Firstly, you have no evidence whatsoever that Martin was acting in self defence. Secondly, it wouldn’t matter if he was, under the circumstances Zimmerman would still have been entitled to shoot him. But then, you know this already, so why are you continuing to post falsehoods and irrelevancies?
-
If…how do you know he won’t? If, if, if…
-
It’s quite clear he doesn’t trust them. Why the hell should he? I believe I asked you this before.
-
:dubious:
-
HIS case against the PD and GZ? I would REALLY like you to elaborate. I need a good laugh.
-
Why would it be a “spectical”?
This, at the same time as arguing that they are incompetent. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so pathetic, and if it didn’t involve an attempt to get an innocent man punished for a non-existent crime.
Oops. It will be a “spectacle”, an unusual or unexpected event or situation which attracts attention, interest or disapproval. Specifically, I’m referrrring to Deedee’s previously released interview where, even though she was being coaxed by the interviewer, she still ended up sounding like she had no idea what she had actually heard and couldn’t follow the interviewer’s script. A repeat of the same should convince a jury that Deedee has no idea what she heard or even where she’s at.
- Sure…Zimmerman was an angel who just happened to leave his car with a gun pursuing him that night just to “ask” Martin a question. Martin who was offended, “doubled back” and “pounded his head into the pavement” and “savagely attacked Zimmerman”.
Yup. :rolleyes:
I think the better question to ask here is what Zimmerman did that night and how he contributed to Martin’s death.
-
“Entitled”???Your world buddy.
-
No, I don’t “know this”.
Proper procedures for preservation of DNA evidence will allow it to be tested accurately for several years. It is best for the sample to be dried out for preservation.
At least that is what I learned with my genetics degree.
Her account was clear to me–crystal clear.
I really don’t see how she helps Zimmerman.
He would have used the word “when” if he knew he wouldn’t hand it over. Using the word “if” states clearly that he doesn’t know such a thing, but that the conclusion is valid in such circumstances as the premise is true.
Also, your hypocrisy in complaining about others speculating, and offering conditionals, is breathtaking.
I can think of several reasons it would be a spectacle. She could be expected to explain why she didn’t contact the police, but waited to be contacted by the Martin’s lawyer, to tell the court how much of her statement was prompted by Crump, if she was aware that Crump was lying about her age, and if so why she didn’t contact the investigators to correct that, and to explain in detail, and without evasion, ambiguity, or vacillation exactly what she heard on the phone call(s) that evening.
I’d say finding out about what actually happened that evening, and the tactics used by the investigators, would be very interesting.
Oh, so no blood on Martin’s hands? Zimmerman is guilty, right?
How can you conclude that none of Zimmerman’s blood/DNA was on Martin’s hands?
I think you’re missing something crucial here about why some individuals would be hesitant to trust the SPD.
Let’s think a bit.
Why do you think people might be reluctant to trust SPD?
This isn’t hard.
Firstly, stop modifying my quotes. If you want to respond to parts separately, snip the quote.
No, he left the car to track him so the cops could find him, with no intention of meeting him.
Ah, right. He shot him in self defence. That is the sum total of Zimmerman’s actions that can reasonably be considered to have caused Martin’s death.
And, more importantly, the world Zimmerman will be tried in.
Yes you do. You’ve quoted the law that states this, and heard the witnesses that stated that Zimmerman was underneath Martin. You dislike it, and you want to find any way you can to get round it, but all you can find are baseless speculations and outright lies. You do know it, otherwise you’d be able to show why it’s false.
I know what’s happening with you. You backed the wrong horse, so to speak, but can’t admit it. You were shown the photos of a smiling Martin aged 13 or so, and a scowling Zimmerman, and assumed he killed an innocent kid. You’ve been shown all the evidence, and you now know better, but you can’t bring yourself to admit you were wrong, that Martin wasn’t an angel, and that Zimmerman wasn’t a heartless hunter of black kids.
Where is your proof “this pic would have been taken a few minutes after the pic in the police car?”
The photos at the station were taken four hours after the photo in the car according to police reports in discovery.
What ‘sheninangans’ are you suggesting and were is your proof?
-
No.
-
Yeah, right. Not even the cops bought that bull.
-
No he didn’t.
-
No, YOUR WORLD. Again, the material is there to send him away. It’s like I have to keep on repeating this. Even lawyers chimed in on this thread to say this.
-
Zimmerman was beneath him. And? Your point? I never denied this.
-
Keep dreaming.
You’re the one asking the question about how hard it was raining, as though its plausible that rain could vanquish detectable blood traces from Martin’s hands. It’s an idea that’s a bit absurd on its face, which is why I feel qualified as a non-criminologist to offer my opinion about it.
We’re not talking about cleaniness, though. We’re talking about hands that tested negative for even microscopic traces of Zimmerman’s blood. If you had to have a rag to remove gross contamination from your hands, then it’s highly unlikely you could’ve cleaned them well enough to remove all trace evidence. So it’s silly to think rain could have passively eliminated all Zimmerman residue from Martin’s hands. Not without the benefit of concentrated elbow grease and soap.
No, we don’t know this. But it’s safe to assume most forensic labs follow certain protocols, and we have no reason to believe the State’s lab does not.
So the better question is how likely is it that they would have not subjected Martin’s hands to some kind of screening process for blood evidence prior to taking fingernail clippings? How likely is it that Martin’s hands actually were contaminated by Z’s blood, but evidence collection overlooked this? It doesn’t seem likely at all to me, which is why this line of questioning strikes me as desperate straw grasping.
Give me a cite showing that Martin’s hands (not nails, hands) got tested for “even microscopic traces of Zimmerman’s blood”.
The statement was, “IF Crump refuses”. It won’t matter to the court if Crump doesn’t trust the SPD. If Crump refuses to turn over the original recording, nothing on the recording will be allowed in court. A judge could force Crump to turn over the original recording. The prosecution will have to rely on Deedee testimony in court to establish their case against GZ. Testimony that Deedee will have to provide without being coaxed by Crump or any of the other people who were present during the desposition in question. I don’t think she’ll do well on her own.
If Crump’s public statements can convince the jury that the SPD can’t/shouldn’t be trusted, what will the prosecution rely on to convince the jury that any of the SPD provided evidence can be trusted. If the jury doesn’t trust any of the SPD evidence, then the jury won’t have any reason to convict GZ of 2nd degree.
It’s possible that Crump will file a civil lawsuit against GZ and against the SPD. How will it look to those juries that Crump doesn’t trust the police to handle evidence but the police evidence against GZ is OK? He can’t present it both ways. A confused jury won’t trust any of the evidence and won’t find in Crump’s favor.
Can you site this? My understanding was that the pics were taken shortly after Zimmerman was brought to the station. I admit that very well might be wrong though.
Before leaping to the conclusion that the state is playing fast and loose with the evidence, you need to go to the discovery dump and look at the black and white photo of Zimmerman. You should notice, first of all, that it’s a low contrast pic, so you can see more details in it than you can see in the mess circulating now. So the first question you should ask is why is the defense using a poor quality B&W pic to argue their case of unfairness, rather than the pic in the document dump? The answer is most likely legal theatrics, not substance.
Secondly, you should ask yourself what the State could really gain for “hiding” the color photo. It’s not as though the jury can’t look at the B&W version and appreciate the massive swelling depicted. The obvious answer is that the State isn’t trying to hide anything. The B&W pic contains details that they feel is relevant to their case against Zimmerman, and they believe the color pic adds nor takes away anything from that case.
I’m surprised (no I’m not) that the defense hasn’t yet complained about the failure of the state to include the witness’s picsin their discovery. Don’t yall wonder why they’ve said not one peep about that?
The front and rear “bloody head” photos show that GZ was attacked and suffered injuries. With photos of blood running down GZ face and head and an obviously broken nose, will a jury believe that GZ believed that his life was in imminent danger of death or bodily harm when he used lethal force to stop TM’s attack?
Do you have any evidence that GZ initiated the fight? Deedee’s testimony just might not hold up or even make it to court??? Without that, what do you have left that will convince a jury that GZ started the fight?
Orlando.com.news just released the FBI transcripts. Bad news for the prosecution. Almost everyone interviewed thinks Zimmerman is a polite, helpful, nice person, without the slightest hint of racism.
Other than the whole murdering people thing, you mean?