Author Topic: What Happened at the "T"?  (Read 62145 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2012, 08:53:27 AM »

I'm curious who closed the gap.  Two persons got close enough to eventually be on the ground together, that much was witnessed.  Who closed the gap?  The objects lead in a trail towards TM's home.  GZ claims TM closed the gap.  We just don't know.  To me that leaves us with George's credibility as the best measure of what happened.  Either he tells the truth about how the fight started or he doesn't. 

Now, in a court of law the prosecution has the burden of proof to provide to a jury evidence that George is guilty.  They claim they can do it, and they claim to have witnesses to a foot chase.  We'll see.  Maybe as soon as Thursday, even.


Actually GZ will never prove he is credible to some hard core spectators particularly those with an ax to grind.
However  the enormous leap of faith he made to describe distinguishable physical acts before he had access to any other testimony should  be given a lot of weight by honest jurors.

Isn't it possible that we have already seen the prosecutions evidence of a foot chase?

So you think DeeDee's enhanced blow by blow description, constructed by her aural analysis of pre-echos is in the next discovery release?

Offline amateur

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 38
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2012, 09:03:04 AM »
The biggest issue with the movement of the fight is that it moves in the direction of retreat for TM, IMO.  GZ describes it in the video as both "I was defending myself" and "I was trying to push him off me" but for the fight to move down TM's path that means TM had to have been moving backward and GZ forward, assuming they really did meet at the T.

A question I've not seen answered is where was GZ's large flashlight? It was found on the ground nearer to the body.  Was it in his hand the whole time or in a pocket?

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Three exchanges
« Reply #32 on: July 11, 2012, 09:18:21 AM »
Neither DeeDee nor Zimmerman describes the exchanges as loud or angry.  I get the impression that the witnesses heard things that happened after the original few words, after DeeDee lost the connection and Zimmerman has conveniently omitted from his accounts.

Just my opinion, but I imagine Z's reference to TM saying "you got a problem with me homie" and reaching for his phone implies that he believed TM was angry and didn't want to chat.  I'd also assume that "well you do now" followed by a punch to the face has an implication of anger as well.  Fair enough that we don't know if Z's statements are true, but I think he is certainly conveying that TM angrily confronted him. 

Dee Dee agrees with the three utterances.  W11 agrees with the three utterances and I believe she said that one was more pronounced then a softer, then a louder again. 

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: Three exchanges
« Reply #33 on: July 11, 2012, 09:24:36 AM »
Just my opinion, but I imagine Z's reference to TM saying "you got a problem with me homie" and reaching for his phone implies that he believed TM was angry and didn't want to chat.  I'd also assume that "well you do now" followed by a punch to the face has an implication of anger as well.  Fair enough that we don't know if Z's statements are true, but I think he is certainly conveying that TM angrily confronted him. 

Dee Dee agrees with the three utterances.  W11 agrees with the three utterances and I believe she said that one was more pronounced then a softer, then a louder again.

Doesn't anyone think that W11 had any reason at that point to be tallying sentence structures in an  indistinguishable conversation . Why should we take her recollections as anything more than an estimate.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #34 on: July 11, 2012, 09:26:27 AM »
The biggest issue with the movement of the fight is that it moves in the direction of retreat for TM, IMO.  GZ describes it in the video as both "I was defending myself" and "I was trying to push him off me" but for the fight to move down TM's path that means TM had to have been moving backward and GZ forward, assuming they really did meet at the T.

A question I've not seen answered is where was GZ's large flashlight? It was found on the ground nearer to the body.  Was it in his hand the whole time or in a pocket?

Don't you think the direction of retreat is defined by the location of the assailant?

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: Three exchanges
« Reply #35 on: July 11, 2012, 09:32:23 AM »
W11 agrees with the three utterances and I believe she said that one was more pronounced then a softer, then a louder again.

In what statement did she say that?

I think you may be confusing W-11 with W-18.

Offline Mary2012

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 43
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #36 on: July 11, 2012, 10:06:38 AM »
I honestly don't recall Z saying he fell right where he was struck and TM was mounted on top of him instantaneously. ...

GZ also has it in his written statement starting at the bottom of page 2 and it continues on page 3.


Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #37 on: July 11, 2012, 10:12:02 AM »
Of course he subsequently expanded and corrected his statement without prompting.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #38 on: July 11, 2012, 10:30:49 AM »
Don't you think the direction of retreat is defined by the location of the assailant?

If Trayvon went out of his way to come at George from the north for whatever reason some are determined to believe caused him to do so, then south is one of the 3 cardinal directions available to him to retreat, and if that first alleged blow had a great enough impact, George might not even be aware in which of those 3 directions he was moving, only that it was "away".

However, if George goes at Trayvon from the north, then that same southerly path is an option open to Trayvon as well.

So the direction of the retreat doesn't necessarily establish who was doing the retreating.
That's all assuming the assailant comes at the other party from the north.

But if the assailant comes at the other party from the south, then south is not my first guess as to what the direction of retreat will be.

So an attack from the north seems more probable.

In order for the attacker to have been Trayvon, he's got to get north of Zimmerman to attack from the north, presumably without George noticing until it's too late to escape that first blow.

Why Martin would feel compelled to attack face to face instead of utilizing the element of surprise to attack from behind I do not understand.

Offline Lousy1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4058
  • Rate Post +6/-30
  • Fetch my hammer
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #39 on: July 11, 2012, 10:39:04 AM »

Why Martin would feel compelled to attack face to face instead of utilizing the element of surprise to attack from behind I do not understand.


Probably for the same reason he confronted TM verbally.

Why would he swing to the north - plenty of reasons  - cut off GM ? Light in his eyes? Get more leverage into a punch?

But you can easily sidle around an opponent who is reaching in his pocket  during the length of the reported conversation with seconds  to spare.




Offline JW

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 71
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #40 on: July 11, 2012, 10:45:34 AM »
Probably for the same reason he confronted TM verbally.

Why would he swing to the north - plenty of reasons  - cut off GM ? Light in his eyes? Get more leverage into a punch?

But you can easily sidle around an opponent who is reaching in his pocket  during the length of the reported conversation with seconds  to spare.

Not to mention Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend". I'm sure he was trying to impress.

Offline leftwig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #41 on: July 11, 2012, 10:49:56 AM »
GZ also has it in his written statement starting at the bottom of page 2 and it continues on page 3.

Don't see where that statement says he fell straight to the ground where he was punched.  Fell back and ended up on his back is what it says.  While I understand this doesn't say the punched dazed him as he stumbled back and fell to the ground, it also doesn't say he fell straight down as if he were knocked out by the punch.  Also, just for the sake of comparison, look at some of the other written statements from witnesses that night.  They leave out a ton of detail (except for the one who documented every single thing she did), maybe because the didn't want to write it all down and stuck to just the things they thought were important.  I'd guess Z felt it was important to relay that he was punched in the face and it knocked him down and he ended up on his back.  Any more detail than that probably didn't seem to matter at that time.

To the other point, yes, I have the witness numbers mixed up.   One witness mentioned the dominant voice and it not being the one yelling for help and another had the 3 utterances.

Offline dragon ash

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 274
  • Rate Post +0/-0
  • Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #42 on: July 11, 2012, 11:53:58 AM »
In his very first interview the night of the shooting, when things should be clearest in his head, he's very clear - he says it twice: He was punched, and fell back in to the grass, from the first punch. The statement says, he punched me, and I fell backwards on to my back. It can't be any more clear, and it's nowhere near the same as 'punched, knocked off balance, stumbled down the path, fell down, Martin ended up on top of me'.

The first time he changes his story is at the re-enactment, when he seems to realize that 'sh*t, I can't get knocked down here, 'cause the kid's body ended up down there'. So he says he 'doesn't remember, thinks he tried to push Martin off him, etc'.

Quote
Not to mention Martin was on the phone with his "girlfriend". I'm sure he was trying to impress.
::) Right, because so much of Martins' conversation up to that point clearly was aimed at trying to impress. Like DeeDee would be impressed at his ninja-like movements that she totally could see over the phone. My eyes can't roll back far enough in my head. Seriously.

Quote
Probably for the same reason he confronted TM verbally.

Why would he swing to the north - plenty of reasons  - cut off GM ? Light in his eyes? Get more leverage into a punch?

But you can easily sidle around an opponent who is reaching in his pocket  during the length of the reported conversation with seconds to spare
While I'm at it:  ::)   ::)   ::)

And George was so unconcerned with this big bad suspicious, drugged/armed dude showing up behind him, and he gets so engrossed with the phone, that he looks down and completely ignores Maratin long enough for Martin to close the distance, get behind him, hen wait a bit more for George to turn around again and be facing Martin, so he can punch him in the nose.

Because obviously hitting George from behind in the dark with no warning whatsoever isn't nearly as smart of move as first calling attention to yourself, then trying to move almost 180 degrees around the subject and waiting for them to turn back towards you, 'cause clearly George will be blinded by the light from the headlines of his truck that is parked 150 feet DOWNHILL from the T. And 'cause when George is reaching into his pockets, he could, you know, never be reaching for a gun, he'd never be armed. Yeah, I'm sure that's what Martin was thinking. He clearly had this all planned out.

I swear, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Offline IgnatiusJDonnelly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 353
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #43 on: July 11, 2012, 12:00:37 PM »
I was banned from the TH for this sort of talk. :D

Offline AJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: What Happened at the "T"?
« Reply #44 on: July 11, 2012, 12:30:56 PM »
::) Right, because so much of Martins' conversation up to that point clearly was aimed at trying to impress. ... My eyes can't roll back far enough in my head. Seriously.

And my eyes are rolling too. Are you speculating here or have you spoken with this witness and asked her "what was said in those multiple 'couple minutes' where apparently nothing was happening?"

 

Site Meter
click
tracking