I’m not seeing how it is a stupid statement. He was saying that had he known the boy was only 17 walking back from the store in the rain (stupid shit that a lot of kids do), he might not have been as suspicious as he would have been of a 27 year old doing the same thing. You would suspect that a 20s something person would have been driving in that weather.
If he told the 911 dispatcher “late teens” then he does have some explaining to do to reconcile those statements.
Actually, I don’t think Papa Zimmerman’s statements damn him so much as they damn his son, since he’s repeating what his son told him.
To give just one obvious example, prior to the release of the 911 tapes, Robert Zimmerman released a letter to the press claiming, amongst other things, that George hadn’t followed Trayvon.
The 911 tapes proved this was bullshit.
Now, obviously George told his dad he hadn’t followed Trayvon. The question is whether or not Zimmerman also told the police that night that he hadn’t followed Trayvon.
We don’t know for sure yet, but considering that Robert Zimmerman was a retired judge, I’m sure that before he’d put out that letter he’d double check with his son to make sure that nothing in the letter would be contradicted by what his son told the police.
I also think the statement that he didn’t know if TM was armed or not can come back to bite him. If he thought there was a chance TM was armed, why in the world was he following him? Would he have followed him if GZ was unarmed? If he followed a potentially armed suspect only because he himself was armed, it looks like GZ was spoiling for a fight.
The testimony GZ’s father gave at the bond hearing was what he himself observed when he first saw GZ after the confrontation.
I guess he might have been trying to say that, but I don’t see it as the most likely meaning a person would take away from it.
He did:
Its that line of demarcation that is bothering me the most, it doesn’t make sense to me. Its almost as if someone laid down a line of masking tape, like one does in painting a wall. It might make sense if that line was a lateral wound across the scalp, which by some coincidence is straight as a ruler. But there is no apparent wound in the photo, nor was there any such apparent wound in the videos of him arriving at the police station. And, of course, in those videos he wasn’t awash in blood on the back of his head. OK, so he was cleaned up, sure, but where is the wound that all that blood came from?
Not drawing any conclusions or even inferences here, but it doesn’t make sense. Even if it were Martin’s blood, how the hell did he get it all over the back of his head?
I’m strongly leaning towards the theory that Zimmerman lied to the cops about not following Martin, and said as much in another thread.
And I’d forgotten all about Daddy Z’s letter. It’s all starting to come together now.
I enlarged the picture, stared at it for awhile, and here’s what I see. Not saying this is what it must be, but just what it looks likely to be:
Three or 4 “road rash” type areas with blood oozing from them. Not a single laceration, like I thought at first, but rather several sources of blood with the upper one just being the end of the line. I’ve seen scrapes from bicycle crashes (hence, road rash) that look similar.
At any rate, I guess we’ll find out at the trial. Assuming there is a trial.
And what happens when he leaves the ground that was blotting up the blood? Unless his heart stopped beating, it would continue to bleed until clotting occurs.
He would have a big, smeary, bloody mess on the back of his head.
They do. Medical reports indicate he had some head injuries.
Unless it was wiped clean before the picture was taken.
There is smearing around the wound. How long do you think he was on the ground getting his head beat in? Or put another way, how many times can someone beat your head against cement before you think it’s life threatening. 3 seconds? 8 seconds? All Zimmerman’s lawyer has to do is repeatedly smash something like a melon into a courtroom table to drive home what 10 seconds looks like in beat-down.
The wounds look consistent with getting one’s head smacked into a hard surface which is what was described by Zimmerman. And that’s what the prosecution has to prove wrong.
He did indeed.
I also wondered about the " I didn’t know if he was armed"
What reason did you have to suspect he might be, and why would you get out of your vehicle if you were thinking that. Or, if you’re talking about the physical confrontation, If he hadn’t produced a weapon by then , his hands were kinda busy.
The prosecutor claims she has some other evidence that has not been revealed , such as a witness who saw two men running by her house, which would mean one was chasing the other. As well as some other contradictions in his story.
If memory serves, the whole “bashing on the sidewalk” thing has evaporated, and it is generally agreed that the crime scene is in the grass, some distance from the sidewalk.
Hey, you could look it up, if I’m wrong, you can bring proof and rub my nose in it! That way I’ll know without bothering, and I have an unlimited supply of self-esteem, so no harm done.
Except according to Zimmerman, Trayvon knocked him to the ground with one punch, straddled him and then repeatedly punched him in the face and smashed his head into the sidewalk not for eight seconds, or ten seconds, but for a full minute.
That account is not supported by the evidence and were it true he’d have far more severe injuries than are observed on a video of him barely half an hour after he received this supposed beat-down.
Zimmerman is trying to keep a visual contact of Martin for the police who are on their way. Martin takes off running. Zimmerman continues following him. Witness sees people running by.
We know the 2 met at some point and no crime has been committed up to this point. Beating someone’s head into the cement is a crime. That is the story Zimmerman gave and his wounds and eye witness accounts line up with it. He was questioned extensively for hours after that so any major changes to his story would have to be concocted and stuck to all through the questioning. That’s why they spend so much time going over the same thing repeatedly, to catch the person in a major discrepancy. Little discrepancies aren’t going to matter. What will matter is how consistent the story is from first interview at the scene and 5 hrs later.
OK, here’s my legal response. So? I was asking about a continuous head beating. If Zimmerman was punched and had his head slammed than Martin didn’t just smash his head which was the scariest part. His wounds are consistent with his story. His face was bruised and his head was bleeding from behind.
Or if it isn’t even Zimmerman’s blood.
Actually, his statement in court was a little more damning. He said in court he thought Trayvon was a few years younger than him which is directly contradicted by the 911 tapes.
http://thelastword.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/20/11312284-zimmerman-to-martin-family-i-am-sorry?lite
I also recommend everyone watch the video of him on the stand first giving his statement and then being cross-examined but it gives an idea why the prosecutors are so confident.
Judge for yourselves, but I think he looks terrible on the stand and suspect a jury won’t believe a word he says when a good prosecutor is done with him.