Unless “what some reporters claimed” was wrong, eh?
Here is a PDF of Zimmerman’s calls to police:
www.wagist.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/911CallHistory.pdf
If you look at the first call from 08/12/2004, it reads: “Call Source: 911.”
The call log from the night of the shooting 02/26/2012 (bottom of the page, last two logs) it reads “Call Source: TEL.”
IMHO, that is pretty definitive.
Well, I did hear the judge say that he found there was probable cause, or words to that effect, and referred to the affidavit. In fact, that was the only determination I heard him make, except for the sealing of documents once both sides agreed to it. Since it apparently wasn’t a bail/bind hearing either (supposedly in FL murder 2 defendants don’t automatically get a bond hearing) – so if it wasn’t a probable cause hearing, and it wasn’t a bond hearing, then what was it?
Ok, if it’s so automatic and pro forma, why wasn’t Zimmerman arrested on Day 1?
Or a better way to ask the question: did the prosecution learn anything between then and now to change the balance in favor of there being probable cause? It seems not, based on the affidavit presented to the judge.
There are 2 things in the affidavit the police did not have the night of the shooting:
[ul]
[li]The testimony of Martin’s girlfriend about the phone call.[/li]
[li]The mother of Martin identifying Martin as the person yelling on the 911 call.[/li][/ul]
That’s true, and both are mentioned in the document. Interestingly, in the latter case the parents had to threaten a lawsuit, and the town mayor intervened to get make the 911 recordings available to them over the objections of police. So that testimonial evidence is now available despite the police, not because of them.
A new, possibly crucial piece pf evidence has emerged. A Denver artist has created a compelling 3’ x 4’ portrait of George Zimmerman made entirely of Skittles.
Combined with Mike Tyson’s pronouncement, I think America can finally say, “Case closed!”
Fantastic, thank you! And I love this because she seizes on all the details I did, such as the fact that it doesn’t make sense to believe that Martin was pounding GZ’s head into concrete if his back was wet and covered with grass. So you had to kill him for pounding your head into the wet earth? Fuck off and rot in jail, Batman.
And the position of Martin’s body…some of the naysayers around here thought I was playing CSI, and I was: the position of his body makes no sense in Zimmerman’s story.
And the intensity of the screams, being so clearly those of someone genuinely fearing they were going to die, someone who saw that gun.
Assuming her facts are all correct, the analysis is excellent and I can’t see how anyone with more than a couple of brain cells would buy Zimmerman’s story. Nothing about it rings true against any of the other things we know, and in fact comes across as total horseshit.
So I’m back where I started: he’s a murderer. I don’t think he’s a racist who set out to kill a black guy for the hell of it, I think he’s a pathetic wannabe whose idiocy led to his being a murderer. But he still has to be held accountable for it.
I hope the prosecution is as careful and focused as the gal who wrote up that analysis.
As has been explained before, it’s pretty easy to knock someone out or close to it with one punch. Take a SWAG at how many punches to the head or conversely how many times a head can be smacked into a hard surface before a person feels their life threatened. If Martin was indeed on top of him wailing away then my guess is a handful. YMMV.
Read the analysis in the link provided a few posts up regarding the timeline. It is excellent. There are several reasons why Zimmerman’s claim of having his head bashed in are not believable at all. She makes the same point that I made several posts back: Zimmerma’s back was wet and covered with grass; combined with Martin’s position it is impossible to believe that his head was being slammed on concrete, even that it was being slammed on the soft wet ground is nearly impossible to believe given all the other facts.
And without that, any claim of genuine fear for his life goes out the window.
No, it’s not excellent. It’s full of speculation which is meaningless in a trial.
Zimmerman had head wounds that are part of the police record and that is consistent with his account. What you keep dragging in here is emotional supposition.
What we do have is Zimmerman’s statement that Martin approaches him, his girlfriend who says he started the conversation, a witness that hears an argument and a witness that saw Martin on top.
He didn’t need to be in fear for his life to be entitled to shoot Martin.
No, it’s not meaningless. Trials are filled with speculation. They have to be, because there’s pretty much NEVER a technicolor film of the incident from start to finish with full sound and narration. Instead there are different kinds of evidence which enhance or detract from the stories that the prosecution and defense are telling about what happened. So the jury looks at the different pieces of evidence and sees how well they fit which story, in other words, they speculate.
Stick to the facts. The police record does not say anything about head wounds. It says he had blood on the back of his head. It doesn’t say how much, where, whose it was, or refer to any wound at all. He could have picked a scab off a pimple for all we know, and since he appears now to have close-shaven hair and may have then, it’s likely that even a tiny drop of blood would have been visible.
In order to be consistent with his account, he would have had to have a goose egg and concussion and a whole bunch of blood, and he sure wouldn’t have looked clear-eyed and perky 30 minutes later, because his account had his head being bashed into concrete and by some accounts to the point of near unconsciousness. So whatever he did have going on, it was not consistent with any claim resembling one that justifies killing Trayvon Martin.
Nor did any other facts support his claim that his head was being bashed into concrete, and many of the facts make that claim somewhere between highly implausible to virtually impossible.
He needed to be in fear of his life or grave bodily injury, either of which are supported only by the same swiss cheese story.
For the record, I was nowhere near Sanford.
As far as you know.
If the claims that he had a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head, which are supported by the police report and witness statements from people who saw him in the days after the event, are true, he had already received the injury, and could quite reasonably have been in fear of further injury.
What part of a police report and witness statements do you consider to be a “swiss cheese story”? In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, it’s a pretty compelling story.
Frankly, if a 6’3" football player is attacking anyone, they could probably reasonably fear grave bodily injury.
And all of the evidence that IS contrary, of which theres plenty, makes it laughable, instead of compelling -or it would be if a boy wasn’t dead.
So, you are saying that the idea that Zimmerman was injured in a fight with Martin is laughable? That’s odd, as there are witnesses that claim they saw such a fight, and also witnesses that claim they saw Zimmerman with injuries consistent with that story. I’ve not seen any evidence that there was no fight, and the only evidence that he wasn’t injured is some poor quality camera footage, which when enhanced shows what may be a head injury.
It’s certainly not watertight, but it doesn’t need to be.
Some reports to the contrary in re Serino
The girl’s phone call was reveled publicly anyway, after The SPD completed their investigation on 3/12
I don’t have any experience in law enforcement and I don’t know exactly what the SPD did and didn’t do.
So I can’t agree yet.
What police record is that?