different. But he claimed she vanished and that he was on the boat alone. The physical evidence allowed the jury to find that wasn’t true.
Here, there is no such contradictory evidence.
Yet. Or that I’m aware of, anyway. Again, I imagine there’s something; I just don’t know yet what it is.
[QUOTE=treis]
This same Zimmerman confronts Martin and loses a fight without putting a scratch on Martin. It doesn’t make any sense.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, this is the first time I’ve agreed with you. This doesn’t make sense. That’s why I question whether there was a true fight. If the only witness to the event claiming such an implausible thing is the killer himself, then by golly, that really makes me question it.
You were responding to a statement where I said that if Martin has punched Zimmerman and walked away then the bullet would have been in Martin’s back, so your response was a bizarre non sequitur.
Has anyone heard who first broke this story nationally and why?
Except that the funeral director can hardly know whether there was a scratch on Martin. By the time he got the body, there should have been multiple large incisions on his body for the purpose of the autopsy. The question is what the medical examiner saw.
And for all we know, this is what Gilbreath was thinking of when he said he had evidence: Zimmerman’s claims of a bruising fight and no signs on Martin. I don’t know enough about forensic pathology to say what should have been there – it’s been a long time since “Quincy, M.D.” – but the medical examiner does.
No, I was responding to exactly what I quoted when I said it! And what I quoted just now in my reply. And what I’m going to quote a THIRD time, so why you are bothering to say I was referring to something else I’ll never know…
emphasis mine:
If GZ has really been working as a bouncer that makes his claims of having to kill Martin in order to protect himself are even stinkier than they already were.
And why would comparable evidence be difficult to obtain in Zimmerman’s case?
If the prosection can convince the jury that it was Martin screaming on that tape, and that Zimmerman lied by claiming it was his voice, that would demonstrate guilty “consciousness”.
If the prosecution can show that Zimmerman exaggerated or falsified the extent and nature of his injuries, suggesting that he lied about Martin attacking him, that too would be evidence of a guilty “consciousness”.
We don’t know what the forensics show in Zimmerman’s case. The angle of entry very well might be inconsistent with Zimmerman’s story. We don’t know what the EMT records show. They very well might be inconsistent with Zimmerman’s story. We don’t know what the State found when they tried to recreate the incident based on where the body was found and the nature of the gunshot. If the bullet killed Martin instantly based on the coroner’s assessment and Zimmerman denies moving him post-shooting, then the body’s location and position would need to match up with Zimmerman’s statement. If it doesn’t, then this will be damning to Zimmerman just as the tide analysis damned Peterson.
And that’s an important disclaimer. All the evidence that ended up dooming Peterson didn’t come out until trial. Based on this history, we don’t have enough information to say that Zimmerman’s case is too weak for a conviction. Evidence against Scott Peterson probably appeared to be just as flimsy in the beginning.
Or maybe Zimmerman is actually telling the truth. As far as I am aware, his story matches the physical evidence, without any significant contradiction.
And what does it do to your “Zimmerman confronted Martin” story?
Absolutely correct.
Yes, true, absolutely true.
And three for three. Also entirely and completely true.
Not as weak, but your underlying point is well-taken.
Which is why I have been carefully saying things like:
Right?
You’re saying what I’ve been saying all along: there may well be such damning evidence. But we don’t know it yet.
Based on the evidence we have, the case against Zimmerman isn’t legally sustainable. But we don’t have all the evidence. Plenty of things could come to light that could skewer him. Remember back at the beginning of the original thread, I said I wanted his statement to police, together with the medical reports and eyewitness statements, before I’d make a judgement?
It may well not have been a true fight, in that Zimmerman may have been attacked and not got a punch in. That’s a mugging, not a fight, and is a scenario that is consistent with the evidence so far.
It’s also unlikely, but far more likely than the idea that Zimmerman called the police, then whilst waiting for them committed a series of illegal activities. The latter, of course, is what needs to be proved, and as it’s so unlikely, it’s going to need very strong evidence to prove it.
I’m not aware that Florida requires the use of minimum necessary force when defending yourself. If not, the claim that he didn’t have to kill him is irrelevant.
Sure. But “as far as you’re aware” isn’t very far, since you’re not aware of the EMT’s report, the autopsy report, the location of the shell casing, the stippling marks on Martin’s clothing… etc etc.
Right?
I need to you to explain this. If the evidence against Zimmerman is not “legally sustainable” how would the State have been able to press charges against this guy?
I can’t agree with a statement wordly so strongly without more information.
We still have to account for the first 45 seconds on the 911 call and the Zimmerman’s condition when the police arrived. That leaves two alternatives.
[ul]
[li]Martin was pounding on Zimmerman and Zimmerman was just trying to protect himself. [/li][li]The fight was more even and there would be some wounds on Martin’s body that would show up during the autopsy.[/li][/ul]
Because the state presumably has evidence that has not been released to the public as yet.
I don’t know what Zimmerman’s condition was.
I don’t think the prosecution will have a hard to proving that Zimmerman is an “act before you think” type of individual.
Calling the cops and then taking bone-headed actions that happen to be illegal (like restraining a stranger against their will, unconcealing a weapon, etc.) seem perfectly consistent with someone who disregards 911 advice and chases after a suspicious person, gets fired from their security job for being overagressive, and pisses his neighbors off by assuming an authority he doesn’t have in his positon as neighborhood watchman.
I don’t know what you’re referring to. Please quote.