“Moving,” as opposed to utterly stock still, yes. But “moving,” as in traversing lateral distance? No, I don’t agree. For the re-enactment up to that point, Zimmerman and Serino walked along, covering the area that Zimmerman was standing as each event happened. Why should it be that for this particular event, Zimmerman stood still even while his narrative meant to convey additional movement?
he showed movement in his re-enactment of where the fight started to where it ended. I’m not following you.
So, you think he is holding the gun handle upside down beside his ear, with the barrel pointing to the left in the picture? Whatever for?
Are you still undecided?
I know the first interview is brief, but it’s what he doesn’t say that is important, and he doesn’t say the conversation he had with Z was while Z was still astride TM and that he refused Z’s plea for help.
Yes,he’d probably been losing sleep over how inefficient the first interview was and was glad to add more details to someone who actually seemed interested.
We’re talking about his first contact after the fight had finished, not while it was still ongoing.
Watch Z’s reenactment vid again from 11:23 to 11:56. Is his testimony here as believable as the previous 60 seconds?
Well, not to the first interviewer, but I blame that on the interviewing officer who hadn’t driven home the importance of telling everything he saw and did involving the accused. He does tell the FDLE.
Are you serious? They didn’t even go to the spot where Z was last on top of TM.
This “reenactment” was a bit of a sham, really. When Serino turned up at Z’s house and Z came out wearing his nice slacks and white t-shirt, Serino should have told him to change his clothes, as he was going to be rolling on the floor later.
so? do you understand that a narrative walk-through doesn’t require the physical duplication of his movements?
[/quote]
This “reenactment” was a bit of a sham, really. When Serino turned up at Z’s house and Z came out wearing his nice slacks and white t-shirt, Serino should have told him to change his clothes, as he was going to be rolling on the floor later.
[/QUOTE]
Why would he be rolling on the floor later?
how did you manage to restate the exact opposite of what I said? You’re looking at Zimmerman holding the gun in his right hand in the normal position and it’s not up to his ear. It’s away from his head. That’s the only way it would produce a shadow on his arm. The reflection and lack of reflection along the edge matches the bevel and grip relief cuts
What IS the point then, if it’s not to get a more accurate interpretation of the events that have been described, and the time scales involved? I’m sure it wasn’t just meant to serve the purpose of reinforcing Z’s narrative.
Why even do a reenactment when you haven’t even got the NEN call the person had made to enable him to match moments on the call specifically to places on his journey?
If Z had said he travelled from A to B in x time, and x time was impossible, there you have a hole in his defence. If Z says he parked at spot y and somebody else says that wasn’t the case, there’s another hole.
correct but he also says he goes outside when his wife says someone was shot and a man was hunched over. In the next interview he says he goes through the garage and comes around the corner. He then contradicts himself about when the call is made and leaves out the picture taking in both videos. He has to be prodded.
:rolleyes:
yes we are.
his account is not contradicted by evidence. Martin’s body position is covered. The shooting is covered. The beating is covered. The location where it started is covered. The events prior to that are covered. Nothing to date has shown any of this to be false. This is what the court has to do to convict him. Not that you will ever understand that. Your entire argument is that he lied about “something” which you cannot prove therefore he murdered Martin. That is not a court case.
What evidence do you have to accuse the officers of truncating the interviews. They asked for statements from everyone including Zimmerman. They then had the opportunity to review these and go back and ask again. This is how you clarify information and catch someone in a lie.
the point is to go over his testimony. It can reinforce or it can expose a relevant falsehood. He’s not expected to recall perfectly. But if he says Martin stabbed him in the leg and there is no wound that is a verifiable falsehood. If he says the fight travels down the sidewalk from where it started then the relevant point is that it moved away from the original spot and not the precise distance.
to match against it, not with it. This is how you reinforce or expose a relevant falsehood just as asking him repeatedly in a sit-down interview does. It’s one more form of interrogation.
wow, this is just so bizarre that you keep bringing it up. Zimmerman never says he traveled from point A to point B in X amount of time. He’s never asked. It has no bearing on the case. He has no way of knowing either of these variables and it doesn’t change the narrative of the events. We know he parked his truck and we know he ran after Martin and we know there is a time gap of minutes before the confrontation occurs and we know where it occurs. There is no “hole” to be found in his defense. His defense starts at the beginning of the fight and ends with him shooting and then frisking Martin.
I’m not saying that Z could be made to do anything like that, but Z should have expected that he might be asked to get on the ground and demonstrate to the best of his memory what happened.
Not just stand 10 yds away and point vaguely to where it might have happened. Z is supposed to be illustrating specific events that are going to be important in interpreting whether he faces charges for killing a teenager, not just giving a brief outline that he can wriggle out of later.
honestly, it sounds like you’re basing your expectations on TV crime shows. I do think after comparing early and later interviews that the investigators are hurting the prosecution case with their methodology. There is a significant amount of prodding involved in their questions. This is actually a very hard thing to avoid doing when trying to clarify an earlier statement. It interferes in the process of gathering missed information and it reinforces memories that may or may not have been correctly stated at the time. The same thing applies to Zimmerman’s 5 hr questioning. About the only thing an interviewer should do is repeat what was said and ask what happened next.
It’s called an EXAMPLE of the kind of thing that might be important in determing the validity of a case.
See above.
See above again.
Knowing he parked it is such an obvious statement, I can’t understand why you’d point it out. The important bit is WHERE he parked it. And even there in his “narrative/reenactment,” we are asked to believe that he parked up where he did in the reenactment(see him pointing over to the little sign on the grass as they pulled up?) rather than pull up right in front of the truck ahead and begin his chase to “keep an eye on Trayvon.”
Yes, we KNOW he ran after TM, even if in the reenactment he made out like he just casually strode in the general direction TM had gone. We know EXACTLY how much time passed from Z getting out of his vehicle, to where he is supposedly heading back to his vehicle, and by Z’s own reckoning, the attack happened only moments after he’d ended his phone call, but we also know that didn’t happen, either.
That’s not even slightly important. Frankly, neither Martin’s nor Zimmerman’s movements before the fight started are important to the case. What matters is whether Zimmerman was entitled to shoot Martin, and what determines that is the level of fear Martin put him in, and, depending on other circumstances, whether Martin was restraining Zimmerman at the instant the shot was fired.
What he did before - or for that matter after - the fight isn’t relevant to the self defence claim.
No, I’m basing my expectations on the police doing a proper job of investigating potential murderers, using all the resources and wiles they have, and on a man who wants to be cleared of killing a 17yr old who was minding his own business, being prepared to get down on the floor to show how he remembered the struggle progressing and maybe try and pin down EXACTLY where the fight occurred.
The first interview with W13 could never be described as sufficient for purpose.
Zimmerman was at the station for 5 hours. I can’t find his interview with Singleton, but I’m sure it wont have lasted 5 hours, with Serino just popping in for a pep talk with Z before letting him go.
No dimmy, it’s not. The case starts at the fight.
Yes, we’re asked to believe it because there is no contrary evidence to suggest it didn’t happen this way. There is no reason to pull up to the spot when he can point to it. There’s no reason to run because he can’t duplicate the speed he was running or how long he was running. Such an exercise produces no additional information because we know where the fight took place. Trying to prove he couldn’t have done it in the allotted time defies the logic that it happened.
No, we don’t know EXACTLY how much time passed before he started back toward his vehicle. We don’t know how fast he moved when he ran toward the back of the houses or exactly how long the running time was. We have a rough idea. It’s not relevant unless there is evidence that he parked somewhere else and ran somewhere else. There is no such evidence. You simply don’t grasp that in the absence of conflicting evidence the remaining evidence is what will be used.
As far as I can tell, your train of thought is that it could have happened another way, therefore we can assume it happened (if we don’t believe Zimmerman) and convict him of it. You need proof it happened another way.
How can it NOT be important? Are you saying that if Z’s car was parked at the first gap between the houses, ahead of TM’s route home, suggesting he had cut through the gap and headed TM off, that wouldn’t change your picture of how events transpired?
I just want confirmation that Z is being as honest as he can in his recollections, wherever it is available, and knowing for sure where he got out of his car to chase in the direction of TM would be a point in his favour, and from where I’m sat he needs a few of them.
No, it doesn’t. Z wasn’t transported to the T by aliens. He got there by his own decisions, and we all know how warped they were.
Not in this thread, I dont.
It’s not possible to pin down the exact anything and your expectations of the investigation are your opinion.
why would you think it was meant to?
OK, you’re doing it again. You’ve just thrown your imagination of what happened on the wall to see if any of it sticks. You’ve accused Serino of incompetence without a single piece of information. This is the hallmark of a lynching mentality. You’re SURE of something with absolutely no information at all.
What you fail to understand is that those explaining the case believe that it’s possible that Zimmerman was planning on making a lamp shade out of Martin. There’s just no evidence he was. “Anything is possible” is not how we operate our court systems.
yes dimmy it would. But there is no evidence that this happened. How can you not understand this. There are literally an infinite number of things that could have happened that night. LITERALLY. Without evidence you can’t suggest it happened in court. We do have an ear witness that 2 people ran by. Now maybe she only heard Martin because he ran between the houses and circled twice passed her house. OR, as much as it pains you, it reinforces Zimmerman’s account and does not refute it that they both ran past her house. He has no way of knowing she heard this when he gave his statement. He has no way of knowing what people saw when they gave their statements. And not one person is going to precisely recall the events correctly. This is the reality of the evidence we are dealing with. In fact, if I recall correctly the woman who heard someone running first said they were back to back and then later changed it to a staggered amount of time. was she influenced by hearing other people talk or news reports? We can’t know. But we do know that both parties said they lost sight of each other and Martin had a head start so it’s logical to assume the 2 running events were spaced out.
Yes dimmy, we all would like a video recording of exactly what happened start to finish. In 3D. From 8 angles of perspective. With Jesus Christ personally narrating the video. That would be swell. In the meantime we have to deal with the evidence at hand.
You mean like in these snippets from Serino’s transcripts?
Here would be a good point to commit Z towards adding a little more detail, but Serino skips right by it.
He definitely hasn’t followed your advice in his 2nd interview.
Does all that match the kind of interviewer you describe as being an effective one?
You defined the standards of a good interviewer; I’ve just provided the evidence that Serino doesn’t fit that bill.
Oh, and did you see his little cig-smoking burglar story that you was “WTF’ing?” about in an earlier post?