Jul 16 2012
How Will Witness 9 (GZ’s Molested Cousin) Effect TM Charges?
Well, a bombshell dropped in the George Zimmerman trial for Murder 2 for the killing of young Trayvon Martin:
A relative of George Zimmerman claims she was molested by him when they were both children, the latest allegation in the case against the former neighborhood watch volunteer charged in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
The interview with police, done nearly a month after the February shooting, was made public Monday after local media fought to have it released, over objections from prosecutors and the defense.
You can get all the evidence regarding Witness 9 here. Witness 9 was the anonymous caller who told police there was a sinister, hidden side to the soft-spoken, policeman-wannabe George Zimmerman. I actually don’t see much impact on the trial except to once more destroy GZ’s credibility (which is already shot to pieces). Even her claims of racism are not against GZ, but against his estranged mother. Clearly this woman has some legitimate beef with GZ, but very little is applicable to the TM case. The only connection that might be made is how well GZ can hide brutal behavior, and how little he cares about his victims (his apology to Witness 9 and her parents was a sad joke).
To be honest, not much more is needed in the case against GZ. As you sift through the evidence, more and more problems become clear. One thing I was thinking of doing was listing how GZ’s story changes over time to deal with serious flaws in his original telling. Something like this [click to enlarge]:
The data comes from this impressive analysis (not all of which I agree with BTW). I still may do one because a few key items are missing from this table – specifically the CVSA interview which has some real damning statements from GZ. For example, at around the 28 minute mark in the interview, GZ drops this whopper on why he got out of the car (may not be 100% accurate transcription):
GZ: All the houses I was next to were the back of the houses, they are town houses so I did not know the address. They [dispatch] said we need to know what street you’re on, what address. …[GZ babbles about giving his street address]… and I got out of my car to look for a street sign so I could tell what street I was on, and … there was no street sign, and I couldn’t make out the house in front of me because there was a big pick up truck there…
This is of course a lie – he saw TM run and he jumped out of his car to follow, without any prompting from the dispatcher. All the mythical interchanges with dispatch on addresses and such never happened. But the dumb part was the reason for not using an address right in front of him. It seems this ginormous pick up truck was blocking the address number of the first house (now known to be the house of Witnesses 11 and 20) at the end of the building TM ran behind. This is why GZ has to run across the top of the T to the other side of the next building over to find any house numbers.
…. yeah, right. Check out where the house numbers are:
I mean – really? A truck totally blocked this from any view? GZ had to walk over 200 feet away, crossing two sets of buildings instead, just to find a house number (instead of maybe looking at the next house to the right)? Prosecutors are going to have a field day with this BS. BTW, recall we have two witnesses who testified GZ told them he got out of the car to find TM. And GZ admitted he was chasing TM to the police dispatcher.
Of course, the fact TM ran from GZ, who then follows TM when he runs away, is proof enough this was not a self defense or stand your ground case for GZ. When one party tries to avoid the conflict (like running away) then the person who continues the confrontation is the criminal, and the other is the victim.
In this case a dead victim.
So I don’t see how Witness 9 does anything for or against GZ. His troubles are monumental already. His story is impossible on numerous levels, with witnesses and evidence poking holes into his claims. They will not need to use witness 9 in court.
But I bet some of those standing by Zimmerman now (like is Air Marshall buddy) will be rethinking which side they want to be on….
DJStrata, Layman’s description of his own experiment did not duplicate GZ’s fight. Being on his back, with his son mounted on top of him to see what he could do to manueuver leaves out that Zimmerman’s wrists were never being held by Martin since he was using his hands to cover his mouth and nose, all while he was supposedly screaming for help.
You can’t equate the situations if the arms and hands are free in Zimmerman’s case, but not free in Layman’s experiment.
Nor did I “jump down” his throat. That is unnecessary hyperbole. Twice I have politely asked him why did he specifically tell his son to restrain his wrists, when Zimmerman’s wrists were not restrained per his own account. That is hardly jumping down his throat.
Speaking of reading comments before “jumping down the throats of people”, DJStrata, I will again repeat the State’s argument INRE why they feel that Witness 9 may be needed and admissible… from the Judge’s order.
I do believe that you would know this means while the State may not be using it as part of their proof for a depraved mind element, the witness statement my be used as part of their counter arguments when the defense does attempt to bring character into the self defense presentation.
gcotharn: If only you had 3 decades plus science/engineering background so you could qualify as a critical thinker, this would not happen to you. (better watch it mata, your bona fides have not been established yet)
This whole witness 9 thing is about nothing. w9’s testimony will never see the light of day in a courtroom. It is 100% irrelevant to the case.
It is solely about someone trying to make a buck off the case by ‘selling’ her story, about her own family no less.
The biased judge is on the way out.
Layman: I both understand your experiment and the relevance. It just doesn’t fit someone’s opinion about what happened so it has to be ‘faulted’.
Mata:
Get over yourself. Of course my little experiment was not an exact duplication of the GZ/TM confrontation. I wasn’t going to instruct my son to punch me in the face, knock me senseless, jump on me while I was on the ground, and smash my head on the floor!
All I was attempting to do was see that if during a struggle things could change and I proved to myself that yes they can. I also demonstrated that all those blowhards who talked of how easy it should have been for GZ to shake TM off and get up have no idea what they are talking about.
My little experiment did exactly what it was intended to do which, to answer your question, is why I bothered to do it. If that’s not good enough for you , sorry. If you can’t figure it out and accept it then maybe you should take some of your own advice (you know, the kind you’ve been giving to RT).
Here’s one for you. Turn on the telly and watch some UFC fights sometime. You’ll notice that when one of the fighters is on his back he may throw quite a few punches up at the fighter on top but they usually do little damage. Why? Because from that position there is little leverage or ability to extend arm and deliver a blow with much force.
So you want to keep going back to GZ’s statement that his hands were free. Now I ask you… SO WHAT. Try putting 2 and 2 together. Here’s the equation:
Smashed in the face with broken nose + dazed/disoriented + TM on top + bad technical position on bottom unable to deliver forceful blows =
DJStrata,
Layman did not disprove 2. He proved it was impossible to get someone off your stomach. But he never proved you could get a gun from your waistband under a jacket and then aim it to match the trajectory.
Unless he has pictures his claims are unproven. This goes back to sticking your elbow in your ear. You cannot pull a gun the way GZ described.
Layman: = one dead angel? did I get it right?
Layman,
You proved nothing with your experiment except you are too old to get your son of you. I appreciate the effort, it is not evidence or proof!
I think that is Mata’s point. If you want to prove GZ’s account is possible, then you have to replicate his account(s). You can do it in slow motion for all I care, but you will not be able to pull a gun from your right back hip WHILE pinning an arm to your right side using your right arm.
Like Mata said you can’t make up your own version of events!
That’s called fiction.
RT,
Good to see you finally recognize your betters regarding critical thinking.
Appreciate you humility.
About damn time!
Talk about needing to get over one’s self…. what a leap into absurdity, suggesting that duplicating the confrontation entailed instructions to you son to throw punches. What a dodge of simple reality by the hypersensitive.
You wanted to prove something to yourself, and that you accomplished. However in instructing your son to restrain your wrists, what you accomplished has nothing to do with the GZ/TM fight.
I was polite to you. You come back with venom and personal insults. Perhaps you should take your own advice that you not so politely offered to me not so long ago… you know… (self censored).
AJ, if I remember rightly, some brain trust (can’t remember which one, but the usual suspect comes to mind…) was suggesting that Martin wasn’t really “mounted” on Zimmerman, based on the crouching movement GZ did in the reenactment. Most of us disagreed, giving Zimmerman’s story the benefit of the doubt that wasn’t the case. He has, after all, stated repeatedly that Martin was mounted and his weight on him.
But that was also added to the discussion about GZ’s ability to not only shoot as described, but to throw him off balance, prior to Layman’s empirical experiment at home.
AJ, just a couple weeks ago, you were indignant because someone banned someone as a way of censoring what they said and said you would not use that method for censoring. That’s just what you did to gcotharn above. I’m not sure what gcotharn ‘intended’ to say, but she? did seem to put a ‘responsibility’ on witness 9 that should not have been. But, in any case, if it is her opinion, then it is just that, an opinion. Are you, or are you not, in favor of censorship?
I didn’t take the time to look up what you said about censorship, but I’m sure you recall it. (note: mata: I didn’t provide a link)
First, molesting anyone is heinous and the person being molested is never at fault, never. A woman is never ‘responsible’ for being raped. both those acts are from depraved minds.
AJ:
“Good to see you finally recognize your betters regarding critical thinking.”
LOL. You do recognize that you have only 75% of the critical thinking experience that I do? right? When you get a little older with a little more experience, you’ll recognize the error of your ways.
Layman,
A broken nose does not justify taking a life. Get over it already.
Mata: you said to Layman: “I was polite to you. You come back with venom and personal insults. ” what? when? trying a new persona?
AJ: “If you want to prove GZ’s account is possible, then you have to replicate his account(s). You can do it in slow motion for all I care, ”
are you saying that if someone wants to simulate a killing, the only way it can be accurately re-enacted is if some is killed?
walking through a simulation in slow motion demonstrates absolutely nothing. In a real confrontation, there is adrenalin flowing in both persons. In a re-enactment, there is none. There are no similarities
besides, in the actual confrontation, GZ proved that it was possible to shoot TM at the angle that he was actually shot at. I mean, all the evidence says that he was shot at contact range and angle that he was actually shot at, so it had to be possible.
that’s Critical Thinking 101.
AJ “A broken nose does not justify taking a life. Get over it already.”
but a broken nose and getting your head pounded onto a concrete sidewalk certainly does.
lesson; if you don’t want to be shot, don’t punch someone in the nose and get on top of them and bash their head onto concrete, especially if they are carrying a gun.
AJ: I am to old to get my son off me. But a punched in the face GZ might have been in the same position when it came to TM.
AJ/Mata: I still don’t get you. AJ said (without reservation) that the gunshot wound angle proves that GZ could not have shot TM while on his back on the ground. I believe I did prove that a change in the body angles is in the realm of possibility while they struggled. Of course I didn’t PROVE that thats the way it happened. But I stand by my declaration that I proved it is possible.
Again, you two seem to keep going back and taking the absense of a detailed decription of all the changing fight dymanics as PROOF that there were no changing fight dynamics. I’m sorry, but that simply doesn’t pass the basic common sense test. If there was a struggle as described by GZ then those two had to be rolling around fighting for there lives. It had to be dynamic. It doesn’t make any sense otherwise.
I read between the lines a bit, try to envision what happened, and fill in the blanks. That doesn’t mean I’m making up my own version of events, I’m simply doing what you usually do – look at a situation and try to figure how how it worked in reality. You say that it was impossible for GZ to draw his gun – are you making up your own version of events?
Mata: Assume for a second that the fight occured as GZ claims. Are you really of the opinion that GZ just laid there on the ground and that TM just held his hands in one position over his mouth and politely asked GZ to shut up and keep quiet? Come on! They would have been rolling, bucking, punching, shifting body positions, pushing each other’s hands out of the way, etc.
I take that as a given and I showed that in those circumstances it is possible for the body positions and therefore the gunshot angle to have changed.
Well I’ll be… it was Layman himself who insisted that Martin wasn’t “mounted” on Zimmerman… ergo the “if (and I say if) TM was stradling GZ and semi-standing (as GZ describes) not sitting down on him, then the gun shot wound angle is consistent with GZ’s story.”
Followed it up with more of the same about a three comments later where I am supposedly being “obtuse”.
Ten comments later is his empirical experiment”.
So what Layman was trying to prove was that it wasn’t easy to knock someone off balance from a 4 pt stance. Problem is, he had two of his limbs restrained that GZ did not. Nor was Martin in that position over Zimmerman, per his own description. So that’s not even close in comparison.
This returns us to AJ’s debate of feasibility – i.e. the GZ story that Martin’s weight was indeed upon him, and whether he could pin Martin’s arm and pull the gun.
I think everyone gets the idea that a fight isn’t static, but I’m actually curious… just how long does anyone think this life threatening fight was on the ground considering the entire thing… including arguments, was only about a minute?
Maybe, RT, you are clueless to what the meaning of “banned” is.
What AJ said was:
gcotharn has a neanderthal attitude towards women (i.e. “Are we to believe …snip…that she did not have some responsibility to prevent herself being in a position where she could be molested? AJ gave him the opportunity to straight his act out, or pick up his toys and leave the sandbox. Theoretically, he chose the latter. Time will only tell.
Oh yes, INRE your comment to me:
How I treat Layman is different than how I treat you. You deserve no civility.
FROM THE PAST:
“AJStrata says:
June 5, 2012 at 9:37 pm
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: “Maybe, RT, you are clueless to what the meaning of “banned” is.”
did you miss this one?
“AJStrata says:
July 17, 2012 at 6:06 am
Gcotharn, you were told to leave. Do so now.”
mata: have you been tested for senility? you should consider it.
I don’t expect you to treat me any way, I’m not trying to be in a popularity contest.
But apparently you are regressing. Here we go again, back to the You said A, I don’t agree, I think it’s really A and here is my argument as to why and it is exactly the same as I just made.
you said: “gcotharn has a neanderthal attitude towards women (i.e. “Are we to believe …snip…that she did not have some responsibility to prevent herself being in a position where she could be molested?”
I don’t interpret that as a Neanderthal attitude, I interpret it as an opinion that I disagree with but one that she is entitled to have if she so desires. For example you think TM was an angel, fully equipped with wings. I think he was a teenage thug. We both may be right or wrong or neither, but it is only an opinion and I don’t think having an incorrect opinion makes a person good or bad, just wrong. who do you think made you the judge of attitudes toward women?