May 29 2012
Zimmerman’s Snap Alibi Comes Back To Bite Him
More news is out on the Trayvon Martin case, and it will be a test for all those ‘open minds’ who have decided Zimmerman is innocent in his killing of an unarmed 17 year old boy who was simply out walking and talking to his girlfriend. The news confirms my suspicions that Zimmerman was the aggressor (not someone defending himself) and is guilty of at least manslaughter (if not 2nd degree murder).
Zimmerman’s past includes well documented incidents of his hot temper and his desire to be Enforcer of The Law (which sets him apart from those who look to law enforcement as a profession – versus the ego trip). Zimmerman has all the signs of wanting to be better than others and prove his superiority. His gun is not protection, but a crutch to his ego. I have seen his type too many times not to notice all the parallels. Age and experience do count at times.
Zimmerman is also an easy liar – as he did in court when he apologized to the Martin family and claimed he thought Trayvon was much older (hinting he thought Trayvon was in his mid 20’s). Of course Zimmerman forgot he told the 911 dispatcher he had made Martin to be in his late teens when he went stalking the kid – supposedly because he looked ‘suspicious’. That ability to spew a falsehood to save his skin is an indicator, something not to be dismissed or overlooked. If that is part of his core nature, a lot of good people have probably put their faith in someone who does not deserve it.
After the incident it was clear no one immediately knew of witnesses nearby and the ear-witness on the phone with Martin (listening up to seconds before his death). George Zimmerman was especially ignorant of these people who could easily challenge a quickly concocted alibi.
As I noted before, Zimmerman’s statements are inconsistent. He claims to get out of his truck to find street names or house numbers, but then finds himself behind buildings where there are neither. He acknowledges being told to stay away from Martin until police arrive, but then somehow gets to a point behind buildings where he is ‘jumped’. Except the ear-witness on the phone hears Zimmerman talking to Martin. Clearly he was not ‘jumped’ once a dialogue is engaged.
All this led me to predict the case would be built around the ear-witness and holes in Zimmerman’s statements to police which will prove him to be untruthful (at best). Now the prosecution has confirmed my prediction:
“Defendant (Zimmerman) has provided law enforcement with numerous statements, some of which are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses,” the prosecutors said in their court filing.
They said the statements by Zimmerman were admissible in court and “in conjunction with other statements and evidence help to establish defendant’s guilt in this case.”
Emphasis mine. Note how both testimony of witnesses AND physical evidence combine to prove Zimmerman lied in his statements to police about what happened. And why would Zimmerman lie? Because he knew he went beyond the bounds of lawful activity in stalking, confronting and killing Martin. He believed with all his twisted mind he had found a burglar in his community, and he was going to make sure this one did not ‘get away’. He was wrong. Plain and simple. No racial issues, no gun rights issues. Just one person who was probably the wrong person to be armed and playing sheriff.
The evidence must be pretty damn good, or else the prosecutors would not want to keep out of the public square. The defense will not have a chance to try this part of the case in the news media. And in fact, the defense is already starting to cede ground:
In a separate court filing on Thursday, Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara joined in the motion to keep his client’s statements out of the public eye for the time being.
“There is the possibility that these statements may be subject to motions to suppress, if there is a potentially involuntary statement elicited from Mr. Zimmerman,” O’Mara said.
Clearly the defense has realized some of Zimmerman’s own words are going to convict him, so now they have to try and keep those words out of court. Not likely to happen, but not surprising when your case is in this kind of hole.
So all those open minds who have acquitted Zimmerman based on partial information are challenged to prove they can learn as more information becomes available. Here is a challenge to show how justice must work, even when our first impressions are wrong. Actually, the hardest part is making the change when our first impressions are wrong. But that is the sign of wisdom and fairness.
“As I recall, you were not a witness. Just saying.”
and you were? just saying….
damn hilarious…
AJ, thanks for the warm welcome. Been an off/on lurker at your site for years. Lately, I’ve not had much time to blog for comments, or for authored posts over at FA, but I have to say a couple of we authors run into the same mindset there. I will say that your community is more civil about their dissent. Considering some of the push back you’ve gotten here, that ought to tell you something about the tone over at FA, right?
Specifically to some comments above:
gcotharn, it’s seems you are becoming highly sensitive to remarks I’ve made and taking them personally. I called out no one specifically, and you conveniently left out my entire statement when I said “*those* determined to declare GZ unquestionably innocent are doing so by putting Martin, the dead victim, on trial for his character. Yet that is what is being done. “
My first observation is that if you are not one of “those” doing so, then the observation wouldn’t apply to you. But I used your own statements to illustrate that, when anything about GZ’s supposed accounting of events is dared to be questioned, the inevitable response becomes about how TM was some hip hop, drug using scumbag who must be held responsible for his own death. You, yourself, denied putting TM on trial, but in both your ensuing comments, you again reverted back to Martin’s character.
You’ve simply validated my observations…. yet again.
There’s two realities that GZ devotees must get a grasp on. First, no one has ever read GZ’s own multiple statements because they have not been released to the public. So what everyone is concluding is “evidence” is actually just media reporting of 2nd hand accounts by others. Media reporting of statements by relatives, friends, etc, is not “evidence”.
Therefore, everything you believe you know about GZ’s story is the potpourri that has been provided in the media alone. It is an error to confuse that with evidence, or to base what you think happened that night on media portrayals… from either side.
The second reality is the lesson of Lowe’s case, linked above, and how it relates to Castle Doctrine prosecution. While everyone consistently reverts to Martin’s supposed character when speaking of GZ’s innocence, it is, and remains, irrelevant> As PA vs Lowe proves, Manning, the dead victim in Lowe’s case, was not only a multiple convicted felon, but was also proven to have been chasing and assaulting Lowe with a deadly weapon (the metal pipe), was the aggressor, and was actually committing a crime at the time of his death. None of that helped Lowe. (and no, there is no evidence he continued stabbing Manning… but he did verbally abuse and taunt the dying man. Hang… so would I)
The judge never disputed Lowe as the victim of a criminal, who was (unlike Martin) actually in the process of committing a crime. What he determined, as is done in all manslaughter/murder/Castle Doctrine cases, is whether the self defense response was excessive or unreasonable for the situation.
Maybe I should repeat that. The response to a conflict cannot be considered excessive or unreasonable, given the circumstances, in a self defense argument. That is one part of the three things the prosecution must prove with a 2nd degree murder charge.
This is why AJ continually points out that GZ’s injuries, incurred in a short fight that was approx a minute or less (according to the cell logs of various calls), were not life threatening. GZ, like Lowe, may find himself judged by not only the decisions he made which made the confrontation likely, but by the degree of response he chose to implement.
You may not like that, or the way AJ phrases it, but it remains a legal precedent all over the nation in sundry cases.
Fact is that GZs story, as told to us in pieces by media talking heads and 3rd parties, has always held some questions. Even many of the LEOs said the same. The evidence compiled by the investigation has substantiated that those questions are valid, and were enough that the prosecution pressed charges. That investigation and evidence would never have happened, but for the public reaction. While I’m nauseated by the racist connotations and pressure attached, I did support reopening that investigation for closer scrutiny. But then, I’m equally nauseated by the assaults on Martin’s character as a GZ defense.
Granted, we don’t know exactly what GZ said in his multiple statements. But if you’re using the media reports as your “evidence”, the reports that GZ was jumped from behind, that he returned to his car after the dispatcher call or that TM tried to get his gun are all extremely weak.
There was approx two minutes from the time that GZ hung up from that call. While on that call, he traveled between 23-42 seconds away from his vehicle (depending upon if you want to include the movement exiting the SUV). Ergo, he did not return to his vehicle immediately. Therefore what was he really doing in those two minutes? Looking for a house address at the other end of the path when his SUV was parked in front of house addresses? In fact, why did he refuse to meet the PD at the mailboxes, as suggested?
He was not jumped from behind in a surprise attack since witnesses heard arguing before the scuffle. And BTW, the girlfriend’s testimony about what she “heard” is no different than the multiple community witnesses testifying about what they heard. When it comes to this night, more people “heard” than they “saw”.
Lastly, the DNA examination of various parts of the gun do not support TM getting a hold of the weapon. The possibility that TM ever came in contact with the gun’s grip has been eliminated entirely via DNA examination. The slider and trigger don’t carry enough DNA to support even GZ’s own DNA. And the holster is predominately GZ’s DNA, with only a one in 1.5 quintrillion chance that TM ever came in contact with the holster.
Was there a fight? Of course. Just like in Lowe, there was a fight. Unlike Zimmerman, Lowe had everything in his favor… a criminal, with a record, assaulting him with a metal pipe during the committing of a crime… and witnesses that validated that. And still Lowe was convicted.
As to what everyone wants to play out in debate over and over… i.e. Skittles, the Arizona Tea Company drink, purple drank, marijuana etc. Again, it’s irrelevant, as the Lowe conviction proves. It becomes even more irrelevant since the redacted toxicology reports show (tho some media are actually giving the levels) that the amount of the THC and the metabolite, THC-COOH are not only below intoxication levels, but that these levels are not even an accurate reflection. These levels tend to spike artificially post mortem. There was nothing in the toxicology reports to indicate that TM had imbibed any concoction of the home made purple drank either.
So what is irrelevant anyway becomes further irrelevant since Martin’s condition at that time would not even likely get him a misdemeanor charge of intoxication, were he stopped by a LEO for walking down the sidewalk.
On the flip side, since GZ is the one who is actually on trial – not TM – if media reports are true and entered as evidence, Zimmerman’s prescription use of Adderall and Temazepam – both classified as drugs with high potential of abuse and having an extreme yo yo effect on the body – may actually have bearing when examining any effect on GZ’s choices that evening. And this may happen because the second part the prosecution must prove with the 2nd degree murder is that Zimmerman displayed an utter disregard for human life with his choices that evening… or the legal definition in Florida for the “depraved mind”, as it relates specifically to 2nd degree murder criminal cases.
It doesn’t matter that this combination of drugs was legally prescribed. If you’re on a prescription drug that makes you drowsy, and you are involved in an accident with a death, the fact the drugs you were on at the time of the accident were legally prescribed means nothing. Interestingly enough, no one did a blood test on Zimmerman that evening… an event that will play in GZ’s favor.
I find it ironic to find so many do a blanket condemnation on youth because of any association with hip hop. I’m not a fan of that music genre, nor rap myself, mind you. But maybe it’s the advantage of being a grandmother. Because if you ever watch any of the Disney TV movies or popular TV shows, you’ll notice the crop of current Disney talent is highly charged with the hip hop culture… young stars of all races.
And purple drank? The opiate effect of this “anti Red Bull” drink is so popular that Polar beverages actually created Drank, the “negative energy” drink as alternative to the energy drinks consumed by the masses. Time Magazine did an article on “the drink to calm you down” three years ago.
Considering the high use of pot and drank in our culture today, and even that same type of youthful experimentation by political superstars in their past, being associated with either doesn’t exactly target you as a budding irresponsible citizen. The drug use by our soldiers in Vietnam should be remembered when anyone leaps to assumptions about character, using that as a yardstick.
Needless to say, it will be hard for the defense to portray TM as being under the influence of anything that night since the toxicology reports don’t support any such thing. That he smoked pot, or had purple drank made from ingredients that are not illegal in his life, prior to this incident, is totally irrelevant.
But it does remain the main talking point by GZ devotees, whenever a part of the story is questioned.
Again I’ll say… there are no guarantees, and this case is far from looking like it’s a clear cut case of self defense. I agree with something AJ has said… if I were GZ, and looking around at the outcome of other Castle Doctrine cases where the events were far more favorable to the one claiming self defense, I’d be looking for a plea bargain.
RT, you said:
“[quotingMata:] “Because the affidavit of Martin’s girlfriend is not included in the May 14th document evidence dump” [end Mata quote]… likely true because very little or none of it will ever be introduced, by the prosecution because it is more helpful to the defense than to the prosecutor. We don’t have to ‘speculate’ on many things that are in her statement because it has been released and I have actually heard recordings of her statement. 99% of it is hearsay anyhow and will never get into the trial.”
The gauge of how “helpful” that testimony is will be appropriately determined by the prosecution.. i.e how that testimony fits within their strategy of presenting their total evidence, and how it weighs against the multiple statements by GZ.
I’m also going to also wager a guess that you aren’t in the inner legal circle, and can apply names to witness numbers referred to in that document dump. So how is it you can so confidently assert that she isn’t already on a witness list that has not yet been revealed to the media?
Do keep in mind that O’Mara notes that they’ve received only about half of the evidence thus far. The defense is not in a hurry for discovery since they want time to go over it.. most especially prior to any public release.
Hence the reason that both prosecution and defense were united in wanting some records sealed. Some of that was shared worry about witness safety. But as I pointed out earlier from O’mara’s GZ legal site, there were also things about GZ’s past he did not want made public because a media presentation could portray his client in a negative light. For those specific pieces of evidence, O’mara will be lobbying the court to make them irrelevant and inadmissible.
It’s easy for you to say that the girlfriend’s “statement has been released” yet somehow omitted in the May document dump.
If that is true, and being as such a release would likely be plastered all over the Internet like the dispatchers audio recording, I would assume you have a link to that “released” statement, in it’s entirety? Or even some link to some media talking head who, according to you, played excerpts of her recorded testimony?
Meanwhile, latest from O’mara indicates some backpeddling regarding his client’s admittance they were deliberately misleading the courts about the original fundraising site. O’mara knows this becomes an issue about GZ’s credibility, so he’s chalking it up to “fear, mistrust and confusion” One has to wonder if this public admission by the defense counsel itself, on their official legal site, has any bearing on their decision yesterday to postpone a request for a new bond hearing for a few weeks.
One has to feel for O’mara. First he’s in the original hearing, and his client doesn’t tell him about the fundraising website or funds. And then doesn’t apparently come clean with him about the fact he really did mislead the court, as proven by the audio recordings in the jail. GZ sure ain’t making O’mara’s job easy.
A.J.
Finally, we gain some understanding of the reason for the gulf which separates you from most of your commenters. Most of your commenters see GZ’s injuries as supporting GZ’s claim to have been assaulted with a deadly weapon (concrete). You do not see it.
A.J., do you concede a possibility that the physical confrontation occurred as GZ said it occurred? i.e. GZ gets punched, gets mounted by Trayvon, shouts for help 14 times as he gets his head slammed into concrete, then discharges his weapon in self defense? Do you concede that Trayvon was easily physically capable of having accomplished these physical feats? Do you concede that Trayvon easily possessed a psychological make-up which might conceivably have led to Trayvon physically attacking GZ?
You could concede these things, yet still suspect GZ is lying. I am curious as to your opinions re these issues.
gcotham,
you have barely scratched the surface of our disconnects on this matter. Trust me.
Notice, however, everyone is still free to express their views without censorship. Kewl, eh?
Mata,
Flopping Aces started about the same time as we did, and I know we are more sympatico than not.
And I truly appreciate you spending the time to comment here (as I do those who oppose…)
Mata,
I note your assertions and information. Thanks for sharing your opinions. I only ask that you please be scrupulously accurate about characterizing my opinion.
You and I can find common ground in this area: we both want to see justice done.
And we can find common ground in this area: I am neither asserting that Trayvon was in a drug addled state of mind, nor that drugs had anything to do with Trayvon’s actions. Someone probably knows this, but I do not know whether or not the Arizona Watermelon drink was either open, or still unopened.
My point has never been that Trayvon had to be shot b/c he was on drugs. My point has always been that the public evidence indicates that Trayvon was committing assault with a deadly weapon.
Re hip hop culture
The point is that Trayvon had embraced a cultural psychology which celebrates having a chip on your shoulder, and which celebrates fighting. Therefore, Trayvon possessed a psychological make-up which might easily have led to Trayvon’s attacking GZ. Therefore, this lends a bit of credence to the possibility that GZ’s story, about being beaten and slammed into concrete, is accurate. This doesn’t mean GZ’s story is true. But it does constitute a few points in favor of the possibility that GZ’s story is true.
I will add this: if that Arizona Watermelon drink was open, then Trayvon might conceivably have been intellectually altered. In my opinion, you underestimate the narcotic effects of Purple Drank. But this is not a critical point, which is why I have not researched whether the drink was opened or unopened. The main point, re hip hop, is that Trayvon embraced a culture which encouraged young men to be quick to take offense, and to be quick to fight. That is the only significance of hip hop culture in this story.
A.J.,
why do you not respond to my questions? I think they are fair.
gcotharn, I’ll take the “common ground” comment, and celebrate a cohesive moment.. LOL
And now, INRE being “scrupulously accurate”, allow me to address some things above, plus exercise a bit of chutzpah by putting in my two cents oh your questions directed not to me, but AJ.
Your comments will be in italics:
The point is that Trayvon had embraced a cultural psychology which celebrates having a chip on your shoulder, and which celebrates fighting. Therefore, Trayvon possessed a psychological make-up which might easily have led to Trayvon’s attacking GZ.
I know it may sound corny, but you really need to spend some time on the Disney channel and with the young these days. Why is it when I read that above statement, my parents come to mind, saying the same thing about rock and roll when I was a young teenager? :0)
So let me add that not only is Martin not on trial here, neither is hip hop or those who happen to like it.
In my opinion, you underestimate the narcotic effects of Purple Drank.
I assure you that, being an under 20 something in the 60s, I don’t underestimate the power of an narcotic. But I’ll tell you this… were I given the choice between meeting up with an adversary on amphetamines, or one on any combination of THC/opiates/barbituates, I’ll take the latter. And were TM stone, PLUS had some Purple Drank, and GZ on his prescribed meds, the one more likely to trend toward violence would be the latter just by the nature of the drugs involved.
But, you see, the Watermelon drink being opened or not is a moot point, as it would have been present in the toxicology results. So you’re chasing your tail here, as well as still missing the point that Martin’s state of mind is irrelevant.
Again I must point out that Manning was clearly attacking Lowe with a metal pipe, was the aggressor, and was committing a crime. We could even add that Manning was a crack head. None of that carried, or would carry, any weight in the judge’s decision that Lowe’s self defense response was imperfect and unreasonable. This is exactly what the police reports, originally and still labeled manslaughter/unnecessary death, means.
Let give you my answers to your questions to AJ
Most of your commenters see GZ’s injuries as supporting GZ’s claim to have been assaulted with a deadly weapon (concrete). You do not see it.
A.J., do you concede a possibility that the physical confrontation occurred as GZ said it occurred? i.e. GZ gets punched, gets mounted by Trayvon, shouts for help 14 times as he gets his head slammed into concrete, then discharges his weapon in self defense?
Of course there is the possibility that it happened as GZ says. But since there are conflicts, that’s why there is an investigation and a trial. And the reason there was an investigation, and will be a trial is that that the events that led to that moment may be a product of GZ’s decisions and choices. There is no dispute that had GZ remained in his car, or even immediately returned to it after hanging up with the dispatcher, none of this would have happened.
As far as slamming the head into concrete… well, I’m a motorcycle rider and have definitely have been intimate with the pavement, I’ve been a battered wife, and I’ve witnessed more than a few bar room brawls. While GZ had injuries, they must be put into perspective.
My first smile is that you consider concrete a deadly weapon. I consider it part of the terrain within the sphere of a fist fight. If you and I got into a fight over a game of billiards, and I slammed you into the pool table where your neck/spine were severed by the angle of the blow, is that my “deadly weapon”?
While I’m quite certain that it wasn’t a pleasant experience (and bypassing the specifics that maybe the two parties each had their time where they were in the position of winning that very short fight), it begs pointing out that witnesses state that almost immediately after hearing the shots, GZ was standing over the body and walking around. He demonstrated no unsteadiness at the police station about an hour later.
If someone were suffering severe head damage, they wouldn’t be popping up off the ground quickly after the fight, and an hour later they wouldn’t be so steady on their feet. So was GZ injured? Sure. Life threatening? Hardly.
Do you concede that Trayvon was easily physically capable of having accomplished these physical feats?
Size and weight do not always matter in a fight, so of course Trayvon was capable. Easily is not something either you or I can ascertain. If what you are asking is could TM win in a fight? Sure. In another moment in time, GZ could also win in a fight. In this case, there was no winning because the adult was armed.
You want me to be scrupulously accurate about your opinions, and you state “I am neither asserting that Trayvon was in a drug addled state of mind, nor that drugs had anything to do with Trayvon’s actions.”
Well, that all sounds fine. However why do you follow that sentence with the proverbial “but”? … i.e.
I am neither asserting that Trayvon was in a drug addled state of mind, nor that drugs had anything to do with Trayvon’s actions….
insert “but…” here
I do not know whether or not the Arizona Watermelon drink was either open, or still unopened. …snip… if that Arizona Watermelon drink was open, then Trayvon might conceivably have been intellectually altered.
Well, if you don’t assert that TM was either in a drug addled state of mind, or that drugs have anything to do with his actions, then why do you obsess on this irrelevant stuff? When you return to it every time, plus bring in an attitude that those who listen to hip hop must be prone to violence and resentment, you again lead me to believe that the only way you can have faith in GZ’s innocence is by putting TM’s character on trial.
So while you’re asking questions to get a handle on how AJ or I think, let me ask you a few. Does it ever occur to you that:
1: TM was aware and wary of being followed by someone who was obviously not a police officer or a friendly?
2: Since GZ may have been back and forth in that “T” several times in those two minutes, that TM did not wish to lead him to where he lived? (I sure as heck wouldn’t…)
3: That since TM wasn’t doing anything wrong, and was in a community where he had been for the prior seven days (it wasn’t his first night in the ‘hood…), that maybe it was TM who felt he was under attack and threatened? If I had some strange guy, following me around, I wouldn’t be feeling none too secure myself.
4: If we assume the conversation began by the guy being followed (TM) asking the guy who was following him (GZ) why, do you believe that Zimmerman could have defused that situation immediately by stating he was the neighborhood watch guy, and that since he didn’t recognize him, he was just checking?
Do you find *any* culpability by a grown up with a concealed carry, who is not a law officer in a uniform, not identifying himself to a teenager who he had been following?
And while we’re at it, one more question. How many people decide they are going to rumble, or jump someone, while chatting up their gal pals on the phone? Does that sound like a pre-planned event to you? “Hey, Dee… hang on for a minute while I pound this guy’s head into sand…”
???
Mata: you’re late to the party. there have been many comments prior to your first comment and most of what you’re saying has been hashed and re-hashed. But mainly, most points you’re attempting to make are just plain silly. First, you state that all of ‘us’ that feel that GZ will probably not be found guilty are blaming it on TM’s ‘character’. Well, until you brought it up, I’ve not seen a single person on this blog ‘blame it on TM’s ‘character’.
Almost all of the things that you ask for a ‘link’ to have been linked and re-linked over and over. If you haven’t heard, in her own voice, recordings of what Dee Dee said then you just haven’t wanted to, they are all over the web. But, even with my lack of being “in the inner legal circle,” thank goodness, it is clear that most of what DeeDee said will never get into the trial because they ‘just don’t allow hear-say’ and that’s all that is on her interviews.
It is relatively clear that you have spent no time looking at the pictures of the crime scene and it’s locale. All in all, you seem to be relatively uninformed about this whole case. I will point out though that with you joining onto AJ’s ‘side’ there are now 3 of you. Everyone else is of the opinion that the evidence favors the appearance that TM was bashing GZ’s head onto a concrete sidewalk and while doing so, encountered a small piece of lead that helped prevent GZ from being severely wounded or killed.
While your opinion is just as valuable as mine or anyone else, at this time it seems to be very un-informed on the subject you are trying to discuss. I suggest you do a little reading and basic research.
Mata:
“his client’s admittance they were deliberately misleading the courts about the original fundraising site. O’mara knows this becomes an issue about GZ’s credibility, ”
That’s not true at all. First, ‘his client’ did not admit to misleading anyone. The statements that were ‘false’? (if, indeed they were) were made by his wife. GZ made absolutely no statement on the subject that you mention.
now, while ‘i’m not in the inner legal circle’ I do know that if GZ does not make ‘any’ statement about his financial condition then he is not ‘misleading’ anyone. And you do know (since I’m assuming you ‘are’ in the inner legal circle’) that GZ is legally entitled to ‘make no statement at all’. He has the ‘right to remain silent’ remember?
So if you really want to make a point, pick a valid one. You blew this one.
I see, Redteam… so if you don’t like my opinion, your response is, summarized, “you’re stupid and don’t know what you’re talking about”. Okay… LOL
It’s rather presumptuous of you to assume that I’m not intimately familiar with the crime scene, the layout or the timing. We’ve been hashing this out over at FA from the start as well and if you managed to curtail your cyber mouth and spent a bit more time learning a bit more about those with whom you are cyber conversing, you’d know that I’m not late to the information circle… I just didn’t bother to join AJ’s community discussion until recently. Tho I did read his threads for some time prior to doing so.
And BTW, a friend sent me a link to what you decided not to provide… Dee’s recorded audio statement in full.From the NYTs, in the multimedia section on the left.
Why you would think this is some sort of benefit to GZ is beyond me, but it’s obvious you do not wish it to become part of any presented evidence. The prosecution, who is in possession of Zimmerman’s multiple statements, will be able to tell if the girl’s conversation he account of Martin’s movements jive with Zimmerman’s statements.
What I had suggested originally on FA, months back, is that, looking at where GZ’s SUV was parked, and the timing from the moment that GZ said Martin was by the clubhouse in the dispatcher’s call, that Martin probably backtracked along the northern leg of Retreat View Circle. From the approx location of GZ’s car to the site of death is only about 160′ or so. Yet from the time GZ spots him to the confrontation, it’s about four minutes.
Most of the FA crowd thinks that TM passed GZ by, rounded the corner than hid, waiting to jump GZ. While that may be possible, it wasn’t the most likely, given all that time. Guess we’ll have to wait and see what the prosecution constructions as Martin’s path that night.
According to what the girl said, it seems that GZ was following him in the car, and that Martin decided to run and get to his house via “the back”. While we don’t know Martin’s exact path, or whether Martin and Zimmerman said anything to each other before the final confrontation, the fact remained that either TM ran around the back (which would likely put him on the north leg of the Circle), then south on the east leg to the cut thru.
No matter what path, it seems that TM was making every attempt to avoid GZ. If he did walk right by GZ while he was talking to the dispatcher (not mentioned by GZ that he did), it sure wouldn’t play well that a suspicious character passed him by when he could have easily rolled down the window and queried about his presence from the safety of his car, and with a police dispatcher on the other end of the line.
With the time frames and events that happened in the many minutes prior to the actual meeting, it does seem that Zimmerman did intently stay, or attempt to stay, on Martin’s tail. This is one of the things that the prosecution will try to as part of their “series of events” that lead to the confrontation and the disregard for human life/depraved mind.
And if you don’t believe that anyone has blamed Martin’s character, then I suggest you re read the threads and note how many times that negative things have been said about TM. At least gcotharn has been up front enough to admit he believes that examining Martin’s character is a validation of Zimmerman’s character and story. I happen to disagree, but at least he doesn’t avoid his negativity about his perceived view of Martin and his lifestyle. Kudos for him for that. None to you.
As far as the Zimmerman’s admittance that they mislead the jury, and O’mara recognizing it. Well, don’t know what to tell you if you’re unable to click on a hotlink. If you did, you’d see that the statements about Zimmerman’s credibility, and that it was an error for them not to disclose the funds they plainly knew they had, is right there on O’Mara’s site in plain English.
As I said to some on the FA crowd on this, at least O’Mara isn’t fool enough to defend the indefensible. Good on him to admit it, and note that Zimmerman must re’earn some credibility points now. But apparently there are, indeed, enough fools that will try to defend the indefensible.
Mata,
Thank you for answering my questions to A.J.
Re A.J.
There is a theory that, for most atheists, there is nothing which could convince them of God. Consider: if the clouds parted, and lightening flashed and thunder roared and the ground shook, and the the most brilliant light in history appeared, and the most booming voice in history spoke from the light, and said “Listen, you atheist: I exist! And I am good and mad about you continually saying I do not exist. And I advise you to quit saying that” … if all that happened, the atheist would find ways to explain it away, and would still refuse to believe in God. Christopher Hitchens was asked: “What would have to happen for you to believe in God?” He answered, sheepishly, that he knew it made him look unreasonable, but there was simply nothing which could cause him to believe in God.
B/c A.J. consistently refuses to concede that GZ’s story might be true, we have to wonder if A.J. is so emotionally wound up with his opinion that he can conceive of nothing which could convince him of GZ’s innocence. A.J. might be the Christopher Hitchens of the “GZ is Guilty” crowd.
Conversely, you, Mata, are willing to publicly concede that GZ’s story could be true, including that Trayvon could have beaten GZ. I commend your reasonability.
re hip hop psychology
Trayvon, in his own Twitter and Facebook, left numerous evidences that he embraced the form of hip hop culture which is seriously violent, which encourages young men to have chips on their shoulders, and which celebrates fighting and drug use. This is not up for debate. Trayvon personally left this evidence for us to see.
re Purple Drank
I only added the Purple Drank/mind altered caveat b/c I am ignorant as to whether or not the autopsy toxicology report constitutes the final word re Purple Drank on that night. I know that, sometimes, after the original autopsy has already been concluded, labs go back and check for the presence of drugs which were not originally checked for. If the original tox report did cover the possibility of Purple Drank, then I would no longer wonder. And that may be the case. I am ignorant of procedure in this area.
I was not attempting to slyly impugn Travyon’s reputation. Trayvon’s Twitter and Facebook already make it clear that he was an imbiber of Purple Drank. I do not have to be sly in order for that truth to be known: that truth is already attested to by Trayvon Martin, in his own words, in multiple Facebook posts.
Mata:
1: Might TM have been wary?
gcotharn
Of course. But, wariness would not have justified assault with a deadly weapon?
Mata:
2: Might TM have been afraid to lead GZ to the father’s gf’s apartment?
gcotharn
Yes. 2 points: 1) TM could have easily evaded and then doubled back w/o being detected. At all times, TM had multiple escape routes available to him. 2) Such fear, on TM’s part, would not have justified assault with a deadly weapon.
Mata:
3: Might TM have felt under attack and threatened?
gcotharn
Are you alleging that TM felt his life was threatened?
I cannot know TM’s reasoning.
But, there is no publicly known evidence which indicates that GZ presented himself as a mortal threat to TM’s life. Unless and until such evidence arises, such suspicion is a moot point.
I reiterate these points: TM, at all times, had multiple escape routes available to him. According to Dee Dee, TM initiated verbal confrontation with GZ. TM’s are not the actions of a person who suspected that GZ presented a mortal threat.
Mata:
4: Could GZ have defused the situation.
gcotharn
It is highly likely that GZ could have defused the situation.
Mata:
Do you find *any* culpability by a grown up with a concealed carry, who is not a law officer in a uniform, not identifying himself to a teenager who he had been following?
gcotharn:
I find no culpability on GZ’s part. GZ had a right to be there; had a right to be confrontational; had no obligation to announce he was carrying a firearm.
Mata:
How many people decide they are going to rumble, or jump someone, while chatting up their gal pals on the phone?
gcotharn:
It is easily possible, at any time, to decide to start a fight with another person – including to decide this while chatting with a gal pal on a phone.
Mata:
Does that sound like a pre-planned event to you? “Hey, Dee… hang on for a minute while I pound this guy’s head into sand…” ???
gcotharn:
It is easily possible to have a gal pal on a phone, to speak to another person, then to decide to begin fighting that other person.
I have enjoyed our discussion. If you have any more questions, I am happy to share my opinion.
I have a comment in moderation. [raised protest fist] Free gcotharn! [/raised protest fist]
I do as well, gcotharn. Obviously it’s not an opinion based moderation.. LOL
Oh wait.. it just appeared… never mind
Here is part of my moderated comment. Maybe it will go through:
Mata:
1: Might TM have been wary?
gcotharn
Of course. But, wariness would not have justified assault with a deadly weapon?
Mata:
2: Might TM have been afraid to lead GZ to the father’s gf’s apartment?
gcotharn
Yes. 2 points: 1) TM could have easily evaded and then doubled back w/o being detected. At all times, TM had multiple escape routes available to him. 2) Such fear, on TM’s part, would not have justified assault with a deadly weapon.
Mata:
3: Might TM have felt under attack and threatened?
gcotharn
Are you alleging that TM felt his life was threatened?
I cannot know TM’s reasoning.
But, there is no publicly known evidence which indicates that GZ presented himself as a mortal threat to TM’s life. Unless and until such evidence arises, such suspicion is a moot point.
I reiterate these points: TM, at all times, had multiple escape routes available to him. According to Dee Dee, TM initiated verbal confrontation with GZ. TM’s are not the actions of a person who suspected that GZ presented a mortal threat.
Mata:
4: Could GZ have defused the situation.
gcotharn
It is highly likely that GZ could have defused the situation.
Mata:
Do you find *any* culpability by a grown up with a concealed carry, who is not a law officer in a uniform, not identifying himself to a teenager who he had been following?
gcotharn:
I find no culpability on GZ’s part. GZ had a right to be there; had a right to be confrontational; had no obligation to announce he was carrying a firearm.
Mata:
How many people decide they are going to rumble, or jump someone, while chatting up their gal pals on the phone?
gcotharn:
It is easily possible, at any time, to decide to start a fight with another person – including to decide this while chatting with a gal pal on a phone.
Mata:
Does that sound like a pre-planned event to you? “Hey, Dee… hang on for a minute while I pound this guy’s head into sand…” ???
gcotharn:
It is easily possible to have a gal pal on a phone, to speak to another person, then to decide to begin fighting that other person.
I have enjoyed our discussion. If you have any more questions, I am happy to share my opinion.
Nope… Put the comment in at 1:56 on June 6th. It still says awaiting moderation. Never mind about the never mind….
Mata
Might TM have been wary?
gcotharn
Of course. But, wariness would not have justified assault with a deadly weapon.
Mata
Might TM have been afraid to lead GZ to the father’s gf’s apartment?
gcotharn
Yes. But,
TM could have easily evaded and then doubled back w/o being detected. At all times, TM had multiple escape routes available to him.
Such fear, on TM’s part, would not have justified assault with a deadly weapon.
Mata
Might TM have felt under attack and threatened?
gcotharn
Are you alleging that TM felt his life was threatened?
I cannot know TM’s reasoning.
But, there is no publicly known evidence which indicates that GZ presented himself as a mortal threat to TM’s life. Unless and until such evidence arises, such suspicion is a moot point.
I reiterate these points: TM, at all times, had multiple escape routes available to him. According to Dee Dee, TM initiated verbal confrontation with GZ. TM’s are not the actions of a person who suspected that GZ presented a mortal threat.
Mata
Could GZ have defused the situation.
gcotharn
It is highly likely that GZ could have defused the situation.
Mata
Do you find any culpability by a grown up with a concealed carry, who is not a law officer in a uniform, not identifying himself to a teenager who he had been following?
gcotharn
I find no culpability on GZ’s part. GZ had a right to be there; had a right to be confrontational; had no obligation to announce he was carrying a firearm.
Mata:
How many people decide they are going to rumble, or jump someone, while chatting up their gal pals on the phone?
gcotharn
It is easily possible, at any time, to decide to start a fight with another person – including to decide this while chatting with a gal pal on a phone.
Mata
Does that sound like a pre-planned event to you? “Hey, Dee… hang on for a minute while I pound this guy’s head into sand…” ???
gcotharn
It is easily possible to have a gal pal on a phone, to speak to another person, then to decide to begin fighting that other person.
I have enjoyed our discussion. If you have any more questions, I am happy to share my opinion.
my experience is that if the word ‘s-ocial-ist’ (without the hyphens) is in the comment, it will go to moderation. Some links will also get caught. so just break up that one word and it won’t usually be trapped.