While I agree in general with what you say, I think the point isn’t about his injuries or lack of injuries being a justification; it’s about casting doubt on what has dribbled out as being “his side” of the story.
Also, it’s the slow and nature of how what little public information there is is getting out. First there’s nothing but the family’s complaint about the police, and the seeming stonewalling by the police, then a leaked statement, then 911 tapes, then stories by Zimmerman’s friends and family, then videotapes, etc. etc. etc. So everyone gets some little fragment to chew over every 24 or 48 hours or whatever, and it’s the only new thing to talk about, and everybody has ideas about how it supports or contradicts something else that dribbled out a while ago.
Some people blame the media, and maybe that’s correct. We might also choose to blame the anonymous sources or sources in the city/county/state governments who are offering up the leaks. Maybe the police leaked the story of the chief investigator wanting to make an arrest because they thought the state’s attorney was hanging them out on a limb. Maybe the attorneys leaked something in response to that. Who knows? But the chaos of this discussion is IMO directly related to the chaotic nature of how and when information is becoming available.
http://www.sanfordfl.gov/press_releases/Release19.pdf
"
Sanford Police Department Response to Orlando Sentinel Report
Sanford, FL- - March 26, 2012 - -
In response to the recent article in the Orlando Sentinel, the information was not provided to the media through an authorized source at the Sanford Police Department, but possibly by a leak from within the department. The information in the article is consistent with the information provided to the State Attorney’s office by the police department.
"
Here’s the article which the police have corroborated as being at least not inconsistent with Z story. That’s stronger imho that w/e Z’s dad says Z’s story is.
snipped and rearranged
"
He said he was on his way to the grocery store when he spotted Trayvon walking through his gated community.
Zimmerman told them he lost sight of Trayvon and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from the left rear, and they exchanged words.
In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him
Trayvon asked Zimmerman if he had a problem. Zimmerman said no and reached for his cell phone, he told police. Trayvon then said, “Well, you do now” or something similar and punched Zimmerman in the nose, according to the account he gave police.
Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.
Zimmerman began yelling for help.
Zimmerman told police he shot the teenager in self-defense.
"
I believe Zimmerman’s father claimed Martin was going for the gun. Who knows where HE got it from.
That’s another problem with the information. Zimmerman says nothing publicly, which is smart. But his father and his brother and his friend tell differing stories with conflicting details, and Zimmerman gets the blame in the media for all the conflicts.
Maybe he and his lawyer deserve some blame, if the friends and family were specifically encouraged to go out and spread the news. OTOH, maybe they just imagine they’re being helpful, and go out on their own, when all they’re doing is muddying up the water.
Well, I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure it came from one of those three guys (father, brother and friend/coworker) who’ve been doing a circuit of media shows on Zimmerman’s behalf, and not directly from Zimmerman himself. As to what he actually told them, or what they think he told them, or what they might be speculating on their own… ?
That is of course true - I mean, if Jim pulls a gun on me and starts shooting, I don’t have to wait to get hit by a bullet to shoot back.
However, if there is an inexplicable difference between what Zimmerman claims happened and his injuries, then that casts suspicion on Zimmerman’s story, which is the primary peice of evidence for his claim of self defense. So in fact the extent of his injuries are important.
The problem we have is that we’re going off a secondhand account of Zimmerman’s story, so we don’t really know what he said. If he actually told the police “He banged my head against the concrete like six times” and there’s no wound on the back of his head, that casts his story into doubt. But all we know is that his FATHER said that. Maybe what Zimmerman said was that Martin was banging his head against the ground, e.g. someone’s lawn (remember, Zimmerman also claims he was on his back on the grass) and Zimmerman’s father added the “concrete” part because, well, parents do tend to exaggerate stuff. Mine certainly do. If that’s what Zimmerman really claimed then the lack of visible wounds on the back of his head wouldn’t hurt his version of events.
Who is “we”? These documents have yet to be released, so “we” as in the public don’t have jack.
How about we wait until these records are leaked before we start speaking with authority about what’s in them? I know that’s a lot to ask, since it’s so plainly intuitive that Martin was the aggressor in this situation and thus, the EMT records must bear this out. But until we see medical evidence that substantiates Zimmerman’s story, we have no reason to believe him.
I’m curious about a timeline. Let me 'splain. When I first heard the claim that it was Zimmerman yelling for help, I don’t think I’d been privy to the whole, “he ground and pounded me” angle. I figured, if he was yelling for help it was probably because Martin was getting away and he wanted someone to help stop him. Total speculation, I know, but it’s what popped into my head.
But … did the claims that it was Zimmerman yelling for help come out before the 911 tapes were released or only after? If he only made the claims afterward - or if someone claimed it on his behalf - I take those claims with a grain of salt because it smacks of CYA – “Oh that? Yeah, that was me. It certainly wasn’t him!”
On the other hand, if he made the claim before the 911 calls came out, I’m disinclined to believe it wasn’t him doing the yelling (for whatever reason) because I don’t give him the credit of thinking ahead to lie about it. I don’t think he is smart enough to think, “Golly, Martin was yelling for help when I shot him - I better tell them it was me or my whole nefarious plan will collapse.”
I don’t see Zimmerman as a criminal mastermind, but a collosal fuck-up.
Zimmerman reportedly claimed at the crime scene that he had cried for help. But so what? Obviously someone was yelling, and he would’ve known that the neighbors were within earshot, with or without the 911 calls as evidence.
So one theory is that this was actually him yelling for help. The other theory is that he, in order to make himself look like a victim, took credit for Martin’s screams by saying that he had been the one who’d been yelling.
His assertion that he was yelling for help are recorded in the police report.
I don’t think it would take that much forethought or intelligence to claim the cries if Z were being deceitful. Obviously he knew that there were yells. He had reasonable expectation that people heard the cries. It’s reasonable to assume that he realized the cries would make him look bad if they were Martins.
I don’t see him as a mastermind either.
But it’s not necessary that he be a mastermind to have decided to be deceitful about this issue.
All that said, idk that he is being deceitful. idk that he’s being truthful either.
I thought the preliminary forensic analysis of the recording shows that it was NOT Zimmerman calling for help. So we have a case of a man who claims to have suffered a broken nose which miraculously shows no bleeding or oozing and no bloods stains are present on clothing. He claims to have been pushed to the ground but has no wet or stained clothing. He claims to have been repeatedly pushed and beaten on the sidewalk, yet there is no bleeding or blood stains on the back of his head, his hair, or his clothing. He claims to have called for help, though analysis of the tape shows it to be someone else’s voice. We have a police investigation of the victim but not the perpetrator. If after all of this you still call this a killing in self-defense, then you and I have nothing further to discuss. You’re beyond hope.
I’m just saying, I’m having a hard time squaring with the idea that it was Martin yelling for help if Zimmerman claimed it was him at the scene. I mean, if he offered the info and didin’t respond to it.
I don’t think he’s smart enough to plan a CYA ahead of time, that is, immediately (sorry Terr) after the shooting, at the scene, when adreneline is still running high. It seems like all the life to me that it must have been Zimmerman yelling, audio analyses notwithstanding. For what reason he was yelling … I’m not sure (who is?).
I’m not saying that’s a final nail in any sort of decision regarding innocence or responsibility for Zimmerman, it’s just that of all the speculated ‘evidence’ floating around … who was the help-yeller seems the most muddled.
You know, (checks to make sure we’re in IMHO still), I agree with this. I don’t think it’s inconsistent with a guilty Zimmerman, either. My version of the nights events:
Zimmerman hunts down Martin because he’s convinced that Martin is a burglar. He catches him and confronts him. Martin could just say “My dad’s girlfriend lives right over there,” but he’s an indignant teenager and he doesn’t have to answer this random stranger’s questions, so he doesn’t. He tells Zimmerman to fuck off or whatever. Zimmerman is now confident that he’s got his man, so he moves in closer. Martin pulls back, Zimmerman reaches for him, Martin starts to run and Zimmerman tackles him. The two fall to the ground in a scuffle. Zimmerman starts calling for help, because his “perp” is giving him more of a fight than he bargained for. He calls for help for nearly 30 seconds while trying to pin down Martin, but Martin starts to get the upper hand. In the scuffle, Zimmerman takes a hit to the face and hits his head on the concrete, which freaks him out. In his eyes, he’s now losing a fight to a drugged-out burglar. He’s afraid. He starts screaming louder for help, but before anybody shows up he manages to get his pistol out and fire off a single shot.
The best lies are the ones that are true, and when the cops show up, the only thing Zimmerman needs to do is omit the part about being the first one to lay a hand on Martin. In fact, in his mind, it’s not even relevant to the story. He tried to catch a crook, the crook fought back, and he defended himself. Hell, for all we know he even told the cops that he tried to stop Martin from getting away. The cops, not knowing who Martin was at that point, probably thought nothing of it.
It wasn’t until after it came out that Martin was unarmed and was living in the neighborhood that it probably dawned on everyone that the shooting wasn’t as black-and-white as it appeared that night. But by that point, Zimmerman had already been released, and in any case, it still wouldn’t have been entirely clear who started the physical confrontation.
Long story short, I think the the length and nature of the calls for help on the 911 call, plus the fact that Zimmerman said from minute 1 that he was calling for help, plus the fact that he had a good reason to call for help (in his mind), means it probably WAS him on the 911 tape. IMHO.
Consider this scenario (PLEASE NOTE: I am not saying this is what happened. This is for illustration purposes only.)
Say that Zimmerman was trying to restrain Martin to hold him until the cops came. Martin, in response, tried to fend him off. The struggle got intense, more intense than Zimmerman had expected it would (because he’s not very bright). Maybe Martin hit him, which bumped emotions up a notch. So he pulled out his gun. This immediately caused Martin to scream his head off for help.
Two things suddenly dawn on Zimmerman: 1) the kid is unarmed (otherwise he would have seen a weapon come out by now) and 2) the kid is about to cause a terrible scene that could get him trouble and ruin all his aspirations of being a cop and a community hero. At this point, it isn’t Martin’s fists that have him worried about his life, but rather his desperate screams for help. Unless he puts an end to the screaming by shooting the boy, it will be his downfall.
So he shoots. The screaming stops. Zimmerman is smart enough to know that people heard the screaming. Since he knows what the screaming implies, he quickly volunteers he was the source. Otherwise, people will know that he was the bad guy, and he doesn’t want that. His self-defense claim goes along with that, of course. But it may not have been on the forefront of his mind at that point. His main thought was explain away the screams.
Ever read Native Son by Richard Wright? The protagonist is a chauffer who accidentally kills his bosses’ daughter by smothering her to death. His goal wasn’t to kill her; it was to hide the sounds she was making that would give away his illicit presence in her bedroom. Lenny in Mice of Men is another character who killed someone to keep them quiet after he went to far with his petting.
What doesn’t make sense to me is why a man with a gun would be screaming for other people to help him instead of telling Martin “Stop, or I’ll shoot” or something to that effect. The whole point of having a gun is that you’re better able to protect yourself, so you don’t have to rely on anyone else.
To me, the fact that he went out of his way to volunteer this information doesn’t make me more inclined to believe him. It tells me that he was concerned about setting the record straight about who was screaming.
You have missed some of the evidence. Some of your assertions are incorrect.
The accuracy of that assessment is questionable.
A step in the right direction, but it’s not clear that they’re using “percent” the same way as what we saw previously. This discusses measuring matches on a per word basis rather than what we have here which seems to involve the equivalent of matching a single word or two.
An experienced person in the field we could ask questions of would help make sense of this. I am not convinced that this is straighforward enough for a lay person to get a handle on it in the amount of time I am willing to spend on it.
. http://expertpages.com/news/american_board_voice_comparison.htm
"
7.3 Conclusions. Every aural/spectrographic examination conducted can only produce one of seven (7) decisions; Identification, Probable Identification, Possible Identification, Inconclusive, Possible Elimination, Probable Elimination, or Elimination. The following descriptions for each decision are the minimal decision criteria, and must be adhered to by the examiner, except that lower confidence level can always be chosen, even though the criteria would allow a higher degree of confidence. Within the range of probable decisions, the examiner may wish to clarify his findings, i.e. low probability, high probability, depending upon the quantity and quality of the comparable material available to the examiner. Comparable words must meet the previously listed criteria. The following are the seven (7) possible decisions.
7.3.1 Identification. At least 90% of all the comparable words must be very similar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than twenty (20) matching words. Each word must have three (3) or more usable formants. This confidence level is not allowed when there is obvious voice or electronic disguise in either sample, or the samples are more than six (6) years apart.
7.3.2 Probable Identification. At least 80% of the comparable words must be very similar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than fifteen (15) matching words. Each word must have two (2) or more usable formants.
7.3.3 Possible Identification. At least 80% of the comparable words must be very similar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than (10) matching words. Each word must have two (2) or more usable formants.
7.3.4 Inconclusive. Falls below either the Possible Identification or Possible Elimination confidence levels and/or the examiner does not believe a meaningful decision is obtainable due to various limiting factors. Comparisons that reveal aural similarities and spectral differences, or vice versa, must produce an Inconclusive decision.
7.3.5 Possible Elimination. At least 80% of the comparable words must be very dissimilar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than (10) that do not match. Each word must have two (2) or more usable formants.
7.3.6 Probable Elimination. At least 80% of the comparable words must be very dissimilar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than fifteen (15) words that do not match. Each word must have two (2) or more usable formants.
7.3.7 Elimination. At least 90% of all the comparable words must be very dissimilar aurally and spectrally, producing not less than twenty (20) words that do not match. Each word must have three (3) or more usable formants. This confidence level is not allowed when there is obvious voice or electronic disguise in either sample, or the samples are more than six (6) years apart.
7.4 Second Opinion. A second opinion is not required, but may be obtained from another certified examiner when desired by either the examiner or the party submitting the evidence.
7.4.1 Independence. A second opinion must be completely independent of the first examiner’s decision, and no oral or written information shall be provided regarding that first opinion.
7.4.2 Material provided. The second examiner should only be provided the originals, or direct and enhanced copies, any work notes under Sections 2, 3, and 4 and the spectrograms. The second examiner must not be provided any materials that reflect even partially, the first examiner’s opinions regarding the examination.
7.4.3 Examination. A thorough analysis should be conducted by the second certified examiner, using the guidelines in Sections 5, 6 and 7 (except for 7.4). It is left to the discretion of the second examiner whether to prepare additional spectrograms or copies.
7.4.4 Resolving differences. If different decisions are reached by the two (2) examiners, a detailed discussion between them of the analysis will often lead to a resolution. If not, the lower confidence level must be reported and testified to when both decisions are an identification or elimination. If split between and identification and elimination, no matter what the confidence level, the decision must be inconclusive. A third independent decision can be obtained but the result will be the lowest confidence level, or an inconclusive of all the examiners involved.
7.4.5 Reporting. Whenever possible, the second examiner should prepare a short report listing the results of the second opinion. This is not necessary if both examiners are in the same organization. The name and results of the second opinion can then be included in the first examiner’s work notes.
"
“miraculous” is quite the stretch. We don’t have that much access to the necessary data to make these conclusions. Just because we can’t see certain things in that video doesn’t mean that they’re not there.
The police report noted grass stains.
I was unable to feel the dampness in Z’s clothes via the video, but I find that inconclusive.
To each their own. For me, it’s not so much about believing him as it is about Occam’s Razor. I think my narrative adequately explains the nights events without having Zimmerman resort to being some schlocky 1940s villain or Martin trying to beat a man to death unprovoked. Both actors were behaving rationally, given their perception of events. It’s just that I think Zimmerman’s perception of events was tainted by his prejudice and his bad judgement.