TalkLeft Discussion Forums

State v. George Zimmerman (Pre-Trial) => Witness Discussion => Topic started by: Screamin Jay on July 07, 2012, 03:28:52 PM

Title: George as a Witness
Post by: Screamin Jay on July 07, 2012, 03:28:52 PM
Some say George will have to testify for SYG. The judge is hinting that George's circumstantial, hearsay is not sufficient. The burden of proof for murder in self-defense is definite, beyond a doubt.
My interest is in the jury trial. Will the jury be presented with the hours of interrogations and re-enactment?

[Modified by TalkLeft to delete erroneous transcript posted. ]
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: cboldt on July 07, 2012, 03:57:06 PM
The burden of proof for murder in self-defense is definite, beyond a doubt.

1. What is "murder in self defense?"

2. Did you in invent a new legal standard for proof?

3. You did not say which side has the burden(s).
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 07, 2012, 04:26:40 PM
I really goofed. Caught it myself right after posting.
The defense is preparing an affirmative defense called Stand Your Ground. The burden of proof beyond doubt is on O'Mara and company at this hearing. No jury. If they win, there will be no trial. Right?
Let's try "killing in self-defense", "shooting in self-defense", "homocide in self-defense", "manslaughter in self-defense." Anything but murder!
What I was trying to say is SYG as a defense against the murder charge. My typing fingers got tied up. Is there a way to make corrections or delete old posts?

That is incorrect the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt its preponderance of the evidence. Try reading Jeralyns extensive research on the main board.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 08, 2012, 03:07:30 AM
You goofed here too ... "7:11:51 The back entrance…f*ckin' coons". I've heard it & it's obvious to me it's as GZ says .... "f*ckin' punks".
I don't know how 'obvious' it is - I wouldn't bet my life on it - but FWIW I also hear 'fu*king punks'. We have no evidence that GZ was a racist, but even if we did, he could be the biggest racist on the planet and I still wouldn't believe he'd actually say something like that, out loud, on the phone, to a complete stranger, working in a professional capacity. No way.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 08, 2012, 03:18:37 AM
George says that, after the shooting, he straddled Martin's body (already facing down, I believe) and pushed his hands 'away from his body', because he was worried Martin had been carrying a weapon.

I believe this is also confirmed by Witness #6, who in the second interview at the station, says he say Martin face down, arms kind of spread out, 'like the chalk outline of a victim at a crime scene'. I personally imagined something like this.
(http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1491/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1491R-1075615.jpg)


But Martin was found with his hands and arms underneath his body.

How did his arms get underneath him? Was Martin still alive and able to move?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Cylinder on July 08, 2012, 04:06:30 AM
How did his arms get underneath him? Was Martin still alive and able to move?

Ofc. Alaya

Quote
I noticed that there was, what appeared to be a black male wearing a gray sweater, blue jeans, and white/red sneakers laying face down on the ground. The black male had his hands underneath the body. I attempted to get a response from the black male, but was met with negative results. At that time Sgt. Raimondo arrived and attempted to get a pulse on the black male but none was found. At that time, Sgt. Raimondo an I turned the black male over and began CPR. Sgt. Raimondo did breaths and I did compressions.

Zimmerman:

Quote
...and I got on his back and I moved his arms apart cause when he was hitting me in the face and head I thought he had something in his hands - so I just moved his hands apart...


W6
 
Quote
FDLE: Again, referring to the hands real quick for the sake of the audio recording, you were indicating a hand position kind of as if you were swimming, with a hand forward and a hand back.

W6: Correct, correct.

FDLE: That's a face-down position.

W6: Correct.

 
Zimmerman claims Martin was vocalizing near the time he checked Martin's hands, so it is possible that Martin moved them himself. Ofc. Alaya could be mistaken as the scene was somewhat dark - so much so that SPD gives varying descriptions of Martin's body. Zimmerman himself could have moved the arms back to their position, I suppose, though he was being observed by W14 around this time. Cutcher states that Zimmerman was over Martin's face-down body "with his hands on the kid's back."
 
 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on July 08, 2012, 04:07:42 AM
But Martin was found with his hands and arms underneath his body.

How did his arms get underneath him? Was Martin still alive and able to move?

We do not know this to be true. Officer Ricardo Ayala wrote in his statement that the hands were under the body, but there are issues. One such issue is that he wrote the report some 7+ hours after the incident. Another issue is that he was one of the two to give CPR - so taking notes immediately was probably out of the question. Another issue is that Officer Ayala did not mention in his report that a bystander was asked for Vaseline and cellophane to cover the chest wound - which would be a detail you'd expect someone to remember. I'm not saying Officer Ayala is doing anything malicious, but I don't think we can rely on his word alone - his memory is subject to flaws just as everyone else's is.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 08, 2012, 10:41:47 AM
Officer Ayala is a law enforcement officer. A trained professional. He does this kind of stuff, you know, for a living. Absent any really convincing evidence, I'm going to take a trained LEO's word about what he saw.

I don't think the question is 'were Martin's hands found beneath him'? I think the question is, 'how did Martin's hands get beneath him, since we have witnesses putting Martins' hands out to the side, and a LEO saying that Martins' hands were beneath him.


Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 08, 2012, 10:55:16 AM
Officer Ayala is a law enforcement officer. A trained professional. He does this kind of stuff, you know, for a living. Absent any really convincing evidence, I'm going to take a trained LEO's word about what he saw.

That you would unquestionably accept, a minor clause about an insignificant detail , included in long statement of more substantive information  is not particularly surprising. That is, if it supports your opinion.

I don't think the question is 'were Martin's hands found beneath him'? I think the question is, 'how did Martin's hands get beneath him, since we have witnesses putting Martins' hands out to the side, and a LEO saying that Martins' hands were beneath him.

The Mystery of the century. Who cares?




Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 08, 2012, 11:31:09 AM
That you would unquestionably accept, a minor clause about an insignificant detail , included in long statement of more substantive information  is not particularly surprising. That is, if it supports your opinion.

The Mystery of the century. Who cares?
In as much as it could support George's statement that Martin was talking after being shot, I would expect you would.





[/quote]
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 08, 2012, 11:34:20 AM
In as much as it could support George's statement that Martin was talking after being shot, I would expect you would.

I don't care if Martin was talking after being shot. It is not relevant.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 08, 2012, 11:35:10 AM
Officer Ayala is a law enforcement officer. A trained professional. He does this kind of stuff, you know, for a living. Absent any really convincing evidence, I'm going to take a trained LEO's word about what he saw.

I don't think the question is 'were Martin's hands found beneath him'? I think the question is, 'how did Martin's hands get beneath him, since we have witnesses putting Martins' hands out to the side, and a LEO saying that Martins' hands were beneath him.

Actually, the real question is how many trained professionals it takes to decide whether Trayvon was wearing jeans, khakis or tan shorts.
In other words, even LEOs make mistakes.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on July 08, 2012, 01:13:38 PM
In as much as it could support George's statement that Martin was talking after being shot, I would expect you would.

Are you insinuating that Mr. Martin couldn't have said a word after he was shot? I'll assume you are for this reply. The words I'm about to quote are from a registered nurse anesthetist. I'll quote both individuals in this mini-conversation so you see the full context. Make of it what you will, but I will note that this person has stayed neutral in this case - only commenting on things relating to medical concerns.

NOTE: What I'm about to quote may seem cold and gruesome. If you are easily offended or become queasy regarding detailed medical information, I respectfully ask that you skip over what is quoted below.

Quote
Quote
The bullet shattered, hollow point, and I'm guessing that is why there is no exit wound. Both lungs collapsed. No way he could have formed a sentence, much less a flippant remark such as you got me. jmo

    I disagree. The collapse of the lungs was not instantaneous, nor was LOC (loss of consciousness) necessarily instantaneous. It actually takes several seconds to intentionally collapse a lung in the OR. And unless someone has a catastrophic head injury, LOC is not typically instantaneous from trauma-- there is often a period of consciousness after the trauma that varies according to what kind of trauma the victim sustained. It's possible that TM had several seconds of consciousness before collapsing, as his chest rapidly filled with blood, and his heart had a last few seconds of quiver. There would not have been a coordinated, beating heart from the moment of imact, but TM not only had "sufficient" BP to sustain consciousness before the GSW-- but was in an elevated physiologic state of fight or flight, with elevated endogenous catecholamines, that preceeded the GSW. So, consciousness for a few brief seconds is a true possiblilty, IMO. I apologize for stating that very bluntly-- I don't mean at all to be cold or disrespectful, but to clinically illustrate what was occurring. I've seen a lot of hearts go on, and come off cardiopulmonary bypass (and a few that never made it off bypass.) Being able to actually see how a heart responds to surgical trauma is invaluable when considering what occurs at the moment of penetrating chest trauma from a GSW, or other source of trauma.

    I don't know exactly how long he may have maintained consciousness-- maybe as long as 5 seconds-- or a few seconds beyond. I think it is entirely possible, and likely, that he had a few seconds of knowledge that he had been shot in the chest, before losing consciousness. I have had people on a cardiac monitor who were talking at the moment they went into a pulseless rhythm, and I have a few clear memories of them saying such things as "Oh no" and one man I clearly remember said "Oh *****". A dying utterance is a definite physiologic possibility. (Think of this like an utterance on the exhale.)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 08, 2012, 01:35:28 PM
Are you insinuating that Mr. Martin couldn't have said a word after he was shot?

Couldn't have? Of course not. I'm not a doctor, I have no idea what Martin could or couldn't have said after having been shot in the chest. I'm sure medical experts will testify at trial. Until then, we go by what information as we have.

If Martin had 'as long as' 5 seconds of consciousness, I'm wondering if that was long enough to utter his dying phrase 'you got me' or 'you got it' (or possibly, 'you shot me'?), fall over face down, Martin gets off, straddles, pushes hands out, and then Martin moves his hands back under him before the cops get there.

I'm assuming your registered nurse has ER experience - anyway she would have insight on body movement in a case like this?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 08, 2012, 01:36:52 PM
Can someone else help me with something? I would have sworn I saw a statement that George's gun was on the ground after the shooting, but I believe George says he holstered his weapon and told the first police officer that he had a gun on him. Am I just making that up?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on July 08, 2012, 01:47:15 PM
Couldn't have? Of course not. I'm not a doctor, I have no idea what Martin could or couldn't have said after having been shot in the chest. I'm sure medical experts will testify at trial. Until then, we go by what information as we have.

If Martin had 'as long as' 5 seconds of consciousness, I'm wondering if that was long enough to utter his dying phrase 'you got me' or 'you got it' (or possibly, 'you shot me'?), fall over face down, Martin gets off, straddles, pushes hands out, and then Martin moves his hands back under him before the cops get there.

I'm assuming your registered nurse has ER experience - anyway she would have insight on body movement in a case like this?

If you're going to reply to it, at least read it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on July 08, 2012, 03:25:28 PM
Can someone else help me with something? I would have sworn I saw a statement that George's gun was on the ground after the shooting, but I believe George says he holstered his weapon and told the first police officer that he had a gun on him. Am I just making that up?


W6 said the gun was on the ground in the FDLE interview.  Or, more specifically, he said he heard Zimmerman say the gun was on the ground.  W6 was upstairs on the phone talking with 911 at the time.  Unless he opened the window, it was shut, since W6 mentions all the doors and windows were shut when he heard the calls for help.

In the original interview with SPD, W6 tells Serino, "And he was pretty much, you know, just saying 'Hey, I put the gun down,' I'm guessing -- uh, you know, "Here, I'm here," and that's . . . and the lady on the phone with 911 pretty much said there's four more calls coming in, all at the same time."  From that interview, it's pretty clear he couldn't hear exactly was was said, and just assumed Zimmerman said he put the gun on the ground.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 08, 2012, 05:32:59 PM
In John's March 20 interview with FDLE, he says after he went upstairs:

Quote
And I ran over to the window to look down, and when I looked down, I saw the person that was actually on top at that point, was laying in my grass kind of in a sprawled position, not moving. Um, and then I saw the-- another person with his hands in the air. As-- it looked-- I don't believe it was cops at that point-- it looked more like neighbors with flashlights that were coming around the corner. Uh, and the guy had his hands in the air, saying "The gun's on the ground. I shot this guy in self defense." And, no lie, at least-- maybe 20 seconds later, the cops are already all there. I think it was just 'cause so many people had already dialed in. And the operator also told me that, you know, there was five other callers calling-in for the same thing that happened. Um, at that point, um, you know, I think I even stated, you know, "Holy sh*t," or something like that, you know, "I think he's dead," because he wasn't moving.

Same interview, before he gets to the gun, he describes the whole incident:

Quote
About the time around when all this started, we were watching TV like we usually do at nighttime. I believe it was the same weekend as the Daytona 500, and while we were watching TV, we kinda heard some loud noise outside, so we figured maybe it was just, you know, either kids in the neighborhood or people, you know, just having a good time outside. And then we heard it again so we muted the TV but didn't hear anything for a second, um, and then we heard it like it was coming towards us, getting a little louder.

So, I kept the TV on mute and went to go look outside through the sliding glass door, through the blinds. And there's only a porch light, so I couldn't truly see what was out in the grass area. And my fiancée, I-- I'm pretty sure advised me not to open the door, but I had to-- I had to check just to see what was going on. And I opened the sliding glass door, and, looking out there, it almost looked like, a s-- like a dog attacked by s-- or something like that because, there was a man vertically looking forward on, like towards the ground. So, if I'm standing at the glass door-- I  opened the sliding glass door, and, looking out there, it almost looked like, a s-- like a dog attacked by s-- or something like that because, there was a man vertically looking forward on, like towards the ground. So, if I'm standing at the glass door-- I don't know how to describe-- It was pretty much like I was laying on the ground directly in front of, like, directly in front of me on the sidewalk.

So I couldn't really tell what was going on until I heard "Help, help, help" yelled again, and then I noticed there was a guy in a lighter colored shirt or sweatshirt or whatever he was wearing, um, I think it was a red color or a white color, uh, on the bottom of the person. So I yelled what was going on, and um, and, you know, "Help, help" came out. And then I was like, "Hey, cut it out," and they kinda turned and made it onto the sidewalk. And the person wearing the black outfit was on top of that person at that time. And that's when I said I was calling 9-1-1.

I turned around, told [redacted for fiancee, W-17] to get off the phone, get upstairs. And I locked the door and started dialing 9-1-1. And as soon as I picked up on 9-1-1, a couple seconds later, as we were about to make our way upstairs, it sounded like, like a rock hit a window. I never heard a gunshot before, but now, knowing that was the gunshot that I heard, um-- And, from that point, as she was still making it up the stairs, I ran upstairs while I was on the phone with the, ah, 9-1-1, ah, person that answered my call.

Here's the part where he changes that he saw TM hitting GZ and that he saw GZ crying help. It was after he talked to his neighbors (a less reliable memory due to the pooling of information, a typical eyewitness evidence problems.)

Quote
Um, and then after that, it was just, you know, pretty much giving statements the rest of the night, um, you know, talking with my neighbors next door, um. I didn't have my patio door open, but I heard, um, you know, from other people-- other people had, you know, doors open or something like that, so they could hear it a little better, but I could only hear the 'helps' through, you know, with all the doors and windows closed.

So I couldn't tell, you know, who was yelling "Help," this or that, but you could tell it was a male, of course. Um, but as to who was yelling, I-- you know, I-- I can't make that call. At first, I thought it was the person on the ground, just because, you know - me thinking rationally - if someone was on top, the person on the bottom would just be yelling. But, you know, that's just an assumption. I truly can't tell who, you know - after I thought ab-- you know, after I'm thinking about it - was yelling "Help," just because it is so dark out on that sidewalk. Um, you can't see a mouth or, you know. I really wish I could have, 'cause that woulda really helped, but that was pretty much all I saw at that point. I didn't see how it started. I didn't see how it ended. I just saw the part where they were in an altercation on the ground.

Remainder of quotes in next reply.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 08, 2012, 05:41:58 PM
That is incorrect the burden of proof is not beyond a reasonable doubt its preponderance of the evidence. Try reading Jeralyns extensive research on the main board.

I deleted the comment for falsely stating the law.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 11, 2012, 10:57:05 PM
Are you insinuating that Mr. Martin couldn't have said a word after he was shot? I'll assume you are for this reply. The words I'm about to quote are from a registered nurse anesthetist. I'll quote both individuals in this mini-conversation so you see the full context. Make of it what you will, but I will note that this person has stayed neutral in this case - only commenting on things relating to medical concerns.

NOTE: What I'm about to quote may seem cold and gruesome. If you are easily offended or become queasy regarding detailed medical information, I respectfully ask that you skip over what is quoted below.

    I disagree. The collapse of the lungs was not instantaneous, nor was LOC (loss of consciousness) necessarily instantaneous. It actually takes several seconds to intentionally collapse a lung in the OR. And unless someone has a catastrophic head injury, LOC is not typically instantaneous from trauma-- there is often a period of consciousness after the trauma that varies according to what kind of trauma the victim sustained. It's possible that TM had several seconds of consciousness before collapsing, as his chest rapidly filled with blood, and his heart had a last few seconds of quiver. There would not have been a coordinated, beating heart from the moment of imact, but TM not only had "sufficient" BP to sustain consciousness before the GSW-- but was in an elevated physiologic state of fight or flight, with elevated endogenous catecholamines, that preceeded the GSW. So, consciousness for a few brief seconds is a true possiblilty, IMO. I apologize for stating that very bluntly-- I don't mean at all to be cold or disrespectful, but to clinically illustrate what was occurring. I've seen a lot of hearts go on, and come off cardiopulmonary bypass (and a few that never made it off bypass.) Being able to actually see how a heart responds to surgical trauma is invaluable when considering what occurs at the moment of penetrating chest trauma from a GSW, or other source of trauma.

    I don't know exactly how long he may have maintained consciousness-- maybe as long as 5 seconds-- or a few seconds beyond. I think it is entirely possible, and likely, that he had a few seconds of knowledge that he had been shot in the chest, before losing consciousness. I have had people on a cardiac monitor who were talking at the moment they went into a pulseless rhythm, and I have a few clear memories of them saying such things as "Oh no" and one man I clearly remember said "Oh *****". A dying utterance is a definite physiologic possibility. (Think of this like an utterance on the exhale.)

I see we are familiar with the same person.  I have appreciated her medical input on a couple of things, not just with this case.  She can take the medical complexities and phrase them in a way that all can understand.  I admire her.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JW on July 12, 2012, 02:34:48 AM
We do not know this to be true. Officer Ricardo Ayala wrote in his statement that the hands were under the body, but there are issues. One such issue is that he wrote the report some 7+ hours after the incident. Another issue is that he was one of the two to give CPR - so taking notes immediately was probably out of the question. Another issue is that Officer Ayala did not mention in his report that a bystander was asked for Vaseline and cellophane to cover the chest wound - which would be a detail you'd expect someone to remember. I'm not saying Officer Ayala is doing anything malicious, but I don't think we can rely on his word alone - his memory is subject to flaws just as everyone else's is.

The human brain can live approx. 4 minutes after the heart stops. I believe witness #16 claims she saw Trayvon's leg or feet moving when George was on top of him. Maybe that explains it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 13, 2012, 05:20:17 AM
RE: The retired deputy that is a friend to George Zimmerman  pg. 77-80

In his recounting of what Zimmerman told him, located at the bottom of page 78, he describes the first witness (#6) that George made eye contact with when asking for help.  The witness said he was calling the police.  That corresponds to what GZ has said.

But then he goes on to describe two additional witnesses that also came outside and George made eye contact with and asked for help and both of them went back inside.  Were there three total witnesses to the fight?

I went thru O'Steens reports since he is the one listed as doing the interviews with W4, W7, and W10.  There is a statement from Chad Green in there so I am assuming he is one of the three but I couldn't find anything new in the rest of the interviews that might be assigned to the other two. 

Could the other two be the witnesses that GZ described to his friend?

I am confuzzled on this.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 13, 2012, 11:12:11 AM
Can someone else help me with something? I would have sworn I saw a statement that George's gun was on the ground after the shooting, but I believe George says he holstered his weapon and told the first police officer that he had a gun on him. Am I just making that up?

A bystander, I think W-6, overheard Zimmerman telling Officer Smith he had a gun and asking him to take it. He misunderstood some words and thought Zimmerman was saying he had put the gun on the ground.

I've spent enough time with the witnesses statements that I feel confident saying no one saw the gun on the ground.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Cylinder on July 15, 2012, 10:14:50 AM
A bystander, I think W-6, overheard Zimmerman telling Officer Smith he had a gun and asking him to take it. He misunderstood some words and thought Zimmerman was saying he had put the gun on the ground.

In his re-enactment (IIRC) Zimmerman claimed that as he was told to put his hand behind his back to be cuffed, he wanted the officer to know that he hand a firearm near where his hand would be.
Title: Disarming GZ
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 15, 2012, 11:44:06 AM

Officer Timothy Smith (p. 14 of the first discovery documents (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/357450/trayvon-martin-documents-ocr.pdf)):
Quote
Located on the inside of Zimmerman's waistband, I removed a black Kel Tek 9mm PF9 semi auto handgun and holster.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 15, 2012, 12:50:07 PM
I think we may have been missing a really important piece of evidence, and I may have been wrong about something.

This whole time we've been assuming George never went back to his truck, and instead spent the two minutes between the end of his call and the start of the confrontation.

I think this is incorrect. I think George went back to his truck, and then went back out looking for Martin.

My evidence: At 02:08 when George says "He's running", he gets out of his car and you hear the door chime. That's the 'hey, dummy, you've forgotten your keys' - and the chime only ends when the door is shut. Second is 03:22 of his NEN call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8): When he tells the dispatcher directions to his truck, he says (as the NEN dispatcher is talking over him), "the keys are in the truck".


But we know from the evidence that George's keys with small flashlight were found near the T.


I think George went back to his truck to turn the engine off and retrieve the small flashlight on the keychain since his big flashlight wasn't working. He then went back to look for Martin.


George never mentions going back to his truck.


Can anyone find a fault in any of the above?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: cboldt on July 15, 2012, 01:01:08 PM
I think we may have been missing a really important piece of evidence, and I may have been wrong about something.
Can anyone find a fault in any of the above?

Yeah.  I hear "see my truck" not "keys are in my truck."
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: who007 on July 15, 2012, 01:06:36 PM
I think we may have been missing a really important piece of evidence, and I may have been wrong about something.

This whole time we've been assuming George never went back to his truck, and instead spent the two minutes between the end of his call and the start of the confrontation.

I think this is incorrect. I think George went back to his truck, and then went back out looking for Martin.

My evidence: At 02:08 when George says "He's running", he gets out of his car and you hear the door chime. That's the 'hey, dummy, you've forgotten your keys' - and the chime only ends when the door is shut. Second is 03:22 of his NEN call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8): When he tells the dispatcher directions to his truck, he says (as the NEN dispatcher is talking over him), "the keys are in the truck".


But we know from the evidence that George's keys with small flashlight were found near the T.


I think George went back to his truck to turn the engine off and retrieve the small flashlight on the keychain since his big flashlight wasn't working. He then went back to look for Martin.


George never mentions going back to his truck.


Can anyone find a fault in any of the above?

Yes. It goes against all the statements GZ made in his police interviews and reenactment.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 15, 2012, 02:21:45 PM
I think we may have been missing a really important piece of evidence, and I may have been wrong about something.

This whole time we've been assuming George never went back to his truck, and instead spent the two minutes between the end of his call and the start of the confrontation.

I think this is incorrect. I think George went back to his truck, and then went back out looking for Martin.

My evidence: At 02:08 when George says "He's running", he gets out of his car and you hear the door chime. That's the 'hey, dummy, you've forgotten your keys' - and the chime only ends when the door is shut. Second is 03:22 of his NEN call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8): When he tells the dispatcher directions to his truck, he says (as the NEN dispatcher is talking over him), "the keys are in the truck".


But we know from the evidence that George's keys with small flashlight were found near the T.


I think George went back to his truck to turn the engine off and retrieve the small flashlight on the keychain since his big flashlight wasn't working. He then went back to look for Martin.


George never mentions going back to his truck.


Can anyone find a fault in any of the above?


Interesting theory.

Especially considering how "abruptly" he gets out of his truck when Martin runs.

Other possibility, perhaps, is chime indicates headlights left on.


You might ask over at bcclist, the guy there listened to all kinds of car chime recordings to figure out that it was a Honda Ridgeline before that info was made public.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 15, 2012, 02:25:20 PM
Yes. It goes against all the statements GZ made in his police interviews and reenactment.

The guy who just shot somebody and is looking to not be sent to jail for it might not always make statements upon which the athorities can rely.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 15, 2012, 02:36:02 PM
The guy who just shot somebody and is looking to not be sent to jail for it might not always make statements upon which the athorities can rely.

Neither might a hostile ,post event, spectator intent on mangling facts to paint a false picture. The difference is that if GZ is innocent it is in his interest to tell the truth to the best of his ability.

However I don't remember Zimmerman commenting on the keys or truck. Why would it dispute any important  evidence in the case? does it place him in pursuit of Trayvon?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: leftwig on July 15, 2012, 02:41:55 PM
I think we may have been missing a really important piece of evidence, and I may have been wrong about something.

This whole time we've been assuming George never went back to his truck, and instead spent the two minutes between the end of his call and the start of the confrontation.

I think this is incorrect. I think George went back to his truck, and then went back out looking for Martin.

My evidence: At 02:08 when George says "He's running", he gets out of his car and you hear the door chime. That's the 'hey, dummy, you've forgotten your keys' - and the chime only ends when the door is shut. Second is 03:22 of his NEN call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8): When he tells the dispatcher directions to his truck, he says (as the NEN dispatcher is talking over him), "the keys are in the truck".


But we know from the evidence that George's keys with small flashlight were found near the T.


I think George went back to his truck to turn the engine off and retrieve the small flashlight on the keychain since his big flashlight wasn't working. He then went back to look for Martin.


George never mentions going back to his truck.


Can anyone find a fault in any of the above?

I wouldn't rule it out as impossible.  Obviously he would have had to go back to get his keys after the call ended because we don't hear the door chime again the rest of the call which would occur as soon as he opened the car door again.  Of course this would probably put the theory to rest that he was chasing down Martin if this were true.

The only way I could see this fitting into the call and story about going to get the address would be if he got out to try and see where Martin ran, waited at the T as he talked to the dispatcher and started walking back and was near his truck when the call ended.  He gets to his car and realizes he doesn't have an address and decides to walk to RVC at that point to get the address.  He walks to RVC and on his way back, TM comes to greet him.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 15, 2012, 02:49:17 PM
Or,as mentioned,  perhaps the light shot off automatically in a few seconds so the alarm was not due his keys.

If GZ remembers going back to his truck after the call ended with (Z at the T), then walking back 40 ft before resuming his trip  towards Retreat View Circle implies nothing.

It actually accounts for some of the time between the  end of the call and Martins assault of Zimmerman  at the T.

I doubt he would purposely exclude it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 15, 2012, 02:55:34 PM
I doubt he would purposely exclude it.
Really? You think it just slipped his mind?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on July 15, 2012, 02:56:27 PM
My evidence: At 02:08 when George says "He's running", he gets out of his car and you hear the door chime. That's the 'hey, dummy, you've forgotten your keys' - and the chime only ends when the door is shut.

According to the Ridgeline owner's manual (http://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/pubs/om/JC0707/JC0707MAINIXA.pdf) (http://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/pubs/om/JC0707/JC0707MAINIXA.pdf)):

Quote
You will hear a reminder beeper if you leave the key in the ignition switch in the LOCK (0) or the ACCESSORY (I) position and open the driver’s door. Remove the key to turn off the beeper.

but,

Quote
Turning the dial to the [headlights on] position turns on the headlights. If you leave the lights on and remove the key from the ignition switch, you will hear a reminder chime when you open the driver’s door.

The sound seemed to obviously be a chime, not a beeper.

Also, FYI:
Quote
The automatic lighting off feature turns off the headlights, all other exterior lights, and the instrument panel lights within 15 seconds of removing the key from the ignition switch and closing the driver’s door.

(On the forum, I don't know how put a hyperlink without putting in the whole address.)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Redbrow on July 15, 2012, 03:03:04 PM
I think we may have been missing a really important piece of evidence, and I may have been wrong about something.

This whole time we've been assuming George never went back to his truck, and instead spent the two minutes between the end of his call and the start of the confrontation.

I think this is incorrect. I think George went back to his truck, and then went back out looking for Martin.

My evidence: At 02:08 when George says "He's running", he gets out of his car and you hear the door chime. That's the 'hey, dummy, you've forgotten your keys' - and the chime only ends when the door is shut. Second is 03:22 of his NEN call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zj7qEcD8R-8): When he tells the dispatcher directions to his truck, he says (as the NEN dispatcher is talking over him), "the keys are in the truck".


But we know from the evidence that George's keys with small flashlight were found near the T.


I think George went back to his truck to turn the engine off and retrieve the small flashlight on the keychain since his big flashlight wasn't working. He then went back to look for Martin.


George never mentions going back to his truck.


Can anyone find a fault in any of the above?

He does not say "the keys are in the truck".
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 15, 2012, 03:03:22 PM
Really? You think it just slipped his mind?

I didn't say that - do you think he lied?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 15, 2012, 04:51:22 PM
He does not say "the keys are in the truck".
I think the exact words are, "The keys are in it".

It seems reasonably clear, but I'm sure audio experts would be able to clean it up.

It seems like he gets out of the car awfully fast - would he think and act quickly enough to put the dial to headlights on, then get out of the truck?

Where's Lee when we need him?


Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: RWright on July 15, 2012, 05:06:51 PM
I think the exact words are, "The keys are in it".

It seems reasonably clear, but I'm sure audio experts would be able to clean it up.

It seems like he gets out of the car awfully fast - would he think and act quickly enough to put the dial to headlights on, then get out of the truck?

Where's Lee when we need him?

You must  be listening to a different part.  The last two words are "my truck".  I believe Diwataman cranked it way up and concluded he said, "I still see my truck."  I thought he said, "You'll see my truck."
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 15, 2012, 05:41:42 PM
Neither might a hostile ,post event, spectator intent on mangling facts to paint a false picture. The difference is that if GZ is innocent it is in his interest to tell the truth to the best of his ability.

However I don't remember Zimmerman commenting on the keys or truck. Why would it dispute any important  evidence in the case? does it place him in pursuit of Trayvon?

So if Zimmerman says one thing and one of the people living in the nearby houses who had no idea this was going to happen and had never met Zimmerman or Martin before says something different, the obvious explanation is that they're lying to get Zimmerman in trouble instead of Zimmerman lying to try to get out of trouble?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on July 15, 2012, 06:13:55 PM
No comments on that fact that leaving the keys in the ignition causes a beeper not a chime?  Seems to me like a pretty good reason to believe Zimmerman didn't leave the keys in the ignition.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on July 15, 2012, 06:24:53 PM
It seems like he gets out of the car awfully fast - would he think and act quickly enough to put the dial to headlights on, then get out of the truck?

I believe in one of the interviews Zimmerman says before he exited the truck, the engine was running and the lights were on.  I almost certain he mentions he initially had some light while walking toward the "T" because he left the lights on, but they went off automatically after a short time.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Redbrow on July 15, 2012, 06:27:44 PM
I think the exact words are, "The keys are in it".

It seems reasonably clear, but I'm sure audio experts would be able to clean it up.

It seems like he gets out of the car awfully fast - would he think and act quickly enough to put the dial to headlights on, then get out of the truck?

Where's Lee when we need him?

I hear "you'll see me by my truck" before he yields to the dispatcher who is speaking at the same time.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on July 15, 2012, 06:42:34 PM
Let me add that in my Reply #41, I wasn't suggesting he left the lights and engine on when he got out of the truck.  I was just replying to dragon ash's comment that he would have to turn the headlights on.  They were probably already on, and he turned the engine off and removed the key.  The chime would sound when he opened the driver's door.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 15, 2012, 06:58:36 PM
I hear "you'll see me by my truck" before he yields to the dispatcher who is speaking at the same time.

Just listened to it again.

He says "You'll see my truck." and then the dispatcher ask him in front of what address he's parked which buries what he says next.  He may have said "It's a silver Honda Ridgeline" or something like that, but I can't tell.

They really should record dispatcher mics on a separate track so they can go back and do some cancellation magic later when it would be helpful in situations like this.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 15, 2012, 11:27:50 PM
I hear "you'll see me by my truck" before he yields to the dispatcher who is speaking at the same time.
Good ears. I can hear that as well. The door/chime thing is also something to consider.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 16, 2012, 03:00:07 AM
Good ears. I can hear that as well. The door/chime thing is also something to consider.

Y'all must be listening to a different recording, 'cause all I hear is "You'll see my truck".

I'm listening to the one here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 16, 2012, 03:20:38 AM
Y'all must be listening to a different recording, 'cause all I hear is "You'll see my truck".

I'm listening to the one here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin
After he says, 'you'll see my truck', and the dispatcher talks over George to say' what address are you parked in front of'. George is saying either 'the keys are in my truck' or 'you'll see me by my truck'. I can't hear 'I can still see my truck', which doesn't make much sense from the context. Of course, 'the keys are in my truck' doesn't make much sense either...why would he feel the need to tell the dispatch that?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on July 16, 2012, 08:07:58 AM
Sounds good to me.  I've often suspected that even before I saw "the keys are in it" posted(I didn't hear it)
I suspected Z never got farther then the T and went back for the flashlight after hanging up.
Ever notice how angrily Z says "These arseholes always get away", but how relatively calmly he says "sh*t, he's runnin"?   Was  TM already on his way to the T at "Arseholes."?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 16, 2012, 08:36:15 AM
Sounds good to me.  I've often suspected that even before I saw "the keys are in it" posted(I didn't hear it)
I suspected Z never got farther then the T and went back for the flashlight after hanging up.
Ever notice how angrily Z says "These arseholes always get away", but how relatively calmly he says "sh*t, he's runnin"?   Was  TM already on his way to the T at "Arseholes."?
Doubtful, because we don't hear him get out of the car until 'sh*t, he's running'.

That really is such a telling phrase tho, isn't it. 'Sh*t, he's running' - George is *angry* that Martin is running away.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 16, 2012, 08:44:27 AM
You must  be listening to a different part.  The last two words are "my truck".  I believe Diwataman cranked it way up and concluded he said, "I still see my truck."  I thought he said, "You'll see my truck."

"They'll see my truck" is what I have always gotten.

FWIW, I thought for the longest time that he immediately returned to his truck and was getting resettled at approx 2:45.

I never thought he sounded that angry as much as he sounds frustrated or resigned to that fact. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JW on July 17, 2012, 12:36:54 PM
Y'all must be listening to a different recording, 'cause all I hear is "You'll see my truck".

I'm listening to the one here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

If it is when George says something about going past the mailboxes he does say "You'll see my truck".
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 17, 2012, 12:46:59 PM
If it is when George says something about going past the mailboxes he does say "You'll see my truck".
It's *after* he says 'you'll see my truck', as the dispatcher is saying 'what address are you parked in front of'. The dispatcher is talking over George.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JW on July 17, 2012, 12:49:07 PM
It's *after* he says 'you'll see my truck', as the dispatcher is saying 'what address are you parked in front of'. The dispatcher is talking over George.

Gotcha, thanks. Did you notice if there are actually any keys on George's key chain with the light? I have looked and don't see any. They may be covered by the grass.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Cylinder on July 17, 2012, 01:05:16 PM
Did you notice if there are actually any keys on George's key chain with the light?

Page 5 of the first discovery packet:

Quote
One (1) Honda brand name key and one small silver colored flashlight key chain, located and collected in the grass of a courtyard between buildings. Obect Marker 1.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JW on July 17, 2012, 01:18:28 PM
Page 5 of the first discovery packet:

I hate to be a stickler but do they mean actual key or key fob? Looking at the photo I see the flashlight and key fob but no acyual keys. Some people seperate their keys and the fob so they can leave the keys in the vehicle and lock and unlock the door with the fob. I wouldn't do that but some people do. I am also not saying this is the case with George but I don't see any actual keys there in the grass.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: leftwig on July 17, 2012, 01:22:09 PM
Sounds good to me.  I've often suspected that even before I saw "the keys are in it" posted(I didn't hear it)
I suspected Z never got farther then the T and went back for the flashlight after hanging up.
Ever notice how angrily Z says "These arseholes always get away", but how relatively calmly he says "sh*t, he's runnin"?   Was  TM already on his way to the T at "Arseholes."?

I didn't think Z sounded angry during any of that call.  Maybe exacerbated over the thought that another one might get away. 

I think that Z makes this statement at a time when TM was checking him out (circling his car if you believe Z's account) and may have begun walking away by the time he makes the statement. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 17, 2012, 02:02:07 PM
I hate to be a stickler but do they mean actual key or key fob? Looking at the photo I see the flashlight and key fob but no acyual keys. Some people seperate their keys and the fob so they can leave the keys in the vehicle and lock and unlock the door with the fob. I wouldn't do that but some people do. I am also not saying this is the case with George but I don't see any actual keys there in the grass.
Don't have the actual evidence picture in front of me - but it might not be an actual key in the traditional sense. I mean, this is my Mini key:
(http://cdn102.iofferphoto.com/img/item/177/641/865/mini-cooper-remote-alarm-car-key-fob-3-button-1a4d8.JPG)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JW on July 17, 2012, 05:11:14 PM
Don't have the actual evidence picture in front of me - but it might not be an actual key in the traditional sense. I mean, this is my Mini key:
(http://cdn102.iofferphoto.com/img/item/177/641/865/mini-cooper-remote-alarm-car-key-fob-3-button-1a4d8.JPG)

Yeah, I could see that. Alot of newer vehicles have the key and fob made like that. From looking at the photo of George's keys the metal part is probably in the grass.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Juan on July 18, 2012, 11:04:55 AM
George will be interviewed tonight on Sean Hannity's Fox News show. O'mara will be there too. They say it will be for the entire hour. I doubt if any new revelations will be made. I do expect the "usual suspects" to find many "inconsistencies" in whatever he does say.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-channel-hannity-present-161400562.html
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 18, 2012, 04:21:23 PM
Perhaps your biggest clue is that this site is run by a Defense Attorney?  Jeralyn uses facts in evidence.  Opinions are accepted as long as they are based in those facts in evidence and stated as an opinion.  Perhaps you are just more comfortable in those other sites where there is a broader range of discussion.

And what the heck is a "GZ Fan Boy?"  LOL!

There is a corresponding frustration concerning discussing the background of The Martin clan. But waiting until the information is entered into evidence does eliminate much of the effort of debating rumors.

Fortunately when and if the defense starts to play its cards this concern should be lessened.

But fortunately Deb is correct this is not a forum designed for baseless speculation. (At least nominally)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 18, 2012, 09:32:06 PM
George will be interviewed tonight on Sean Hannity's Fox News show. O'mara will be there too. They say it will be for the entire hour. I doubt if any new revelations will be made. I do expect the "usual suspects" to find many "inconsistencies" in whatever he does say.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/fox-news-channel-hannity-present-161400562.html

There's a separate thread for the Hannity interview here (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2085.0.html).
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 19, 2012, 08:30:56 PM
You can lead a fool to cameras but you can't make him think.  Zimmerman has never learned to shut his yapper.  He may have evidence going in his favor but by the time he gets through alienating the rest of the population of Florida, it won't matter.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 19, 2012, 08:42:52 PM
"You can lead a fool to cameras but you can't make him think."

You have just joined the legion of those from whom I expect a new keyboard. :)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 20, 2012, 03:20:46 AM
You can lead a fool to cameras but you can't make him think.

That. Is. Awesome.

Well played.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Screamin Jay on July 20, 2012, 08:48:19 AM
Did you notice on Hannity's long interview George says there was only 30 seconds until the encounter with Trayvon! Would this be from the end of the NEN call? That would be around 7:14 and would mean the encounter lasted 3 minutes. This is twice as long as I estimated. Serino said there was a lot of standing up and talking before the punch according to witnesses. Something had to take a minute extra.
What I understand is there was loud arguing that witness 11 says went at least three exchanges like blah, blah, blah. George says there was a punch. Witness 20 says there was a quiet scuffle across his back yard grass which lasted 20 seconds. Then there is crying and begging. This continues into 7:16 when the first 911 call starts. Finally there are yells for "Help", during which witness 6 comes out around 7:16:30. The gunshot happens at 7:16:56.
Title: Standing
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 20, 2012, 10:15:19 AM
Serino said there was a lot of standing up and talking before the punch according to witnesses.

I think some of what Serino said to Zimmerman about mystery witnesses was bluffing.

W-18 is the only one who says she heard arguing for a longer time than W-11, and she didn't see the men until they were on the ground.

The first time W-18 looked out, she couldn't see because of an indoor light. She turned the light off and looked again. By then the two were on the ground.

No witness we know of saw them before they were on the ground, except possibly W-2.

Investigators are allowed to use ruses. What Serino said to Zimmerman isn't necessarily to be taken at face value.
Title: Re: Standing
Post by: dragon ash on July 20, 2012, 10:26:11 AM
Investigators are allowed to use ruses. What Serino said to Zimmerman isn't necessarily to be taken at face value.
Correct - and neither can we take George's 'oh, I pray there was video' etc. statement at face value either. Unlike the Perry Mason shows, people rarely crack at the first 'I can prove it!' statement; they'll insist on their story until (and sometimes even after) it's been shown to be false.

We can hardly expect George to say, 'Gee, I hope there isn't any video'.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 20, 2012, 10:54:19 AM
What he could have done of course was to backtrack any statement that he had given that he would expect to be inconsistent with the video. I don't mean time durations I mean events. He didn't

It appears that GZ was confident in his telling.

 Its just remarkable, at 6Pm that no one saw anything to materially contradict him.
No witness saw him brandishing a gun   
No witness contradicts his account of the fight
No witness saw a foot chase

How do you think he got sooooo lucky?

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 20, 2012, 06:48:25 PM
What he could have done of course was to backtrack any statement that he had given that he would expect to be inconsistent with the video. I don't mean time durations I mean events. He didn't

It appears that GZ was confident in his telling.

 Its just remarkable, at 6Pm that no one saw anything to materially contradict him.
No witness saw him brandishing a gun   
No witness contradicts his account of the fight
No witness saw a foot chase

How do you think he got sooooo lucky?

6 PM of which day?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 22, 2012, 07:06:42 AM
No witness saw him brandishing a gun   
No witness contradicts his account of the fight
No witness saw a foot chase

How do you think he got sooooo lucky?
No witness saw him being punched.

No witness saw his head being slammed in to the sidewalk.

No witness saw him being suffocated.

No witness saw him screaming.

How did he get soooo unlucky?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: spectator on July 22, 2012, 08:59:10 AM
No witness saw him being punched.

No witness saw his head being slammed in to the sidewalk.

No witness saw him being suffocated.

No witness saw him screaming.

How did he get soooo unlucky?

What #6 actually seen might be different than his statement.

he could have seen all the above...maybe.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: who007 on July 22, 2012, 09:05:18 AM
Witness 6 went on at length about what he saw...almost an hours worth of his detailing what he describes of literally a few seconds in the dark.
 
He CLEARLY states he didn't see anyone hit, he doesn't know who was screaming, didn't see who started it, did not see any punches or hitting, didn't see how it ended
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 22, 2012, 09:23:25 AM
Witness 6 went on at length about what he saw...almost an hours worth of his detailing what he describes of literally a few seconds in the dark.
 
He CLEARLY states he didn't see anyone hit, he doesn't know who was screaming, didn't see who started it, did not see any punches or hitting, didn't see how it ended

Witness #6 is quite precise. Yet he never waivers from the observation that TM was on top, in control and actively taking actions against Zimmerman.
I am sure that less adverserial  examination will be able to develop information based on his impressions. I suspect that we will find other facts that support his first observations

Ignore the repetitive droning. It is not that Zimmerman  is lucky to have witness #6 - its the state with its burden, and total lack of evidence  ( he got out of the Truck!!!) that is extremely unlucky.


Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 22, 2012, 09:37:02 AM
No witness saw him being punched.

No witness saw his head being slammed in to the sidewalk.

No witness saw him being suffocated.

No witness saw him screaming.

How did he get soooo unlucky?

The prosecution concedes he was punched. The evidence supports it

The injuries to the back of his head support GZ's testimony.

The lower volume of the last few screams supports the GZ's testimony ( once again GZ's persuasive testimony - given immediately after the incident)

The comparative injuries ( or lack thereof ) establish George as the screamer as do W6 testimony that Martin was totally in control of George.

Where is the evidence or witnesses supporting the contrary for the same four points?

It seems that you admit that no witnesses  support your key contentions. Then you conveniently ignore the witnesses and evidence that contradict them.

 I think your unlucky to have invested emotional capital attempting to support such a thin soup of conjecture.
Did you ever post under the member name of PB?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 22, 2012, 09:48:05 AM
The prosecution concedes he was punched. The evidence supports it.
I could possibly grant this - at some point in the 45-second(ish) struggle, Martin's hand or fist probably came in contact with George's nose once.

There is zero evidence suggesting Martin punched George in the face 'at least a dozen times'.

The injuries to the back of his head support GZ's testimony.

No, they don't. Tell you what - go outside, find the nearest sidewalk, slam your head into it half a dozen times or so hard enough so that you feel like 'your head is going to explode'. Take some pictures. Also, tell us how you're feeling afterwards. Let's contrast that with the two small cuts on George's head and his nonchalant demeanour just -seconds- after the shooting.

The lower volume of the last few screams supports the GZ'stestimony ( once again persuasive testimony - given immediately after the incident)
It does? Your theory is that George's shouting would be -quieter- after Martin takes his hand of his mouth? You think George wouldn't want to shout as loud as he suddenly realizes he needs to take control of the gun?

Can I just throw in a few  ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) here.

The comparative injuries ( or lack thereof ) establish George as the screammer as do W6 testimony that MArtin was totally in control OF George.
That makes about as much sense as claiming that it has to be George screaming because it was the last Sunday of the month.

I think your unlucky to have invested emotional capital attempting to support such a thin soup of conjecture. Did you ever post under thr member name of PB?
I have no idea who PB is. I've never posted on this board before this Zimmerman case.

I think you're unlucky in being forced to go through extreme mental contortions and cling to amazingly illogical conclusions to maintain your belief that George didn't needlessly gun down a 17yr old unarmed kid.

My emotional investment is in the truth, and in not having 17yr old kids gunned down for the crime of being black in a hoodie while walking. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Juan on July 22, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
17yr old kids gunned down for the crime of being black in a hoodie while walking.

What case are you referring to where 17 year old kids were gunned down for being black in a hoodie while walking?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: spectator on July 22, 2012, 11:03:22 AM

"What #6 actually seen might be different than his statement"

Witness 6 went on at length about what he saw...almost an hours worth of his detailing what he describes of literally a few seconds in the dark.
 
He CLEARLY states he didn't see anyone hit, he doesn't know who was screaming, didn't see who started it, did not see any punches or hitting, didn't see how it ended





Your referring to his "statements" which changed a bit.

His statements made it clear he wasn't clear about a whole lot.




Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on July 22, 2012, 11:41:15 AM
My emotional investment is in the truth, and in not having 17yr old kids gunned down for the crime of being black in a hoodie while walking.
Which speaks volumes to your bias in this case.

My interest is in the truth.  The color of the people involved is inconsequential.  The attire of the people involved is inconsequential.  I wouldn't want black, brown, yellow or white 17-year-olds gunned down for simply walking through a neighborhood no matter what clothing they were wearing.

However when a person assaults another person they should be prepared for the consequences, and people without an agenda will admit they caused their own demise.

Even you admit that Trayvon assaulted George, although reluctantly and with ridiculous caveats
Quote
"I could possibly grant this - at some point in the 45-second(ish) struggle, Martin's hand or fist probably came in contact with George's nose once."

"came in contact" is laughable - his nose was broken.  Legally that is all that's required to exercise your right to self defense, so now even you have admitted that George acted within the law.  Glad you finally see the truth.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: spectator on July 22, 2012, 12:10:04 PM
Which speaks volumes to your bias in this case.

My interest is in the truth.  The color of the people involved is inconsequential.  The attire of the people involved is inconsequential.  I wouldn't want black, brown, yellow or white 17-year-olds gunned down for simply walking through a neighborhood no matter what clothing they were wearing.

However when a person assaults another person they should be prepared for the consequences, and people without an agenda will admit they caused their own demise.

Even you admit that Trayvon assaulted George, although reluctantly and with ridiculous caveats
"came in contact" is laughable - his nose was broken.  Legally that is all that's required to exercise your right to self defense, so now even you have admitted that George acted within the law.  Glad you finally see the truth.

Nicely put.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: who007 on July 22, 2012, 12:16:10 PM
...
"came in contact" is laughable - his nose was broken.  Legally that is all that's required to exercise your right to self defense, so now even you have admitted that George acted within the law.  Glad you finally see the truth.
"Likely" broken nose. No documented broken nose.

Too bad Zimmerman wasn't smart enough to get it documented.
He refused to see a specialist against the advice of the PA.
Too much trouble, I guess.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: who007 on July 22, 2012, 12:18:38 PM
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/Z-nose.jpg)

That doesn't look sucker punched, down to the ground whammied to me. Nor broken.
But that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 22, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
"Likely" broken nose. No documented broken nose.

Too bad Zimmerman wasn't smart enough to get it documented.
He refused to see a specialist against the advice of the PA.
Too much trouble, I guess.
or too expensive?  I didn't have my nose fixed when I broke it either.  I couldn't afford it.  I saw my ENT doctor the next day, decided to leave it as it was, and hoped for the best.  Most people can't tell it was broken but I see the difference.  Not unlike GZ. 

And I believe that the PA did say he had a closed break in his nose.  ((paraphrasing since I don't have time to go look up the exact wording.  It comes from the report that Gilbreath said he never saw when under oath and the same report that the SPD had in their possession somewhere around March 9th, IIRC.))

Whoooo?  Do you have a picture from the reenactment that you can post side-by-side with the one you say isn't a break to you?  I think you will see a bit of a difference.

Please make them in a link as to not use up bandwidth.  Per Jeralyn's request.  It messes with the board somehow.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 22, 2012, 12:28:37 PM
Quote from: txantimedia
- his nose was broken.  Legally that is all that's required to exercise your right to self defense, so now even you have admitted that George acted within the law.
Please tell me you don't actually believe this.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on July 22, 2012, 12:49:58 PM
"Likely" broken nose. No documented broken nose.

Too bad Zimmerman wasn't smart enough to get it documented.
He refused to see a specialist against the advice of the PA.
Too much trouble, I guess.
The EMT's diagnosed a possible broken nose.  The medical report states "nasal bones closed fracture".

http://www.scribd.com/doc/99022693/George-Zimmerman-Medical-Report

Argue with them.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: who007 on July 22, 2012, 12:54:27 PM
"Likely..."

"Possible..."

You still have no documented certain broken nose. 

That's just the way it is.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on July 22, 2012, 01:13:41 PM
Please tell me you don't actually believe this.
I can't do anything about ignorance of the a law except instruct:

Florida deadly force law (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0776/Sections/0776.013.html):

Quote
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

A forcible felony under Florida law is (http://law.onecle.com/florida/crimes/776.08.html):

Quote
776.08  Forcible felony.
"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Aggravated battery (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.045.html):

Quote
784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement;

Breaking one's nose is permanent disfigurement, not to mention great bodily harm, as is pounding one's head on the sidewalk, trying to suffocate someone and beating one in the face with fists.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on July 22, 2012, 01:15:39 PM
"Likely..."

"Possible..."

You still have no documented certain broken nose. 

That's just the way it is.
The medical report does not say "likely" or "possible".  It says "nasal bones closed fracture".  That is a diagnosis by a licensed physician.

Strain all you want.  You're wrong.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 22, 2012, 01:30:35 PM
The medical report does not say "likely" or "possible".  It says "nasal bones closed fracture".  That is a diagnosis by a licensed physician.

Strain all you want.  You're wrong.
Incorrect. It is the code used for future reference so they know what wound/injury etc. they are talking about. There is no code for 'possibly broken nose'.

The diagnosis by the licensed physician says 'likely' broken nose. When/if he testifies at trial, he's going to say it was 'likely', not 'definitely/conclusively' broken.I'm glad you agree that we should trust the licensed physician's words.

I've had broken noses before. You can bet your damn life I'd want it looked it - it hurts like hell. It hurts to talk, it hurts to breathe. George didn't seem all that bothered. Maybe he just has a high threshold for pain.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on July 22, 2012, 01:49:42 PM
I will also note I have yet to see one picture of Z with black eyes. There's all kinds of pictures of him after the event. Anyone see one of his "black eyes?" I haven't.  Broken noses beget black eyes, yet...no actual pictures of these racoonicans.

As far as the picture from the reenactment

From the second part I'd assume you've seen the reenactment, yet from the first it seems as if you haven't. I'm colorblind (actually more "color deficient" than anything) and I can see the dark area under his eyes. Those dark areas are "black eyes." Watch the reenactment video - they're very evident.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on July 22, 2012, 01:49:50 PM
Incorrect. It is the code used for future reference so they know what wound/injury etc. they are talking about. There is no code for 'possibly broken nose'.

The diagnosis by the licensed physician says 'likely' broken nose. When/if he testifies at trial, he's going to say it was 'likely', not 'definitely/conclusively' broken.I'm glad you agree that we should trust the licensed physician's words.

I've had broken noses before. You can bet your damn life I'd want it looked it - it hurts like hell. It hurts to talk, it hurts to breathe. George didn't seem all that bothered. Maybe he just has a high threshold for pain.
I posted the link to the medical report.  It uses the ICD code 802.0 (http://www.icd9data.com/2012/Volume1/800-999/800-804/802/802.0.htm), which is the code for "Closed fracture of nasal bones".  That was the doctor's diagnosis.  It is a billable code.  He would be committing fraud if he diagnosed it when it didn't exist.

His notes discuss seeing an ENT because doctors often want a second opinion from a specialist.  That is where he uses the word "likely".  That's not a diagnosis.  It's advice to a patient on what follow up treatment he should seek.

I broke my nose a while back.  (Passed out from a medical condition and landed face first in a parking lot.)  There was no pain at all, even when the ENTs were probing inside my nose with their fingers.  I never took any pain medication.  If you saw the pictures, you'd wince, but I never took any pain medication.

People are different.  Just because your broken nose hurt like hell doesn't mean that everyone else's will or even has to.  Basing your opinions on personal experience is a way to form incorrect opinions.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 22, 2012, 01:51:36 PM

I've had broken noses before. You can bet your damn life I'd want it looked it - it hurts like hell. It hurts to talk, it hurts to breathe. George didn't seem all that bothered. Maybe he just has a high threshold for pain.

I don't believe you. I don't believe you one bit.

My nose has been broken...well, it's well into the double digits. Including one car wreck that broke my neck and my nose in three places. Not only did it not hurt, it didn't bleed.

Maybe George does have a high threshold of pain. Maybe I do too. Maybe you're just a sissy type. Or maybe you're just not being honest about things.

And besides--noses are like ribs. There's really not all that much they can do for it anyway.

By the way--the exact quote from the Zimmerman medical report is:

"2. Broken Nose~ We discussed that it is likely broken, but does not appear to have septal devialion. The swelling and black e.yes are typical of this injury. "

(That's a copy and paste from the PDF)


Since there's nothing they could do for it, there's really no reason to get an x-ray, since x-rays cost so much. You'll also find it listed as "nasal bones closed fracture" in the box.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 22, 2012, 01:53:22 PM

That doesn't look sucker punched, down to the ground whammied to me. Nor broken.
But that's just my opinion.

Actually it does look broken. So it is just you. Plus the doctor diagnosed it as broken. So again--just you.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 22, 2012, 01:57:51 PM
"Likely" broken nose. No documented broken nose.

Too bad Zimmerman wasn't smart enough to get it documented.
He refused to see a specialist against the advice of the PA.
Too much trouble, I guess.

Yeah. Funny that. A man who didn't think he'd done anything legally wrong didn't bother to demand x-rays and MRI's and everything else to document it. A man who just trusted the system because that's what he believed.

I've done much the same thing in my life, I learned the hard way, it's too bad George has to learn this way.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Darby2 on July 22, 2012, 01:58:38 PM
Incorrect. It is the code used for future reference so they know what wound/injury etc. they are talking about. There is no code for 'possibly broken nose'.

The diagnosis by the licensed physician says 'likely' broken nose. When/if he testifies at trial, he's going to say it was 'likely', not 'definitely/conclusively' broken.I'm glad you agree that we should trust the licensed physician's words.

I've had broken noses before. You can bet your damn life I'd want it looked it - it hurts like hell. It hurts to talk, it hurts to breathe. George didn't seem all that bothered. Maybe he just has a high threshold for pain.

Do you think the criteria for being in fear of great bodily harm or death in the midst of being assaulted is that you have  100% guarantee that your nose is broken?  Surely if a doctor and emt think it is likely broken, we can see it is swollen and know he had black eyes, we can assume that in the moment of the assault George believed it had been broken.  Isn't the real question whether or not he reasonably believed it?

Forgot to add, that the screams definitely clue us in that he was in fear for life, on top of his physical injuries.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 22, 2012, 01:59:58 PM
From the second part I'd assume you've seen the reenactment, yet from the first it seems as if you haven't. I'm colorblind (actually more "color deficient" than anything) and I can see the dark area under his eyes. Those dark areas are "black eyes." Watch the reenactment video - they're very evident.

Or just read the medical report that says GZ has black eyes resulting from his broken nose.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 23, 2012, 01:41:19 AM
I guess you haven't read the Constitution.  No one can be compelled to testify against themselves, not even at a SYG hearing.  The defense has to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that self defense applies.  That does not mean the defendant must testify.  It simply means his attorney must present evidence that convinces the judge that he's immune from prosecution due to self defense.


I think he should do the SYG hearing.  If nothing else, it will get out the Prosecution's working theory and the evidence they using to support their claims.  It would be the first truly official record and testimony would be locked into place in the event of a trial.   

Frankly, the only things I see different from the SPD investigation and that of the SAO are:
Dee Dee, who wasn't available to them
The FBI reports which found there is no racism in GZ's background, which was not available to them either
The Fulton-Martin's dispute that it is TM crying for help on that 911 which can be negated by the FBI and their report that the voice is inconclusive due to the quality of the recording. 

I don't think the parents will cancel each other out though.  I think that Sybrina Fulton would win that one.  Her son is dead.   IMO, everything Robert Zimmerman Sr. says will come with a taint since his son is the one on trial.

Plus, it would give MOM time, if necessary, to counteract whatever he feels he needs to if it goes to trial.

I think it will go to trial.  I don't think that, given the situation, any judge would decide that GZ walks free.   They are elected officials.  I assume that whomever would want to stay in that capacity.  GZ walking out of the courthouse a free man is a ticket to early retirement, IMO.

And then there is the outcry...  Scott and Corey have an agenda to fulfill.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 01:53:05 AM
Doing the SYG hearing seems like a no-brainer, right? I mean, it's basically a freeroll. If he wins, the immunity is granted, no criminal trial, no civil trial. Worst case scenario is a criminal trial...which is where he'd be anyway without an SYG hearing.

I do think there's a downside, however: it forces the defense to show their cards. DebFrmHell - the SYG hearing doesn't force the prosecution to do anything at all - all the prosecution has to do is show the judge the evidence is at best inconclusive and that there's not enough evidence to say a trial isn't necessary.

No, the burden is on the defense to prove by a preponderance of evidence that stand your ground immunity applies. The defense is the one that has to trot out their working theory to see how it plays.

Would O'Mara put George on the stand and make him testify under oath as to what happened? If SYG immunity isn't granted and there is any inconsistency in George's testimony...ouch.

George and his own statements are a major body of evidence in the case. I'm wondering if the judge would grant immunity without testimony from the only living person that knows what happened.

I guess the downside is more than out-weighed by the upside of winning the SYG hearing - it's like getting a free lottery draw to a 'get out of jail free' card. So my guess is that MOM will eventually file for the hearing, but I think it would be a calculated, risk vs reward move, not a slam-dunk automatic filing.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 23, 2012, 02:10:54 AM
All of the relevant statutes, case law, and jury instructions are here (http://www.talkleft.com/admin/story/2012/6/24/122557/873).

I'm not going to repeat it all, but read the source documents because inaccurate statements  here about the the law will be deleted. I don't mean the  validity of arguments one side might make,  that's a matter of opinion, but the actual law -- which is clear.

Suffice it to say, the first section of the aggressor statute,  776.041 (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041), concerning forcible felonies, does not apply to this case because George Zimmerman is not charged with an independent forcible felony.  A multiple  of Florida cases and the state's  jury instructions state this. See, Dennis v. State (http://talkleft.com/zimm/dennis1.pdf), Martinez v. State (http://talkleft.com/zimm/martinez.pdf),  Johnson v. State (http://talkleft.com/zimm/johnson1.pdf)and Giles v. State (http://talkleft.com/zimm/giles.pdf).

An aggressor is someone who initially provokes the use of physical force against himself. Provoking fear is not the test. And the provocation has to be contemporaneous with the victim's use of force against him.

Quote
Specifically, section 776.041 subsection (2) precludes the initial aggressor from asserting self-defense where he or she is the individual who provoked the use of force" contemporaneously to the actions of the victim to which the defendant claims self-defense.

Even if Zimmerman were the aggressor under the aggressor statute,  776.041 (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.041), he could  respond with deadly force to the victim's use of force against him, if:

Quote
Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant;

The Florida Supreme Court amended and clarified the instruction on the justifiable use of deadly force in March 2008......See In re Standard Jury Instructions in Criminal Cases ;Report No. 2007-3, 976 So. 2d 1081, 1087 (Fla. 2008) (expressly stating the "forcible felony" instruction is to be given only if the defendant is charged with an independent forcible felony). The 2010 version is here (http://talkleft.com/zimm/flajury2010force.pdf).

Also, in order for Trayvon to have been justified in his use of non-deadly force against Zimmerman, he had to reasonably believe he was in danger of  an imminent attack by Zimmerman.  He can't just have been afraid because he was unsure what Zimmerman up to.  Uncertainty of what Zimmerman was up to is not a belief Zimmerman was about to attack him.  Section 776.012 (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.012)

Quote
A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force

If Zimmerman did not do anything to provoke Martin's assault, then stand your ground (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.013) applies:

Quote
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Once George Zimmerman introduces some evidence of self-defense and is entitled to a jury instruction, he has no other burden of proof. The state must disprove self-defense by proof beyond a reasonable doubt. From Stieh v. State (http://talkleft.com/zimm/stieh.pdf)(2011):

Quote
It was the State's burden to overcome Stieh's theory of self-defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stieh was not acting lawfully when he stabbed the victim. See Behanna, 985 So. 2d at 555. As noted by this court in Jenkins, "self-defense cases are intensely fact-specific." 942 So. 2d at 916. But where the evidence " leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, [it] is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury." Fowler, 921 So. 2d at 712 .

For more:

Stand Your Ground and Self Defense (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/12/194725/132)
Can the State Prove Zimmerman's Ill-Will, Hatred, Spite and Evil Intent: (http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/15/51611/4068)

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 23, 2012, 02:17:09 AM
Also on the burden of proof: At a pre-trial stand your ground hearing, GZ has the burden of proving SYG applies by a preponderance of the evidence.

At a jury trial, he need only raise  "some evidence" no matter how flimsey, to get a jury instruction. Once he's done that, the state then must disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

He can raise both SYG and traditional self-defense at a jury trial, even if the court denies his SYG motion before trial.

He does not have to testify at either a SYG hearing or at trial for the court or jury to consider SYG or self-defense.

See the posts above for the case law and statutes.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 02:20:12 AM
Also on the burden of proof: At a pre-trial stand your ground hearing, GZ has the burden of proving SYG applies by a preponderance of the evidence.
<SNIP>
Txs for all this. Question for you - in your experience, would George need to testify at the SYG hearing? And follow-up question, if he did testify at the SYG hearing, could his testimony be used in the criminal trial?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 02:30:59 AM
Since there's nothing they could do for it, there's really no reason to get an x-ray, since x-rays cost so much. You'll also find it listed as "nasal bones closed fracture" in the box.
This is George after the shooting.

I see one small cut on the bridge of his nose. Doesn't look broken. Doesn't look swollen. No puffy eyes, no black eyes. I guess that might come in the next day or so, but you'd think they'd take pictures as his face started looking worse - he was at the police station for several days after the shooting.

I mean, is this seriously someone that was punched in the face 'dozens of times'?
 
(http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/4fd13eb769bedd093c00000c-400-300/a-complex-case-trayvons-father-acknowledges.jpg)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 23, 2012, 02:56:06 AM
(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/zimm22712.jpg)

(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/injuries227c.jpg)

(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/zimmblackeye1.jpg)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 23, 2012, 03:05:02 AM
(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/bruises227.jpg)

(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/injury93.jpg)

(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/zimmnose1.jpg)

(http://i311.photobucket.com/albums/kk453/TalkLeft/zimmerman/zimmhead1.jpg)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 03:44:46 AM
I mean, is this seriously someone that was punched in the face 'dozens of times'?
 


You keep on repeating punched in the face 'dozens of times' Please show me where GZ has claimed this or stop posting your strawman baloney.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 03:54:52 AM
You keep on repeating punched in the face 'dozens of times' Please show me where GZ has claimed this or stop posting your strawman baloney.
Sure. Apparently you didn't listen to you guys' own testimony (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?page=4#ixzz21RDhzvuv).

Quote
ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir. He continued to punch me in the head.

HANNITY: How many times would you estimate that he punched you?

ZIMMERMAN: Several. More than a dozen.
So it wasn't 'dozens of time', it was at least 13 punches. I'll be more precise next time.

 ::)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 03:57:14 AM
The Fulton-Martin's dispute that it is TM crying for help on that 911 which can be negated by the FBI and their report that the voice is inconclusive due to the quality of the recording. 

I don't think the parents will cancel each other out though.  I think that Sybrina Fulton would win that one.  Her son is dead.   IMO, everything Robert Zimmerman Sr. says will come with a taint since his son is the one on trial.


Three points

I agree with the political pressure being the biggest obstacle to GZ's acquittal  - that perceptions need t be broken and I suspect the defense is going to need to start getting information out about Treyvon. In particular they need to develop and justify a theory about why TM launched his assault.

I wonder if the State will call DeeDee to testify. They don't seem to have a clue as to what she will say. AFAIK she has never been examined by the SPD. If and when she is that interview will make its way to discovery.

Don't you think that most people will conclude that the guy who was getting beaten up for 40 + seconds was the guy screaming for help-?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 04:01:39 AM
I wonder if the State will call DeeDee to testify. They don't seem to have a clue as to what she will say. AFAIK she has never been examined by the SPD. If and when she is that interview will make its way to discovery.
I can't see the State calling DeeDee. Her testimony is shaky, at best, and given her...tenuous, shall we say,  grasp of English it'd be a nightmare having her on the stand. Any good defense lawyer would make mince meat out of her.

Quote
Don't you think that most people will conclude that the guy who was getting beaten up for 40 + seconds was the guy screaming for help-?
Possibly. Or they might conclude that the guy screaming is the kid trying to not get shot. Especially when the screams end exactly with the shot.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 04:03:48 AM
Sure. Apparently you didn't listen to you guys' own testimony (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?page=4#ixzz21RDhzvuv).
So it wasn't 'dozens of time', it was at least 13 punches. I'll be more precise next time.

 ::)

An how many of these punches landed? How many were blocked or partially blocked?
You obfuscate the salient  point . George Zimmerman shows a number of facial and head injuries that support his accounting of an assault.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 04:12:07 AM
IPossibly. Or they might conclude that the guy screaming is the kid trying to not get shot. Especially when the screams end exactly with the shot.

Gee that is pretty thin gruel to launch and assumption on since 
- No witness saw the gun.
- TM made no outcry about a gun.
- GZ testified that the gun was drawn at the last moment.

and beside your personal disbelief of the the rather unremarkable probability that Zimmerman stopped screaming as he fired your evidence is......

What? Please tell me you have something.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 04:13:53 AM
An how many of these punches landed? How many were blocked or partially blocked?
You obfuscate the salient  point . George Zimmerman shows a number of facial and head injuries that support his accounting of an assault.
I'm afraid, my friend, that we're always going to disagree on this one.  ;) I simply don't see evidence of 'more than a dozen' punches and head being repeatedly slammed into a cement sidewalk.

Not a single witness is going to testify to seeing anything about punching/head slamming etc.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 04:49:03 AM

I simply don't see evidence of 'more than a dozen' punches and head being repeatedly slammed into a cement sidewalk.

Not a single witness is going to testify to seeing anything about punching/head slamming etc.
Why would each of a dozen punches leave evidence.?  Its a strawman that you built while conveniently overlooking the fact that even the SFD found Georges statements consistent with his injuries.

So again - whats your evidence that Zimmerman's testimony is untrue? Speculations about lying EMTs and Doctors? A few non probative photos? Please do you think the prosecutor is going to get up and dispute grisley photos with the ones you posted. Using your 'logic' we could find peaceful post mortem pictures of Martin and dismiss the whole case.


We don't know what the witnesses particularly witness #6 will say under the questions poised by the defense. We just have his unshakable observation the Treyvon was totally in control despite a grueling 45 minute adverserial, grilling by the SPD. We have one witness who once again gave an immediate statement with full confidence that the other witnesses would back him up- George Zimmerman.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 04:53:31 AM
Gee that is pretty thin gruel to launch and assumption on since 
- No witness saw the gun.
- TM made no outcry about a gun.
- GZ testified that the gun was drawn at the last moment.

and beside your personal disbelief of the the rather unremarkable probability that Zimmerman stopped screaming as he fired your evidence is......

What? Please tell me you have something.

Wanted to add that Johns testimony about TM's action is not consistant with the actions of a man trying to control a gun. I'm sure he'll be asked that question


Its so funny that all you do is tear down facts that support the Defense -you never respond with any evidence that supports the prosecutions case. Wonder why?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 05:38:53 AM
Why would each of a dozen punches leave evidence.?  Its a strawman that you built while conveniently overlooking the fact that even the SFD found Georges statements consistent with his injuries.
They said it was marginally consistent, and they eventually charged him so I'd say the SPD's (not SFD?) opinion on the matter is somewhat at odds with yours.

So again - whats your evidence that Zimmerman's testimony is untrue?
Injuries not consistent with the beating GZ says he was subject to. Inconsistencies in what he was doing, how he ended up running into Martin, in how the fight started, what happened during the fight, all which seem aimed at portraying Martin as the sole aggressor and George as completely minding-my-own-business innocent. Only minute specs of blood on Martin (including hands) and on George's clothes. Calls for help that end instantaneously with the gunshot.

Any one of the above would be enough for me to think that George is being less than truthful about the encounter. What possible need would he have to lie about events of the evening unless he was trying to cover something up.

Now - I think it's possible that George introduced the inconsistencies out of concern for 'looking' guilty if, for example, he admitted to following Martin in his car, or if he admitted that he spent a couple of minutes walking around looking to see where Martin went. But if he's going to insist on a story that is bordering on impossible, I'm going to assume the falsehoods are on purpose.

We don't know what the witnesses particularly witness #6 will say under the questions poised by the defense. We just have his unshakable observation the Treyvon was totally in control despite a grueling 45 minute adverserial, grilling by the SPD. We have one witness who once again gave an immediate statement with full confidence that the other witnesses would back him up- George Zimmerman.
'Grueling, grilling, adversial' interview with the SPD? I find it funny that you feel the need to include various exaggerated adjectives to describe a routine witness interview - I guess you need to do so to try and bolster your case or something. Please point out which parts of the interview where the witness was 'grilled' or otherwise faced 'adversial' detectives.

While you're at it, please point out where in his 'grueling, 45-minute interview' the witness claims that Martin was 'totally in control'.

'Cause what I hear him say is that he couldn't tell who was yelling. I hear him say he just initially assumed it was the guy on the bottom, but that he couldn't tell, in part because it was so dark - he actually stresses several times how dark it was. I hear him say all he could see is that they were in an altercation on the ground. I hear him say he couldn't hear any other sounds other than 'help'. I hear him say the guys were 'wrestling'. I hear him say 'they're struggling' and he can't see what's going on.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Darby2 on July 23, 2012, 06:13:30 AM


The Fulton-Martin's dispute that it is TM crying for help on that 911 which can be negated by the FBI and their report that the voice is inconclusive due to the quality of the recording. 

I don't think the parents will cancel each other out though.  I think that Sybrina Fulton would win that one.  Her son is dead.   IMO, everything Robert Zimmerman Sr. says will come with a taint since his son is the one on trial.



I disagree. When the tape was played for Tracy Martin he did not identify the voice as trayvons.  It was only after crumps involvement that his story changed.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Darby2 on July 23, 2012, 06:17:32 AM
Dragon ash.  What is your theory than as to why George shot Trayvon?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 06:25:00 AM
Quote
Why would each of a dozen punches leave evidence.?  Its a strawman that you built while conveniently overlooking the fact that even the SFD found Georges statements consistent with his injuries.
They said it was marginally consistent, and they eventually charged him so I'd say the SPD's (not SFD?) opinion on the matter is somewhat at odds with yours.
Marginally consistent is consistent - not as you seem to conclude inconsistent. As in
Quote
The officer couldn't write a ticket because his measurement of my speed was marginally consistent with driving under the speed limit
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on July 23, 2012, 06:28:45 AM

Injuries not consistent with the beating GZ says he was subject to. Inconsistencies in what he was doing, how he ended up running into Martin, in how the fight started, what happened during the fight, all which seem aimed at portraying Martin as the sole aggressor and George as completely minding-my-own-business innocent. Only minute specs of blood on Martin (including hands) and on George's clothes. Calls for help that end instantaneously with the gunshot.


None of that refutes George's story though.
 1)  It doesn't take getting hit that hard after a broken nose to think you're getting hurt a lot more than you really are (those head injuries are more than enough to make some people think their head feels like it's going to explode even if they aren't serious). 
2)  You need to be specific on the inconsistencies, because I don't see anything that refutes George's story of how he ran into Martin and how the fight started.
3) There's lots of legitimate explanations for the blood specks.
4) Sudden loud noises have a tendency to shut people up instantly, so that is evidence of nothing.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 06:30:24 AM
Dragon ash.  What is your theory than as to why George shot Trayvon?
Than --> then. Than is used to compare one thing to another. Then is a marker of time.

I think George wigged out and shot him. I do not think George had any reasonable basis for being in fear of 'great bodily harm or death'.

Note that I don't think George acted intentionally or with a 'depraved mind', so I don't necessarily agree with the murder two charge.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 06:39:33 AM

Quote from: Lousy1 on Today at 06:49:03 AM
So again - whats your evidence that Zimmerman's testimony is untrue? Injuries not consistent with the beating GZ says he was subject to. Inconsistencies in what he was doing, how he ended up running into Martin, in how the fight started, what happened during the fight, all which seem aimed at portraying Martin as the sole aggressor and George as completely minding-my-own-business innocent. Only minute specs of blood on Martin (including hands) and on George's clothes. Calls for help that end instantaneously with the gunshot.

Any one of the above would be enough for me to think that George is being less than truthful about the encounter. What possible need would he have to lie about events of the evening unless he was trying to cover something up.

Now - I think it's possible that George introduced the inconsistencies out of concern for 'looking' guilty if, for example, he admitted to following Martin in his car, or if he admitted that he spent a couple of minutes walking around looking to see where Martin went. But if he's going to insist on a story that is bordering on impossible, I'm going to assume the falsehoods are on purpose.



Injuries not consistent with the beating GZ says he was subject to? In your mind only. Not what the SPD says. That charges were brought is not evidence contradicting the SPD characterization.


Conjectures about inconsistencies in Zimmerman's statements can be used to impeach GZs statements while being weighed with the evidence that supports them.
They are not evidence of a crime.
The state is required to produce evidence.

So other than one - unsupported conjecture - the state has no evidence that George Zimmerman brandished a gun before the fatal shot? I would love to hear the states opening statement.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on July 23, 2012, 06:42:01 AM
More people die each year in the US from traumatic brain injuries than from gunshots.  If his head was hitting concrete, there's legitimate reason to fear great bodily harm right there, even if your injuries aren't that bad; you don't know how bad the next one will be.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Darby2 on July 23, 2012, 06:43:04 AM
Than --> then. Than is used to compare one thing to another. Then is a marker of time.

I think George wigged out and shot him. I do not think George had any reasonable basis for being in fear of 'great bodily harm or death'.

Note that I don't think George acted intentionally or with a 'depraved mind', so I don't necessarily agree with the murder two charge.

Under what circumstance do you think he wigged out?   While he was being beaten? Etc
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 06:43:14 AM
Quote
You need to be specific on the inconsistencies, because I don't see anything that refutes George's story of how he ran into Martin and how the fight started.
Really? Let's see - in no particular order:

1) George says there was 'less than 30 seconds' between hanging up with the NEN dispatch and running into Martin. Call record and witness statements are pretty conclusive that the gap is at least two minutes.

2) George's testimony in interviews and the reenactment video about where he was during the call and Martin's actions (specifically the 'came back and circled my truck' bit) is pretty much impossible. There are any number of alternative scenarios that match, but George's story isn't one of them.

3) George claims to have been west of the T when approached by Martin, started walking backwards, then was hit in the face, yet he claims to have stumbled -forward- to the south.

4) George makes no mention of any stumbling etc in his first interviews - every interview is consistent with 'I was knocked back on to the grass with the first punch'. It's only when he gets to the scene in the reenactment that he does some ridiculous 'arms waving swimming motion' and says he 'thinks he stumbled, tried to push Martin off me'.

5) In every single interview he says Martin ran up the cut-through and turned right (south) towards the back entrance. He said in the initial interviews that he didn't know why Martin ran. Now he claims that Martin wasn't 'running', no he was 'skipping', and he could tell from his car that Martin wasn't running out of fear.  ::)

6) He claims to have been able to pin Martin's arm with his right hand, and with the same hand reach back and beneath him, pull out his gun, aim and fire a perfect bull's eye - with the same arm! - while keeping Martin's arm pinned. Martin's *right* arm is free this entire time, yet Martin seems strangly reluctant to try and stop getting shot.

7) George claims his arms and hands were free the entire time, yet George has no defensive wounds, and George tells us nothing about what he was doing with his hands/arms while getting punched 'more than a dozen times' or having his head slammed into the concrete. This isn't an inconsistency per se, just seems exceedingly odd, particarly since George outweighs Martin by a good margin.

8 ) Martin is able to sneak up on George from behind...but issues a verbal challenge to George, giving George time to back up and try to reach for a phone etc. This seems like an odd thing to do if Martin's intent was to sucker-punch George.

9) George says that after following the possibly drugged, possibly armed, up-to-no-good suspicious-looking 'effin' punk', he comes face to face with Martin - and the first thing he tried to do was 'dial 911'. I can't stress enough how ridiculous this is. Who stands there dialing 911 with the effin' punk drugged up armed bad guy is standing right there in front of you? Again - not an inconsistency per se, but it definitely defies all logic and common sense.

That's probably enough to get you started.

More people die each year in the US from traumatic brain injuries than from gunshots.  If his head was hitting concrete, there's legitimate reason to fear great bodily harm right there, even if your injuries aren't that bad; you don't know how bad the next one will be.
Please cite the leading causes of 'traumatic brain injuries. Hint: It ain't 'getting beaten up'.

I'm sure George wigged out while in the fight. Surprisingly, the law doesn't let you kill somebody just because you're in a fight.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 06:46:55 AM
Than --> then. Than is used to compare one thing to another. Then is a marker of time.

I think George wigged out and shot him. I do not think George had any reasonable basis for being in fear of 'great bodily harm or death'.



Quote
Gee that is pretty thin gruel to launch and assumption on since 
- No witness saw the gun.
- TM made no outcry about a gun.
- GZ testified that the gun was drawn at the last moment.

and beside your personal disbelief of the the rather unremarkable probability that Zimmerman stopped screaming as he fired your evidence is......

What? Please tell me you have something

Now you raise a different issue ? I thought you said that Treyvon was screaming as a reaction to GZ brandishing a weapon? Since you and the state have no evidence to support that ...

OK whats your evidence that George wiggled out then shot TM?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 06:51:55 AM
Now you raise a different issue ? I thought you said that Treyvon was screaming as a reaction to GZ brandishing a weapon? Since you and the state have no evidence to support that ...
Huh? Since when have I claimed that Martin was screaming because GZ was brandishing a weapon?

It's hard enough debating you on the facts you'll actually admit to let along having you make sh...er, stuff up. It's not the first time you've put words in my mouth. Please stop it.

OK whats your evidence that George wiggled out then shot TM?
You mean besides the body with a hole in the chest?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 06:56:27 AM

That's probably enough to get you started.
Please cite the leading causes of 'traumatic brain injuries. Hint: It ain't 'getting beaten up'.


Umm...Skippy? Don't look now but...:

Juan DelValle, 65, was knocked to the pavement following a minor traffic accident in the Bronx last week, according to authorities. DelValle was attempting to navigate a school bus through a narrow and crowded Anthony Avenue and clipped a mirror on a double-parked car, authorities said.

When DelValle exited the bus to survey the damage, the driver of the car allegedly began yelling at him. Surveillance video captured the car driver then punching DelValle so forcefully he was sent flying backward before his head slammed on the road.

DelValle never regained consciousness. He is being fed intravenously and cannot breathe on his own.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Bronx-School-Bus-Driver-Beaten-Coma-Life-Support-Accident-Juan-DelValle-159659175.html

Only takes one white crow to prove not all crows are black. And if you google one punch kill you'll find many more.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on July 23, 2012, 06:58:03 AM
Really? Let's see:

1) 'less than 30 seconds' between hanging up with the NEN dispatch and running into Martin. Call record and witness statements are pretty conclusive that the gap is at least two minutes.

That only proves George would have a lousy career as a clock.

Quote
2) George's testimony in interviews and the reenactment video about where he was during the call and Martin's actions (specifically the 'came back and circled my truck' bit) is pretty much impossible. There are any number of alternative scenarios that match, but George's story isn't one of them.

You can hear on the NEN call when the circling happened, George just got some events out of order.  That's just evidence of a poor memory.

Quote
3) George claims to have been west of the T when approached by Martin, started walking backwards, then was hit in the face, yet he claims to have stumbled -forward- to the south.

I don't see anything wrong there.  We don't know what angle he was hit, where George's center of gravity was before and after the hit, how he might have tried to correct his balance while disoriented, etc.  It's very plausible it could have happened that way.

Quote
4) George makes no mention of any stumbling etc in his first interviews - every interview is consistent with 'I was knocked back on to the grass with the first punch'. It's only when he gets to the scene in the reenactment that he does some ridiculous 'arms waving swimming motion' and says he 'thinks he stumbled, tried to push Martin off me'.

The entire sequence of events between getting hit, stumbling south, and being pushed down with Trayvon got on top of him probably was less than 10 seconds or so.  (Maybe even as little as 5).  I see no reason to assume George would have crystal clear, accurate accounting of the immediate 5-10 seconds after being disoriented from a punch so hard that it broke his nose.

Quote
5) In every single interview he says Martin ran up the cut-through and turned right (south) towards the back entrance. He said in the initial interviews that he didn't know why Martin ran. Now he claims that Martin wasn't 'running', no he was 'skipping', and he could tell from his car that Martin wasn't running out of fear.  ::)

I see no problem there either.  George was obviously trying to find a word to describe the speed at which Martin ran as opposed to a flat out sprint.  I would have used maybe "trot" or a "fast jog", but I wasn't the one on the spot interviewing with Sean Hannity for something to air on national television. 

I think it's absurd to assume George was trying to tell us that Trayvon was actually skipping along; I think it's safe to conclude George meant the run was at the speed of a skip.

Quote
6) He claims to have been able to pin Martin's arm with his right hand, and with the same hand reach back and beneath him, pull out his gun, aim and fire a perfect bull's eye - with the same arm! - while keeping Martin's arm pinned. Martin's *right* arm is free this entire time, yet Martin seems strangly reluctant to try and stop getting shot.

I see no issue there either.  The entire sequence of motions would have been maybe 2-3 seconds.

Quote
7) George claims his arms and hands were free the entire time, yet George has no defensive wounds, and George tells us nothing about what he was doing with his hands/arms while getting punched 'more than a dozen times' or having his head slammed into the concrete. This isn't an inconsistency per se, just seems exceedingly odd, particarly since George outweighs Martin by a good margin
.

Well since you already admit that's not an inconsistency, I'll just add that defensive wounds are not necessarily the norm when just trying to limit an attack from that close.

Quote
8) Martin is able to sneak up on George from behind...but issues a verbal challenge to George, giving George time to back up and try to reach for a phone etc. This seems like an odd thing to do if Martin's intent was to sucker-punch George.

I think your flaw there is assuming he's trying to be sneaky when yelling clearly indicates he's not.  It's dark, raining, for all we know Martin ran at George from behind and George didn't hear him until the yell.

Quote
9) George says that after following the possibly drugged, possibly armed, up-to-no-good suspicious-looking 'effin' punk', he comes face to face with Martin - and the first thing he tried to do was 'dial 911'. I can't stress enough how ridiculous this is. Who stands there dialing 911 with the effin' punk drugged up armed bad guy is standing right there in front of you? Again - not an inconsistency per se, but it definitely defies all logic and common sense.

I think that might just show George would have been trying not to get into a confrontation, as evidenced by what else he did while trying to dial 911 - telling Martin that he didn't have a problem.

So, anything else?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 06:58:13 AM
Huh? Since when have I claimed that Martin was screaming because GZ was brandishing a weapon?

It's hard enough debating you on the facts you'll actually admit to let along having you make sh...er, stuff up. It's not the first time you've put words in my mouth. Please stop it.
You mean besides the body with a hole in the chest?

The body with the hole in the chest isn't evidence that George "wigged out".

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on July 23, 2012, 07:00:01 AM

Please cite the leading causes of 'traumatic brain injuries. Hint: It ain't 'getting beaten up'.


Irrelevant.  That said, the 3rd leading cause of TBI is the head being struck by/against something.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 07:02:10 AM

I'm sure George wigged out while in the fight. Surprisingly, the law doesn't let you kill somebody just because you're in a fight.

A fight is a mutual thing. Being assaulted and battered isn't. If Trayvon attacked first (evidence, actual evidence, not your fantasy island stuff says he did) then pounced on GZ while he was on the ground, that's assault and battery and probably a handful of other stuff. That's not a fight.

Why do you think it was a fight?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 07:04:19 AM
Unfortunately the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Unfortunately for you, 'getting beaten up' is not anywhere close to being a leading cause of traumatic brain injury.

'struck by/against' is mostly 'running into stationary objects'. There's a very very specific category for 'getting beaten up', and it's not included under 'struck by/against'.

How about this: You're in a fight with a female. She starts punching you. You pull out your 9mm and shoot her in the head, because, hey, you might get knocked down and sufffer a traumatic brain injury.

You really think the law allows that?

The body with the hole in the chest isn't evidence that George "wigged out".
Boy, you sure better hope it is - you surely can't be suggesting George was completely calm, cool, collected and rational during the whole thing, right?


Quote from: annoyedbeyond
Why do you think it was a fight?
Because that's how every single witness described it?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 07:05:26 AM
The body with the hole in the chest isn't evidence that George "wigged out".
Boy, you sure better hope it is - you surely can't be suggesting George was completely calm, cool, collected and rational during the whole thing, right?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on July 23, 2012, 07:06:13 AM
Massad Ayoob (firearms expert that has a huge hand in law enforcement training etc) did a seminar recently about SYG too, where he points out that once someone has you pinned to the ground that their fists become deadly weapons and you would be justified in using a firearm to defend yourself against their disproportional force.

(He's also indicated in the past that he may be testifying on George's behalf.)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on July 23, 2012, 07:07:13 AM
Boy, you sure better hope it is - you surely can't be suggesting George was completely calm, cool, collected and rational during the whole thing, right?

False dilemma.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 07:10:19 AM
Massad Ayoob (firearms expert that has a huge hand in law enforcement training etc) did a seminar recently about SYG too, where he points out that once someone has you pinned to the ground that their fists become deadly weapons and you would be justified in using a firearm to defend yourself against their disproportional force.

(He's also indicated in the past that he may be testifying on George's behalf.)

Mas is an interesting guy for sure. Know him. Hung out with him. Shot against him in NRA Conventional Pistol (and out shot him! Its not his game. He'd destroy me in IDPA or a police course). Have been in email contact with him a couple of times about the case in fact.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 07:12:54 AM
Unfortunately the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. Unfortunately for you, 'getting beaten up' is not anywhere close to being a leading cause of traumatic brain injury.

'struck by/against' is mostly 'running into stationary objects'. There's a very very specific category for 'getting beaten up', and it's not included under 'struck by/against'.

How about this: You're in a fight with a female. She starts punching you. You pull out your 9mm and shoot her in the head, because, hey, you might get knocked down and sufffer a traumatic brain injury.

You really think the law allows that?
Boy, you sure better hope it is - you surely can't be suggesting George was completely calm, cool, collected and rational during the whole thing, right?

Because that's how every single witness described it?

It doesn't have to be. It's about what George might have (or did) reasonably fear. And since people do die and people do suffer traumatic brain injuries--that's all there is too it.

Sorry.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 07:16:25 AM

How about this: You're in a fight with a female. She starts punching you. You pull out your 9mm and shoot her in the head, because, hey, you might get knocked down and sufffer a traumatic brain injury.


Do you buy your straw men in bulk to save money?

Why the assumption that women aren't dangerous? I had an abusive ex girlfriend in college that broke my nose twice. Back then I believed you don't hit women no matter what. I've since changed that opinion--and if a woman is hitting hard enough to do damage, then yes, shooting in self defense may well be a option.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Darby2 on July 23, 2012, 08:29:15 AM
DragonAsh

Then am I correct in assuming you believe all of George's story except that he wasn't in fear for his life or great bodily harm?
 If not, please let me know what else from George's version you disagree with, that is material to him being guilty of murder or manslaughter?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 08:50:03 AM
Then am I correct in assuming you believe all of George's story except that he wasn't in fear for his life or great bodily harm?
No, I don't believe all of George's story. Too much of it simply doesn't fit.
If not, please let me know what else from George's version you disagree with, that is material to him being guilty of murder or manslaughter?
See my post above where I list nine or 10 points that I find problematic about George's version of events.

Personally? Based on the evidence as we have it so far, I think he's guilty of manslaughter, because I don't see evidence of 'reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death'.

I'm fully aware that, for better or worse, that's not the standard that will be used at trial.

And I don't think we've necessarily seen all the evidence that defense intends to submit, so I'll revise my opinion if the evidence warrants. Believe it or not, I'm not (nearly) as BIASED as some would like to believe.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 09:04:11 AM
No, I don't believe all of George's story. Too much of it simply doesn't fit. See my post above where I list nine or 10 points that I find problematic about George's version of events.

Personally? Based on the evidence as we have it so far, I think he's guilty of manslaughter, because I don't see evidence of 'reasonable fear of great bodily harm or death'.

I'm fully aware that, for better or worse, that's not the standard that will be used at trial.

And I don't think we've necessarily seen all the evidence that defense intends to submit, so I'll revise my opinion if the evidence warrants. Believe it or not, I'm not (nearly) as BIASED as some would like to believe.

I don't think you're really biased--or at least *that* biased. From here it just looks like you're kind of a jerk (I don't mean that as an insult--a lot of us are jerks) who likes to argue. Sometimes you go a little overboard with it, and you seem to hate the idea of backtracking at all.

Based on what I know--all the research that I've read, which is all stuff that we're not supposed to talk about here because it's not evidence yet, I'm pretty firm in believing GZ thought he was in fear and had good reason to be.

If you really haven't done any of that, and are only going off of media reports and the discovery materials, I think I could see where you'd think GZ was guilty of manslaughter.

And I am glad to see you say you don't really buy the murder two.

And on an unrelated (kinda) bent: if Martin did hit GZ in the face, and was on top of him (as GZ and other witnesses say) and Martin saw the gun and said "you're gonna die"--do you think that's a good reason for GZ to fear for his life?

Just curious. No trap intended.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Cylinder on July 23, 2012, 09:11:41 AM
I can't see the State calling DeeDee. Her testimony is shaky, at best, and given her...tenuous, shall we say,  grasp of English it'd be a nightmare having her on the stand.

Well, that and the fact that her useful testimony supports Zimmerman's version of events.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 09:45:05 AM
I don't think you're really biased--or at least *that* biased. From here it just looks like you're kind of a jerk (I don't mean that as an insult--a lot of us are jerks) who likes to argue. Sometimes you go a little overboard with it, and you seem to hate the idea of backtracking at all.
Yeah, I'm sure you mean that in the best possible way.  ;D

I enjoy debate. Let's just say...it's part of my profession. I backtrack when shown compelling evidence it's needed. Hell, I've done it here on these very boards - I'm disappointed you haven't noticed.

What I don't like is being accused of being a biased, spiteful troll just because I happen to disagree with the consensus opinion on these boards (or, in technical terms, 'I didn't drink the Kool-aid').

Based on what I know--all the research that I've read, which is all stuff that we're not supposed to talk about here because it's not evidence yet, I'm pretty firm in believing GZ thought he was in fear and had good reason to be.

If you really haven't done any of that, and are only going off of media reports and the discovery materials, I think I could see where you'd think GZ was guilty of manslaughter.
I'm pretty confident in saying that I've done a heck of a lot of reading & research into this. I've pretty much ignored media reports. I have used the discovery materials, but it's not the only content I'm looking at.
And on an unrelated (kinda) bent: if Martin did hit GZ in the face, and was on top of him (as GZ and other witnesses say) and Martin saw the gun and said "you're gonna die"--do you think that's a good reason for GZ to fear for his life? Just curious. No trap intended.
If there was a video with audio that showed everything happening exactly as George describes it?

I'd probably have to agree that George would be reasonably afraid. I'd still think he was a dangerous idiot - I don't think anyone can defend the various lapses of judgement George showed that night - but I'd say he probably had a reasonable fear and at least a legal justification for the shooting.

Problem is I find too many problems with George's story to believe it hook, line & sinker.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 09:58:59 AM
Ash: I had a reply to you, but the board ate it or something.

Yes, I meant it in the best way possible. That's why I said "us", as in "a lot of us are jerks".

 ;D
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: dragon ash on July 23, 2012, 10:03:26 AM
An how many of these punches landed?
By the looks of it, almost none.

How many were blocked or partially blocked?
By the looks of it, almost all of them.

You're suggesting George was afraid for his life because he was really good at defending himself?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 10:25:31 AM
By the looks of it, almost none.
By the looks of it, almost all of them.

You're suggesting George was afraid for his life because he was really good at defending himself?

I think he was exhausted, beaten and facing the prospect of things getting worse. Being pummeled for 60 seconds or so can do that -particularly to the guy on the bottom with a broken nose.
However lets just go with the SPD 's opinion rather than yours. Its evidence.

 In fact I don't see any statement minimizing George's injuries as part of the charging document or anywhere else in discovery.

So other than your BIASED  opinion Can you find evidence in discovery that George's injuries are incompatible with reasonable fear of great bodily harm?

Frankly I don't trust your judgement. I also doubt the state will call you as a witness.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on July 23, 2012, 12:12:34 PM
My thought for the day as I leave for work...

Marginally consistent = Marginally pregnant

 ;D
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 23, 2012, 03:44:05 PM
Sure. Apparently you didn't listen to you guys' own testimony (http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2012/07/18/exclusive-george-zimmerman-breaks-silence-hannity?page=4#ixzz21RDhzvuv).
So it wasn't 'dozens of time', it was at least 13 punches. I'll be more precise next time.

 ::)


If it were only 13 times, wouldn't that work out to no more often than once every 5 seconds?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 23, 2012, 04:08:40 PM
DragonAsh Then am I correct in assuming you believe all of George's story except that he wasn't in fear for his life or great bodily harm?  If not, please let me know what else from George's version you disagree with, that is material to him being guilty of murder or manslaughter?

Darby, if you have a question for a particular commenter, please use the "pm "function rather than posting on the board. You have asked him to restate his position several times. Please either re-read his posts (you can see all his posts under his name on the left side of the screen) or you can pm him.  Thanks.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 23, 2012, 05:11:22 PM
A fight is a mutual thing. Being assaulted and battered isn't. If Trayvon attacked first (evidence, actual evidence, not your fantasy island stuff says he did) then pounced on GZ while he was on the ground, that's assault and battery and probably a handful of other stuff. That's not a fight.

Why do you think it was a fight?

"If Trayvon attacked first (evidence, actual evidence, not your fantasy island stuff says he did)"

If I understand correctly, you are saying that actual evidence indicates or shows that Martin initiated the first physical contact between himself and Zimmerman.

If so, is any of that evidence something other than "Zimmerman said..."?

As far as I know, the two of them were the only visual observers of the beginning of their physical contact.

If I'm mistaken about that I'd very much like to know who else saw it and what they have to say.

My apologies in advance if I have misunderstood what you were trying to say.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 23, 2012, 05:16:05 PM
That only proves George would have a lousy career as a clock.

You can hear on the NEN call when the circling happened, George just got some events out of order.  That's just evidence of a poor memory.

...

I can't tell for sure exactly when during the call the circling occurs, so I would appreciate it if you wouldn't mind pointing out just when it is in that call that it happens, either in elapsed minutes and seconds after the call begins, or a quotation of what was being said at the time.

My thanks in advance.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 23, 2012, 05:21:28 PM
Well, that and the fact that her useful testimony supports Zimmerman's version of events.

You have aroused my curiosity.

Which parts of her testimony are the useful parts?

No need to quote verbatim, just a brief synopsis will be appreciated.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 05:38:48 PM
"If Trayvon attacked first (evidence, actual evidence, not your fantasy island stuff says he did)"

If I understand correctly, you are saying that actual evidence indicates or shows that Martin initiated the first physical contact between himself and Zimmerman.

If so, is any of that evidence something other than "Zimmerman said..."?

As far as I know, the two of them were the only visual observers of the beginning of their physical contact.

If I'm mistaken about that I'd very much like to know who else saw it and what they have to say.

My apologies in advance if I have misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Really? So...it's been testified to. It's evidence. There's no evidence to contradict, only evidence to support that (injuries to Zimmerman etc).

Edited to add: Asked and answered. Multiple times.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 23, 2012, 06:25:38 PM
Really? So...it's been testified to. It's evidence. There's no evidence to contradict, only evidence to support that (injuries to Zimmerman etc).

Edited to add: Asked and answered. Multiple times.

Zimmerman says that he and Martin were in a physical altercation.

In addition to "because Zimmerman says so", there is other evidence that they were in a physical altercation.  Injuries to both parties, other witnesses who saw the altercation underway after it had already begun, etc.

But none of that other evidence directly addresses the question of who first laid hands on whom.

I was wondering if there was evidence of which I was unaware of who first laid hands on whom other than "because Zimmerman says so".
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 06:30:27 PM
Zimmerman says that he and Martin were in a physical altercation.

In addition to "because Zimmerman says so", there is other evidence that they were in a physical altercation.  Injuries to both parties, other witnesses who saw the altercation underway after it had already begun, etc.

But none of that other evidence directly addresses the question of who first laid hands on whom.

I was wondering if there was evidence of which I was unaware of who first laid hands on whom other than "because Zimmerman says so".

Injuries to both parties? Really? Other than a scrape or cut on Martin's hand (knuckle) and the final GSW, what exactly were the "injuries to both parties"?

Keep in mind--you're mining over the same area that's been gone over and over and over already.



Zimmerman has a broken nose, black eyes and other scrapes/abrasions on his face. He has cuts on the back of his head. Martin has a scrape or cut on his knuckle.

Zimmerman testified Martin attacked him and the state admits they have no evidence to contradict that.

What else do you want?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Jack203 on July 23, 2012, 06:36:08 PM
The injuries to both parties suggest this was an assault and not a two sided fight.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 23, 2012, 07:19:24 PM
Injuries to both parties? Really? Other than a scrape or cut on Martin's hand (knuckle) and the final GSW, what exactly were the "injuries to both parties"?

Keep in mind--you're mining over the same area that's been gone over and over and over already.



Zimmerman has a broken nose, black eyes and other scrapes/abrasions on his face. He has cuts on the back of his head. Martin has a scrape or cut on his knuckle.

Zimmerman testified Martin attacked him and the state admits they have no evidence to contradict that.

What else do you want?


If you wish to believe that the injuries to Zimmerman are evidence of an altercation, but that the injuries to Martin are not evidence of an altercation, I really don't know what to say to that.

If you are contending that the injuries to Martin are too inconsequential to matter to the question of whether there was an altercation, it's going to take a while for me to wrap my head around the idea of an inconsequential fatal gunshot wound.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: spectator on July 23, 2012, 07:39:06 PM


Zimmerman says that he and Martin were in a physical altercation.

In addition to "because Zimmerman says so", there is other evidence that they were in a physical altercation.  Injuries to both parties, other witnesses who saw the altercation underway after it had already begun, etc.

But none of that other evidence directly addresses the question of who first laid hands on whom.

I was wondering if there was evidence of which I was unaware of who first laid hands on whom other than "because Zimmerman says so".

IMO The more likely scenario places TM near the "T" who more likely than not realizes GZ is on the phone reporting the incident,
the evidence favors TM moving to the "T", because of this it favor's TM being more aggressive and angry over the "call",  GZ's demeanor along with the physical evidence and injuries and "common sense" show it was more likely TM who started the incident.

It might not be a whole lot to some people but it does at least slightly favor GZ's story.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 07:49:54 PM

If you wish to believe that the injuries to Zimmerman are evidence of an altercation, but that the injuries to Martin are not evidence of an altercation, I really don't know what to say to that.

If you are contending that the injuries to Martin are too inconsequential to matter to the question of whether there was an altercation, it's going to take a while for me to wrap my head around the idea of an inconsequential fatal gunshot wound.

Where did I say the GSW was inconsequential? Seriously--where?

The definition of altercation is "a heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy" (dictionary.com).

The evidence shows that it was more than that. The evidence shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The prosecution has no evidence to refute Zimmerman's version of events which are supported by the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.  What is it exactly you're looking for, or are you simply trolling?

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 07:55:54 PM

If you wish to believe that the injuries to Zimmerman are evidence of an altercation, but that the injuries to Martin are not evidence of an altercation, I really don't know what to say to that.

If you are contending that the injuries to Martin are too inconsequential to matter to the question of whether there was an altercation, it's going to take a while for me to wrap my head around the idea of an inconsequential fatal gunshot wound.

What you don't seem to grasp is that the state of florida charged Zimmerman with Murder 2. That means they have to prove he did it, not that he has to prove he didn't. Or have you forgotten that handy part of criminal law?

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on July 23, 2012, 08:23:21 PM

If you wish to believe that the injuries to Zimmerman are evidence of an altercation, but that the injuries to Martin are not evidence of an altercation, I really don't know what to say to that.

If you are contending that the injuries to Martin are too inconsequential to matter to the question of whether there was an altercation, it's going to take a while for me to wrap my head around the idea of an inconsequential fatal gunshot wound.

Symantics ? The legal questions all center on the activities before the fatal shot. Undoubtably the defense will stipulate that GZ shot Treyvon Martin. The question involving self defense seem logically isolated from the conclusion of the assault.

In that case, only the injuries incured before the final act are relevant.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 23, 2012, 08:31:43 PM
Where did I say the GSW was inconsequential? Seriously--where?

The definition of altercation is "a heated or angry dispute; noisy argument or controversy" (dictionary.com).

The evidence shows that it was more than that. The evidence shows that Martin attacked Zimmerman. The prosecution has no evidence to refute Zimmerman's version of events which are supported by the physical evidence and eyewitness testimony.  What is it exactly you're looking for, or are you simply trolling?

Apparently I should have retained my original phrasing, "physical altercation", which I used to reference the incident without getting sidetracked into "was it a fight, or was it an assault" (which is not to say that that is not an important question).

There was physical contact between Martin and Zimmerman.  There is evidence of this in addition to Zimmerman saying it happened.

If that is evidence that Zimmerman's account of how it began is correct, how far back in time does it support stuff?  Can we say "other people saw Zimmeman and Martin together on the ground struggling with one another, therefore Zimmerman must have been telling the truth about going out to get groceries"?  Where's the cutoff point?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 23, 2012, 08:42:44 PM
Apparently I should have retained my original phrasing, "physical altercation", which I used to reference the incident without getting sidetracked into "was it a fight, or was it an assault" (which is not to say that that is not an important question).

There was physical contact between Martin and Zimmerman.  There is evidence of this in addition to Zimmerman saying it happened.

If that is evidence that Zimmerman's account of how it began is correct, how far back in time does it support stuff?  Can we say "other people saw Zimmeman and Martin together on the ground struggling with one another, therefore Zimmerman must have been telling the truth about going out to get groceries"?  Where's the cutoff point?

For the love of God, what?

No, seriously--what are you trying to say?

Edit:

unitron, do you remember when this was posted:


32
Witness Discussion / Re: The witnesses testimony
« on: July 18, 2012, 10:28:16 PM »
Unitron is misleading readers. It is not necessary the defense provide an impartial witness to his version of events. It is up to to the state to provide evidence (witness testimony or demonstrative evidence) to disprove his version.

The state admitted in closing argument at the bond hearing Trayvon hit Zimmerman. (Nor is there any other plausible explanation for his broken nose or head lacerations.)

If Unitron continues to misstate the law, his comments doing so will be deleted.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: spectator on July 23, 2012, 11:33:20 PM
Zimmerman says that he and Martin were in a physical altercation.

In addition to "because Zimmerman says so", there is other evidence that they were in a physical altercation.  Injuries to both parties, other witnesses who saw the altercation underway after it had already begun, etc.

But none of that other evidence directly addresses the question of who first laid hands on whom.

I was wondering if there was evidence of which I was unaware of who first laid hands on whom other than "because Zimmerman says so".

The entire amount of evidence (the whole story)  points to Trayvon attacking George first, just because it can be interpreted differently doesn't mean it's not evidence.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on July 24, 2012, 12:03:37 AM
The entire amount of evidence (the whole story)  points to Trayvon attacking George first, just because it can be interpreted differently doesn't mean it's not evidence.

However, since it can be interpreted differently, being evidence is not,in this case, the same thing as absolute irrefutable proof.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: spectator on July 24, 2012, 12:14:30 AM
However, since it can be interpreted differently, being evidence is not,in this case, the same thing as absolute irrefutable proof.



True
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on July 24, 2012, 02:06:06 AM
However, since it can be interpreted differently, being evidence is not,in this case, the same thing as absolute irrefutable proof.

Unitron, your interpretation is not supported by the available evidence.  In one comment you wrote that the witness's statements are consistent with Zimmerman grabbing TM and TM striking back in response. There is zero evidence of that. I deleted that comment.

"Absolute Irrefutable proof" is not the test for either side in a criminal case. For the state, it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ committed murder (or the lesser included manslaughter offense). That requires them to disprove GZ's self-defense theory.

There were no injuries on TM other than the gunshot besides a scrape on one finger.  He does not display injuries of being physically confronted by GZ while GZ has injuries/marks/scrapes on the top, sides and back of his head, his face, and a broken nose to show he was physically attacked by TM.

As of now, no witness saw the onset of the altercation. No witness reported seeing George push or shove Trayvon. The state has not even alleged that.  Zimmerman says Martin attacked him without provocation. Unless Zimmerman's version of events is  not physically possible,  how will it disprove his account? Not by saying "But this could have happened." The state needs evidence to support its theories. Inferences must come from the evidence.  Reasonable doubt can arise from the evidence presented or lack of evidence presented.

You also need to realize that Florida law says that at trial, when the evidence concludes, if the facts present two reasonable explanations for what happened, one of which supports the Defendant's claim of self-defense,  the judge should grant a motion for judgment of acquittal and not even submit the case to the jury.

Stieh v. State, (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/stieh.pdf) 67 So. 3d 275, 279 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2011)

Quote
It was the State's burden to overcome Stieh's theory of self-defense and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Stieh was not acting lawfully when he stabbed the victim. See Behanna, 985 So. 2d at 555. As noted by this court in Jenkins, HN7"self-defense cases are intensely fact-specific." 942 So. 2d at 916. But where the evidence " 'leaves room for two or more inferences of fact, at least one of which is consistent with the defendant's hypothesis of innocence, [it] is not legally sufficient to make a case for the jury.' " Fowler, 921 So. 2d at 712 (quoting Fowler v. State, 492 So. 2d 1344, 1348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)).

Here, although there was conflict among the testimony of the victim, Flaherty, the victim's girlfriend,
and Stieh, the conflict was relatively minor and did not rebut or otherwise foreclose Stieh's theory of innocence. Therefore, the trial court should have granted Stieh's motion for judgment of acquittal.

While Zimmerman's account alone could be sufficient, the fact that W-13 (and I believe W-6)  heard him say he shot TM in self-defense is considered corroborating evidence: The Stieh court also said:

Quote
The State failed to present evidence legally sufficient to overcome Stieh's theory of self-defense. In fact, two of the State's witnesses corroborated  Stieh's theory by testifying that immediately after the stabbing, Stieh told them he was acting in defense of Flaherty. 

Also look at State v Stinson (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/stinson.pdf), an older case that is still good law:

Quote
When the deceased swung at him, appellant was under no compulsion to wait around and see whether the second blow might find its mark as promised by the aggressor.

In the circumstances reflected in this record, there was no evidence from which the jury could infer that the appellant acted in a manner evincing a depraved mind as defined by our Supreme Court in Ramsey v. State, 114 Fla. 766, 154 So. 855, when he instinctively neutralized his attacker with the only appropriate means at hand. That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook.

If reasonable people can view the evidence differently,  the jurors likely will too, and if one of those views supports Zimmerman, it requires an acquittal.

The state's theory that GZ could have avoided any encounter with TM by staying in his car may be factually accurate, but it is immaterial, in my view, under the statutes and case law as to whether GZ acted in self-defense. TM could also have avoided the encounter had he not gone to 7-11 that night, or by going directly home. Zimmerman was in a place he lawfully had a right to be -- the public areas of his neighborhood.  The state keeps saying TM wasn't doing anything unlawful. That's not the test. according to Florida law (http://www.flsenate.gov/Laws/Statutes/2011/776.013):

Quote
A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

So please stop confusing readers with "well this could have happened" and "this hasn't been ruled out." That's not the test. 

Try to think of it from the perspective of: The state presents its case first. What evidence  -- testimony and exhibits -- will it present to show murder or manslaughter? Assuming it makes a sufficient case -- then the defense presents its evidence of self-defense.  What does the state have to refute his theory that amounts to proof beyond a reasonable doubt his self-defense claim is not valid?

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on July 27, 2012, 10:30:45 PM
Thanks for the case law.  That is very illuminating.  It also makes me wonder if you have a theory for why Corey charged Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder.  Given the case law you site, it's hard to imagine how she could justify the charge.  (If you've written about this elsewhere, a link to the article would suffice.)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 01:48:28 PM
Trying to assess the significance of the discrepancies in Zimmerman's various statements, I keep coming back to his inability, in his conversation with the dispatcher, to give him the name of Twin Trees Lane, the street he was parked on.  He has been much ridiculed for saying this in subsequent statements, since he had resided a short distance away for several years.  Has anyone suggested a remotely plausible motive for him to have been deliberately untruthful as he was speaking to the dispatcher, describing events as they were happening?  If not, would not the best explanation for his later discrepancies be that he simply has a very poor memory?  And if you believe he was being truthful with the dispatcher, a great part of his defense has been validated, later variations notwithstanding.  You have the initial "suspicious" behavior, quickly followed by an aggressive "taunting," "checking me out," movement on the part of Martin.  That seems to me fully sufficient to justify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory suspicion that Martin was not authorized to be present on this property.  Then you have Martin taking flight, and 20 seconds of "following," from a distance, with Zimmerman then informing the dispatcher that he has lost Martin.  It's not readily apparent to me how subsequent discrepancies can rationally be construed to invalidate this first account.  But even if one takes a contrary position, where does this lead?  Is anyone prepared to offer a scenario setting forth just where the parties "really" were during the last several minutes of this drama?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 03, 2012, 07:07:25 PM
Trying to assess the significance of the discrepancies in Zimmerman's various statements, I keep coming back to his inability, in his conversation with the dispatcher, to give him the name of Twin Trees Lane, the street he was parked on.  He has been much ridiculed for saying this in subsequent statements, since he had resided a short distance away for several years.  Has anyone suggested a remotely plausible motive for him to have been deliberately untruthful as he was speaking to the dispatcher, describing events as they were happening?
Why does George have to know the name of Twin Trees Lane?  If you look at where he lived, he would have driven down Retreat View Circle and exited the property.  Returning he would have simply reversed his route.  He may never have had occasion to be on Twin Trees Lane before that night.

I have a certain way I drive home from work.  When I get into my area, I turn right, then left, then left, then right, then left, then right and right one last time to park in front of my house.  I can't tell you the names of ANY of the streets I drive except the one I live on.  I don't need to know the names to know the route.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 07:36:34 PM
Yes, but he was head of the community "neighborhood watch" group, and had resided there for several years, so some will not accept his claim that he did not know the name of this street.  From this, an inference is drawn that he lied about the real reasons he went over to Retreat View Circle (if he went at all.)  Then there are his inconsistencies about the "circling" incident, where he was standing when he claims to have been struck, whether Martin emerged from the darkness or came from behind bushes, etc.  It is proposed that, if he lied about these things, he can be presumed to have lied about everything, except about what is to his interest to recall accurately.  I have the impression that we are invited to leap from these "discrepancies" to the conclusion that he assaulted or profoundly offended Martin.  What I would like to hear is an intelligible, plausible account of just where Zimmerman was, and what he was doing, if not as he says.   
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 03, 2012, 07:38:26 PM
Trying to assess the significance of the discrepancies in Zimmerman's various statements, I keep coming back to his inability, in his conversation with the dispatcher, to give him the name of Twin Trees Lane, the street he was parked on.  He has been much ridiculed for saying this in subsequent statements, since he had resided a short distance away for several years.  Has anyone suggested a remotely plausible motive for him to have been deliberately untruthful as he was speaking to the dispatcher, describing events as they were happening?  If not, would not the best explanation for his later discrepancies be that he simply has a very poor memory?  And if you believe he was being truthful with the dispatcher, a great part of his defense has been validated, later variations notwithstanding.  You have the initial "suspicious" behavior, quickly followed by an aggressive "taunting," "checking me out," movement on the part of Martin.  That seems to me fully sufficient to justify a legitimate, nondiscriminatory suspicion that Martin was not authorized to be present on this property.  Then you have Martin taking flight, and 20 seconds of "following," from a distance, with Zimmerman then informing the dispatcher that he has lost Martin.  It's not readily apparent to me how subsequent discrepancies can rationally be construed to invalidate this first account.  But even if one takes a contrary position, where does this lead?  Is anyone prepared to offer a scenario setting forth just where the parties "really" were during the last several minutes of this drama?

1. I know how to get to just about any place in any of the several towns around me. I can only name about 5 actual road names. I look at them when I go by. I look at maps. I just don't remember them. I'm told it's ADD.

2. I don't think we're allowed to talk about alternate theories as there's nothing in evidence.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: RickyJim on August 03, 2012, 08:20:54 PM
Yes, but he was head of the community "neighborhood watch" group, and had resided there for several years, so some will not accept his claim that he did not know the name of this street.  From this, an inference is drawn that he lied about the real reasons he went over to Retreat View Circle (if he went at all.)  Then there are his inconsistencies about the "circling" incident, where he was standing when he claims to have been struck, whether Martin emerged from the darkness or came from behind bushes, etc.  It is proposed that, if he lied about these things, he can be presumed to have lied about everything, except about what is to his interest to recall accurately.  I have the impression that we are invited to leap from these "discrepancies" to the conclusion that he assaulted or profoundly offended Martin.  What I would like to hear is an intelligible, plausible account of just where Zimmerman was, and what he was doing, if not as he says.   

Lets make it really simple.  According to what is acknowledged by both sides, no matter what happened when Zimmerman and Martin met up, you can find Zimmerman not guilty if you think it is reasonable that he felt no way of escaping serious harm other than shooting to kill  when he did.  Again, that just has to be a reasonable possibility to the jury; not certain at all.  Even if you think he has distorted everying that happened on Feb. 26, how can you find the above unreasonable?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 08:44:52 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to dissent.  De la Rionda, at the 2nd bond hearing, claimed that the prosecution was going to be able to prove a "chase."  I would agree that there would appear to be "nothing in evidence" to support that contention, but there it is.  Then we have Zimmerman's account.  Which of these two is supported by the evidence?  And didn't Lester, in discussing the State's case, claim that Zimmerman "changed" his story with each telling?  So, surely, at this late date, it's not unreasonable to inquire how Zimmerman can be shown to have been untruthful about his version of the conflict.  And far from being irrelevant to the self-defense issue, it is crucial, in that if the jury concludes Zimmerman chased Martin down, they will be far less inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt on whether he reasonably feared "great bodily harm " when he pulled the trigger. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 03, 2012, 08:48:17 PM
Then there are his inconsistencies about the "circling" incident, where he was standing when he claims to have been struck, whether Martin emerged from the darkness or came from behind bushes, etc.

Zimmerman never claimed he saw Martin come from behind bushes.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 09:09:42 PM
I cheerfully stand corrected.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 09:39:19 PM
Let me put a finer point on this:  I am inclined to doubt that, this cloud of "discrepancies" notwithstanding, this incident could, consistent with the evidentiary record, have happened substantially different from how Zimmerman says it happened.  Not without positing something that would be "laughed out of court," anyway. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: RickyJim on August 03, 2012, 09:51:58 PM
I'm afraid I'm going to have to dissent.  De la Rionda, at the 2nd bond hearing, claimed that the prosecution was going to be able to prove a "chase."  I would agree that there would appear to be "nothing in evidence" to support that contention, but there it is.  Then we have Zimmerman's account.  Which of these two is supported by the evidence?  And didn't Lester, in discussing the State's case, claim that Zimmerman "changed" his story with each telling?  So, surely, at this late date, it's not unreasonable to inquire how Zimmerman can be shown to have been untruthful about his version of the conflict.  And far from being irrelevant to the self-defense issue, it is crucial, in that if the jury concludes Zimmerman chased Martin down, they will be far less inclined to give him the benefit of a doubt on whether he reasonably feared "great bodily harm " when he pulled the trigger.

The business about the chase came from Witness #2.  You can read about the discredited chase assertion on her thread in this section of the forum.  It was mentioned at the first bond hearing.  If you have an exact quote of what de la Rionda said about it at the second bond hearing, it would be much appreciated.  A transcript doesn't seem to be available.  Even if it were true that they could prove that Zimmerman caught Martin, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could have withdrawn after fighting started.  Let's say that the state cannot prove that Zimmerman chased Martin down (I hope you don't find the prospect they they can't, ridiculous  :D), please now indicate how Zimmerman's self defense claim is unreasonable.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 03, 2012, 10:18:04 PM
The business about the chase came from Witness #2.  You can read about the discredited chase assertion on her thread in this section of the forum.  It was mentioned at the first bond hearing.  If you have an exact quote of what de la Rionda said about it at the second bond hearing, it would be much appreciated.  A transcript doesn't seem to be available.  Even if it were true that they could prove that Zimmerman caught Martin, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman could have withdrawn after fighting started.  Let's say that the state cannot prove that Zimmerman chased Martin down (I hope you don't find the prospect they they can't, ridiculous  :D), please now indicate how Zimmerman's self defense claim is unreasonable.
Interesting.  I'm not sure I would discredit Witness #2.  I think, before the incident, some children were outside running around, and that's what Witness #2 was describing.  Also, the kid with the dog was out there, and some witnesses reporting hearing sounds like a dog.  I think there were three distinct events that overlapped; kids running around, the young boy walking his dog and then the altercation between Zimmerman and Martin.

At least that's what my repeated reading of the witness statements leads me to believe.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 10:22:16 PM
I'm not sure we're following each other.  Here is what I heard De la Rionda say during the 2nd Bond Hearing:  "He [Zimmerman] chases him down and at some point the victim does hit him."  Not to drive this right into the ground, but if one wishes to substitute a "chase" for Zimmerman's testimony that he walked east to Retreat View Circle, tarried a while, then returned, you have to show how, consistent with the evidence (dropped keychain and flashlight, etc.), he could have been somewhere else.   
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 03, 2012, 10:27:07 PM
I'm not sure we're following each other.  Here is what I heard De la Rionda say during the 2nd Bond Hearing:  "He [Zimmerman] chases him down and at some point the victim does hit him."  Not to drive this right into the ground, but if one wishes to substitute a "chase" for Zimmerman's testimony that he walked east to Retreat View Circle, tarried a while, then returned, you have to show how, consistent with the evidence (dropped keychain and flashlight, etc.), he could have been somewhere else.   
That's the biggest problem the state has, imo.  The location of the debris and the body make it hard to argue that Zimmerman chased Martin very far if at all.  And Zimmerman's version certainly accounts for the location of those items, so they have a high hill to climb to impugn his version of events.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 03, 2012, 10:52:07 PM
And that's where Dee Dee comes in, if she's still in the case.  But to repeat my primary point, I don't see where all the "discrepancies" in Zimmerman's statements are not more consistent with poor memory than with disguising his "real" movements,
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 03, 2012, 11:26:27 PM
I also think the "chased" comes from W2.  She is the only one who described it in the statements.  She was never able to discern who was running after who though.  When further vetted, she didn't have her contacts in, and then the chase became one person.  She also reported that she heard people outside near the "T" at a time before either TM or GZ was in that area.  IIRC, it was around 7:05 that she thought she heard them.

The other part of the Probable Cause leaned heavily on Sybrina Fulton identifying her son as the one crying for help.  This negated by Robert, Sr. saying that it is his son and Zimmerman himself, while in the back seat of the patrol car, was overheard by Smith(?) telling the EMS techs that he was calling for help but no one came out to help him.   This part I think is important because he has no idea that anyone else may have heard him or what was reported it in their witness statements.

The "help" yells  got discounted by the FBI, anyway.

And then there is Gilbreath.  Corey has a number of investigators at her disposal and yet nothing was ever proven that GZ threw the first punch or even threw any punches.    As far as the initial verbal exchange, even Dee Dee has Martin speaking first to Zimmerman.  Only months later has the Prosecution even admitted to Martin hitting Zimmerman.

I firmly believe that the sole reason that Corey disbanded the Grand Jury is because she would have gotten a "No Bill" with the evidence they had.  Even now with more disclosed, I still don't think they have a strong case.   

Once MOM deposes Dee Dee and W2 it will get released in the reciprocal discovery.  Somehow in the event of a trial, I don't think they will be called as witnesses for the Prosecution.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 04, 2012, 05:00:48 AM
Well and good, but I'm asking what the fruit is of all these alleged "discrepancies" and improbabilities in his account of what happened before (according to him) he got punched.  If he didn't walk over to RVC, where did he go?  It's hardly as though the possibilities, consistent with evidence difficult to dispute, are infinite.  If you claim he is "covering something up," as the judge himself seems to be insinuating,  tell me what he was -really- doing.  Don't tell me his credibility has been compromised without giving me a half-way plausible alternative to his testimony.  If you can't, you have confirmed the validity of his account.  Every alternative I've heard is grossly improbable.   And as far as this "circling" business, we can be reasonably sure  -something- happened  to cause him concern for his personal safety, because of his remarks to the dispatcher, so what difference does it make?  Unless, of course, you wish to claim he was just "making stuff up" at the time, as cover for some sort of nefarious activity.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 04, 2012, 05:32:42 AM
Judge Lester claims, in his July 5 order, that Zimmerman's story "changes with each retelling."  This is serious business, when the judge himself embraces the notion that Zimmerman's "changes" are a cover for some sort of awful, incriminating truth.  This is utter nonsense unless one can plausibly identify what is being "covered up."  The possibilities are hardly infinite, and I don't think Lester would care to try to identify one.  Rather, he seems to have joined hands with those who wish to leap directly from their sagacious doubts about whether Zimmerman did this or that to the question whether Martin walked up to Zimmerman and punched him, as he claims.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 04, 2012, 05:45:59 AM
Let's go back to the point in time just before Zimmerman draws and fires.

He's on his back, pinned under Martin, unable to find a way to escape, retreat, withdraw, and in fear of being about to be severely, perhaps fatally, injured.

I wasn't there, but I think that's a fair and accurate representation of what he claims.

Let's say that entitles him to defend himself with deadly force, specifically his gun.

How far back in time before that moment does it matter to the validity of the self-defense claim whether his recounting of events is accurate and truthful, or truthful from his point of view but perhaps with a few incorrect details that he does not get wrong intentionally, or even if it's all just a flat out big old pack of lies?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 04, 2012, 06:27:53 AM
Let's go back to the point in time just before Zimmerman draws and fires.

He's on his back, pinned under Martin, unable to find a way to escape, retreat, withdraw, and in fear of being about to be severely, perhaps fatally, injured.

I wasn't there, but I think that's a fair and accurate representation of what he claims.

Let's say that entitles him to defend himself with deadly force, specifically his gun.

How far back in time before that moment does it matter to the validity of the self-defense claim whether his recounting of events is accurate and truthful, or truthful from his point of view but perhaps with a few incorrect details that he does not get wrong intentionally, or even if it's all just a flat out big old pack of lies?
Under the law it doesn't matter.  Even if he was the initial aggressor, he still has witnesses describing him trying to escape from under Martin.  That's all he needs to justify self defense.

In front of a jury, it's another matter.  It goes to his credibility.  If jurors only looked at facts it wouldn't matter.  But they don't.  Some of them let their emotions rule them.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 04, 2012, 06:30:10 AM
I don't see how you get away from the credibility issue.  If the jury concludes he is lying about Martin waylaying him and "punching his lights out," they are going to be disinclined to believe he did in fact fear serious harm when he pulled the trigger.  They may well conclude that he deserved a good beating, and reject his claim that Martin was going for his weapon.  They may further be inclined to believe the inevitable representations that his injuries (superficial 'scratches,' really) were trivial.  They may even be induced to believe that Martin made those shouts.  Etc.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 04, 2012, 06:59:30 AM
Under the law it doesn't matter.  Even if he was the initial aggressor, he still has witnesses describing him trying to escape from under Martin.  That's all he needs to justify self defense.

In front of a jury, it's another matter.  It goes to his credibility.  If jurors only looked at facts it wouldn't matter.  But they don't.  Some of them let their emotions rule them.

If there were no witnesses he would still be just as entitled to or not entilted to claim self-defense, but do the witnesses actually describe either party as attempting to disengage from the fight or merely as being in one?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 04, 2012, 07:02:44 AM
If there were no witnesses he would still be just as entitled to or not entilted to claim self-defense, but do the witnesses actually describe either party as attempting to disengage from the fight or merely as being in one?

help me help me get off me

those are things witnesses say they heard and they are things you can hear in the background of the various 911 calls.

Sounds like one party trying to disengage, yeah. You?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 04, 2012, 07:09:49 AM
I don't see how you get away from the credibility issue.  If the jury concludes he is lying about Martin waylaying him and "punching his lights out," they are going to be disinclined to believe he did in fact fear serious harm when he pulled the trigger.  They may well conclude that he deserved a good beating, and reject his claim that Martin was going for his weapon.  They may further be inclined to believe the inevitable representations that his injuries (superficial 'scratches,' really) were trivial.  They may even be induced to believe that Martin made those shouts.  Etc.

You can dislike GZ all you want, but at some point you have to look at the evidence. Even the state says they have nothing to disprove GZ's account. They admit TM punched him, and the evidence shows TM had no fight damage (save the abrasion on his hand between his top two knuckles).

Will you, at some point, grow tired of saying the same thing over and over, ostensibly asking questions yet never paying attention to answers? If you want to filibuster, there are other places for that.

You say "if the jury concludes...". Well yes. The jury could in fact conclude almost anything I suppose. None of that has anything to do with the evidence and testimony we have so far--and that's what we're stuck with (despite how we sometimes get a little out of bounds and get reeled back in by The Hostess).

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 04, 2012, 07:40:39 AM
I'm sorry. I have no idea what you are trying to say.  To make this as simple as I know how, I am asking what happened here, if not what Zimmerman says.  A great deal of time has industriously been devoted to identifying "discrepancies" in his testimony.  To what end?  If you find my inquiries irksome, read elsewhere.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 04, 2012, 07:44:29 AM
If there were no witnesses he would still be just as entitled to or not entilted to claim self-defense, but do the witnesses actually describe either party as attempting to disengage from the fight or merely as being in one?
Yes, they do.  See my timeline (http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/txantimedia-1472782-trayvon-shooting-timeline/).
Quote
W? (pg 41 D1) he observed "someone laying on the ground that looked like they couldn't get up and was yelling for help",
Quote
It was only when he heard a males voice yelling "help, help, help", that he observed a second guy pushing up or trying to get out from underneath of this person.
Quote
W6 (pg 61, D2) He then asked the two individuals, "What's going on", at which time he heard someone yell "help, help" a second time. [He] indicated that at no point could he see who was yelling help. He then said, "Hey cut it out", to which neither of them responded. While still positioned on the ground, he describes the two individuals turning and moving onto the sidewalk. He said the person wearing the black shirt was still on top of the other person wearing red. He recalls seeing the person on top either forcefully holding the person on the bottom down, or hitting the person on the bottom
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 04, 2012, 08:30:14 AM
Not to be provocative, but it seems to me the real reason Zimmerman's "doubters" are so disinclined to set forth even remotely plausible alternatives to his testimony, covering  the interval of a supposed "chase," is to avoid ridicule. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 04, 2012, 09:40:51 AM
Perhaps "partisan" would get you in less hot water.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 04, 2012, 09:51:12 AM
Perhaps "partisan" would get you in less hot water.

I think tx said what he meant.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 04, 2012, 10:06:20 AM
Not to be provocative, but it seems to me the real reason Zimmerman's "doubters" are so disinclined to set forth even remotely plausible alternatives to his testimony, covering  the interval of a supposed "chase," is to avoid ridicule.

Before I get to the reply I was about to make, perhaps you'd be good enough to define exactly what and who you mean by 'Zimmerman's "doubters" ', so that I'll know whether or not you're referring to a single, homogenous group.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 04, 2012, 10:32:04 AM
Just put it in the context of this discussion.  I'm referring to those who attack Zimmerman's credibility on the basis of perceived "discrepancies" and improbabilities in his 7 statements, with particular reference to the interval during which a "chase" might have occurred.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 04, 2012, 04:00:38 PM
Correction:  In his order of July 5, Judge Lester was referring to the prosecution's contentions when he said Zimmerman was ever 'changing"  his story (I was misled by a 'partisan' journalist.)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 04, 2012, 06:05:35 PM
Before I get to the reply I was about to make, perhaps you'd be good enough to define exactly what and who you mean by 'Zimmerman's "doubters" ', so that I'll know whether or not you're referring to a single, homogenous group.
your reply would be reported.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 07:26:16 AM
So...do we have "admission by silence" here?  I asked the same question back in, seems like it was April, and got the same response.  So much smoke, so little fire.  Is there a flaw in the logic that, if you can't show some plausible alternative to Zimmerman's account of the facts leading to the "confrontation," you have not significantly invalidated his account?  No one wants to join hands with Dee Dee, or put Zimmerman Barney Fifing down the dogleg, flashlight and drawn weapon in hand?  No?  But you wish to imply that your "discrepancies" are, in some vague way, supportive of the view that Zimmerman assaulted Martin?  Something like that?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 08:04:11 AM
Not to be provocative, but it seems to me the real reason Zimmerman's "doubters" are so disinclined to set forth even remotely plausible alternatives to his testimony, covering  the interval of a supposed "chase," is to avoid ridicule.


There are alternative theories, but, being alternatives, they disagree with what Zimmerman said happened, and since they cover a period of time for which the only surviving eyewitness is Zimmerman, they're pretty much banned from being mentioned here, even if the observations of the other witnesses, once they began witnessing, are equally as supportive of them as what Zimmerman has said.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 08:10:57 AM
So the "discrepancy vigilantes" want to persuade that Zimmerman is lying, without the inconvenience of showing how what he is lying about could plausibly have happened any other way?  That's awfully convenient.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 08:23:27 AM
That's what it boils down to. Even if you see inconsistancies in GZ's statements,(and I see a few) I don't see where anyone can say Z intended to hunt the kid down or hurt him. I think he was gilding the lily during the NEN call and certainly during his statements to the police. But it seems at some point TM emerged and started the altercation.Once the fight started TM kept at it. What I can't figure out is why TM did not take off once GZ started screaming. If he didn't, as Serino suggested, know Z called the police, wouldn't he think Z's screams were going to result in at least one 911 call?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 08:31:29 AM
Maybe so, but some people just aren't willing to surrender their "chase."  De la Rionda, as recently as the 2nd Bond Hearing, promised to prove one, and made explicit reference to Dee Dee.  Zimmerman says there was no "chase."  So how is disproving his claim in any way  irrelevant to what is now "in the case"?     
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 08:32:26 AM
So the "discrepancy vigilantes" want to persuade that Zimmerman is lying, without the inconvenience of showing how what he is lying about could plausibly have happened any other way?  That's awfully convenient.

I can offer a theory with an alternative version of how the physical encounter began that is not contradicted by any of the known evidence other than Zimmerman's account, and is therefore not disprovable except by Zimmerman's account,  but since it refers to a time during which only Martin and Zimmerman were witnesses, there is, at present, no way to "prove" it, so it's not particularly welcome here.

If you want to continue to taunt people for not offering posts which would only be deleted, well, I guess you know best what you find amusing.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 08:36:55 AM
I'd like to hear the alternate theoty. :D
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 09:02:29 AM
It seems to me particularly disingenuous to insinuate that there exists some plausible alternative to what Zimmerman says happened that one is not at liberty to disclose, then try to use one's imagined "discrepancies" to assault his credibility about how he says he was assaulted.  How can divulging what you believe Zimmerman "really" did not now be in this case?  Dee Dee is certainly now "in" it, with her separate thread, no less.   
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 09:16:46 AM
I do recall the theory that Zimmerman came across Martin hiding off the patio of Witness John, at which time Martin defensively struck him and he involuntarily flung his flashlight and keychain 30 ft. behind him, was discussed on the main forum, so I'm quite at a loss to imagine what's "off limits."  I wouldn't make such an issue of it were I not convinced there's no "there" there.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JoeMenardo on August 06, 2012, 09:18:19 AM
I think it is reasonable that one can argue that there are major discrepancies in his statements without further arguing why those discrepancies exist or offering secondary theories about what happened esp. since offering those theories are unwelcome. 

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 09:24:32 AM
It seems to me particularly disingenuous to insinuate that there exists some plausible alternative to what Zimmerman says happened that one is not at liberty to disclose, then try to use one's imagined "discrepancies" to assault his credibility about how he says he was assaulted.  How can divulging what you believe Zimmerman "really" did not now be in this case?  Dee Dee is certainly now "in" it, with her separate thread, no less.

Not my fault you came in late after the deletions.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 09:38:42 AM
Let me point out that a moderator recently passed this way, removed an improvidential comment, and let mine stand.  You seem to be telling me you're "way out there."
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 09:45:39 AM
How convenient. I win!
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 09:54:20 AM
It seems to me particularly to insinuate that there exists some plausible alternative to what Zimmerman says happened that one is not at liberty to disclose, then try to use one's imagined "discrepancies" to assault his credibility about how he says he was assaulted.  How can divulging what you believe Zimmerman "really" did not now be in this case?  Dee Dee is certainly now "in" it, with her separate thread, no less.

 ???

Whatchoo talkin' about Whitecap? (and I've read Finnegan's wake :D :D :D :D :D ;D)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 09:57:49 AM
Let me further observe that a distinction is to be observed here between what is properly considered "in the case," and "Truther" grade conspiracy theory.  Of course I win. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 10:09:56 AM
When your vanquished foe is a comment that's been deleted, I'd say its a hollow victory.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 06, 2012, 10:11:33 AM
I can offer a theory with an alternative version of how the physical encounter began that is not contradicted by any of the known evidence other than Zimmerman's account, and is therefore not disprovable except by Zimmerman's account,  but since it refers to a time during which only Martin and Zimmerman were witnesses, there is, at present, no way to "prove" it, so it's not particularly welcome here.

If you want to continue to taunt people for not offering posts which would only be deleted, well, I guess you know best what you find amusing.

I'm not sure a post, using the the evidence, would get deleted, would it? Maybe put it in a different thread, but as long as it keeps to the evidence, I don't see how it could be wrong.

I'll probably disagree with it, but I don't see why The Hostess would delete it as long as it used the evidence. She might wind up locking the thread afterwards though. PM her and ask her?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 06, 2012, 10:15:31 AM
When your vanquished foe is a comment that's been deleted, I'd say its a hollow victory.

The problem is, the only post I can see that was deleted had nothing to do with the case, it was more of an editorial comment about the people on one side (or the other). I don't think it was wholly innaccurate--but apparently The Hostess didn't care for it.

I'm not sure what it had to do with whitecap at all, and really don't know what victory he's claiming.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 10:18:48 AM
I'm not sure a post, using the the evidence, would get deleted, would it? Maybe put it in a different thread, but as long as it keeps to the evidence, I don't see how it could be wrong.

I'll probably disagree with it, but I don't see why The Hostess would delete it as long as it used the evidence. She might wind up locking the thread afterwards though. PM her and ask her?

In my case I think it would be a post or posts that were in a different thread to begin with.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 10:19:10 AM
No, they are simply trying to hide behind her robes.  I've heard all the theories about what Zimmerman was "really" doing, and they're all frivolous.  These guys are simply trying to keep the flame from flickering out altogether.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 06, 2012, 10:23:50 AM
No, they are simply trying to hide behind her robes.  I've heard all the theories about what Zimmerman was "really" doing, and they're all frivolous.  These guys are simply trying to keep the flame from flickering out altogether.

What post are you responding to, SD?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 10:24:18 AM
When your vanquished foe is a comment that's been deleted, I'd say its a hollow victory.

I'd say it's more like the victory is over a comment that can't be made without getting deleted.

It's sort of like the old comedy routine where the little guy slugs the big guy, then whips on a pair of specs and says "you can't hit a guy wearing glasses", or a little girl torments a boy whom she knows to be forbidden to hit girls.

It's a sort of aggressive passive aggression.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 06, 2012, 10:26:45 AM
I'd say it's more like the victory is over a comment that can't be made without getting deleted.

It's sort of like the old comedy routine where the little guy slugs the big guy, then whips on a pair of specs and says "you can't hit a guy wearing glasses", or a little girl torments a boy whom she knows to be forbidden to hit girls.

It's a sort of aggressive passive aggression.

That about sums it up, yeah.


Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 10:27:12 AM
What post are you responding to, SD?
;)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 10:32:15 AM
No, they are simply trying to hide behind her robes.  I've heard all the theories about what Zimmerman was "really" doing, and they're all frivolous.  These guys are simply trying to keep the flame from flickering out altogether.

So, what?

You're daring us to go against Jeralyn's wishes?

Is that a double dog dare?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: FromBelow on August 06, 2012, 10:40:42 AM
I actually like Jeralyn's rules. She keeps things on track and stops this forum from becoming a garbage site. Just look at all the garbage people write on other forums. Wild speculation, insults, trolling, conspiracy theories, misinformation and outright lies. Sticking to the facts and evidence is how you get closest to the truth.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 10:45:51 AM
I'm certainly not encouraging flights to lurid "accomplice" theory, or anything like that.  If you can make a fact based argument that you believe, in good faith, that the prosecution might argue to the jury, I doubt it would here be stricken. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 10:56:27 AM
I actually like Jeralyn's rules. She keeps things on track and stops this forum from becoming a garbage site. Just look at all the garbage people write on other forums. Wild speculation, insults, trolling, conspiracy theories, misinformation and outright lies. Sticking to the facts and evidence is how you get closest to the truth.

I don't think Jerilyn's rules are the issue here.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 10:57:24 AM
I wouldn't wish to be understood as denying, of course, that there are "theories of guilt" out there that merely serve as convenient vehicles for expressing one's disdain of Zimmerman and everyone like Zimmerman.  These, obviously, can't be tolerated.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 06, 2012, 10:58:24 AM
I wouldn't wish to be understood as denying, of course, that there are "theories of guilt" out there that merely serve as convenient vehicles for expressing one's disdain of Zimmerman and everyone like Zimmerman.  These, obviously, can't be tolerated.

It's not about protecting Zimmerman or everyone like him.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 11:12:01 AM
I'm beginning to catch a whiff of that which traditionally is regarded as most likely to be dwelling under a  bridge.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 11:14:58 AM
I think it is reasonable that one can argue that there are major discrepancies in his statements without further arguing why those discrepancies exist or offering secondary theories about what happened esp. since offering those theories are unwelcome.

Here is an example of a GZ whopper that can't be supported. (He also tells a different story in his written statement). He sees Martin enter the sidwalk area. He sees him reemerge, then circle his truck/car/suv/panel van .  Martin then runs away back to whence he came but GZ loses him the second time even though he exits his truck in order to look for an address which apparently was located at the T. Now conspiracy buffs would say GZ  saw where TM ran and did not tell the NEN dispatcher that he saw where TM ran because Z was gonna hunt TM down. I think GZ did not see TM enter and emerge from the sidewalk area. The story explained how GZ just "happened upon" TM and did not follow him. Following, I hear tell, is not illegal. Whether Z knew this or not, he seemed senistive to any suggestion that he was following TM. It's this sort of "inconsistancy" which only
made Z's stories less credible.





 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 11:16:52 AM
You're being impertinent.  One may legitimately wonder, as I have been wondering for months, what unrevealed "truths" you are holding so close to your vest.  Pair of deuces, I suspect.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 11:18:27 AM
Impertinent, Sire? It was not my intent. Pray sir, do not have me drawn and quartered.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 06, 2012, 11:40:08 AM
Impertinent?  :o

Not our Ignats.


Sigh. It's going to be a little sad to see all this deleted.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 06, 2012, 11:41:01 AM
I'm beginning to catch a whiff of that which traditionally is regarded as most likely to be dwelling under a  bridge.

Been smelling it for a few days.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 12:20:19 PM
Here is an example of a GZ whopper that can't be supported. (He also tells a different story in his written statement). He sees Martin enter the sidwalk area. He sees him reemerge, then circle his truck/car/suv/panel van .  Martin then runs away back to whence he came but GZ loses him the second time even though he exits his truck in order to look for an address which apparently was located at the T. Now conspiracy buffs would say GZ  saw where TM ran and did not tell the NEN dispatcher that he saw where TM ran because Z was gonna hunt TM down. I think GZ did not see TM enter and emerge from the sidewalk area. The story explained how GZ just "happened upon" TM and did not follow him. Following, I hear tell, is not illegal. Whether Z knew this or not, he seemed senistive to any suggestion that he was following TM. It's this sort of "inconsistancy" which only
made Z's stories less credible.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/TalkLeft/zimmerman/threecars2.jpg
 (http://media.photobucket.com/image/recent/TalkLeft/zimmerman/threecars2.jpg)

This photo is credited to Talkleft so maybe it is already posted somwhere on this forum but it is good.
It is also day time :(
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 01:01:35 PM
The comment you're objecting to, Ig, was a response to uni's "troll" remark.  I'm not here by way of computer, and there are certain things I can't do.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 01:05:40 PM
The comment you're objecting to, Ig, was a response to uni's "troll" remark.  I'm not here by way of computer, and there are certain things I can't do.

That's alright, you're doing quite enough already.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 01:14:26 PM
Now, as to the merits of I.G's "chase" scenario, I have been asking, for some time now, what -conceivable- route such a "chase" could have taken, consistent with the physical evidence and witness testimony.   
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 01:34:49 PM
I have no chase scenario. I have Z getting out of his truck, then spending a few minutes somewhere around the T, then meeting TM somewhere at the T. Only Z knows what happened. We can merely make educated guesses.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 02:05:24 PM
Which takes us, I.G., right back to the same problem, without proposed solution, of what Martin was doing at the "T."  It is further being proposed, if I follow you, that Zimmerman,  intent on  "kill or capture," just started making stuff up in his conversation to the dispatcher.  I further surmise that Dee Dee is being "dumped," which raises, of course, some very interesting questions of how she got into the mix in the first place. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 06, 2012, 02:50:09 PM
Which takes us, I.G., right back to the same problem, without proposed solution, of what Martin was doing at the "T."  It is further being proposed, if I follow you, that Zimmerman,  intent on  "kill or capture," just started making stuff up in his conversation to the dispatcher.  I further surmise that Dee Dee is being "dumped," which raises, of course, some very interesting questions of how she got into the mix in the first place.

All GZ picadors always surmise the GZ was filled with such evil genius that he could formulate a lie, that was consistent with his uncannily accurate  prediction that Martin would:

1. Be at the T in two minutes.
2. Would not turn and run away from Zimmerman ( as had the other suspicious characters) if he saw Zimmerman again.

thus allowing Zimmerman in 5 seconds of inspiration  to invent an complex murder plot.

Georges genius is conveniently offset by his  stupidity when their narrative requires.

IMO, any one who thinks that George Zimmerman did anything more than breath a sigh of relief when the dispatchers said ' We don't need you to do that <Follow Martin>" has not read the FBI reports investigating Zimmerman's personality
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 06, 2012, 03:06:31 PM
Or he was lucky.

Again, with headlights illuminating the sidewalk Z loses sight of TM.
I could accept this except that he supposedly had just seen TM enter the same area
then reemerge. In his written statement Z says TM emerged from the darkness with no sidewalk embellishment.
He had more than 5 seconds to refine that story. WHY did he do it? Did it help anything?
No, but Z seemed to think it would.
The bond hearing; Z's apology includes a statement where he says he did not know TM was so young.
"I thought he was around my age." In the NEN call z refers to TM as a kid and describes him as being in his late teens. MOM was new to the case then and didn't catch that slip.
It's not much I guess but these kinds of inconsistancies have given the prosecution a slim hat rack of credibility
problems to hang their case on.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 06, 2012, 04:05:39 PM
Or he was lucky.

Again, with headlights illuminating the sidewalk Z loses sight of TM.
I could accept this except that he supposedly had just seen TM enter the same area
then reemerge. In his written statement Z says TM emerged from the darkness with no sidewalk embellishment.
He had more than 5 seconds to refine that story. WHY did he do it? Did it help anything?
No, but Z seemed to think it would.
The bond hearing; Z's apology includes a statement where he says he did not know TM was so young.
"I thought he was around my age." In the NEN call z refers to TM as a kid and describes him as being in his late teens. MOM was new to the case then and didn't catch that slip.
It's not much I guess but these kinds of inconsistancies have given the prosecution a slim hat rack of credibility
problems to hang their case on.

The simplest answer is that whatever he said was his honest recollection at the time he said it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 06, 2012, 04:09:20 PM
Which takes us, I.G., right back to the same problem, without proposed solution, of what Martin was doing at the "T." ...

As the invited guest of a resident, and therefore someone with as much right to be there as Zimmerman?

Anything he damn well pleases.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: FromBelow on August 06, 2012, 04:16:10 PM
As the invited guest of a resident, and therefore someone with as much right to be there as Zimmerman?

Anything he damn well pleases.

After running "scared" he ends up back at the T and not at his house? You don't find that odd? What would his motivation be to return to where GZ was?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 06, 2012, 04:26:16 PM
As the invited guest of a resident, and therefore someone with as much right to be there as Zimmerman?

Anything he damn well pleases.

Want to rephrase that?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 04:43:21 PM
Wonder why Dee Dee tells such a whopper.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 06, 2012, 05:04:37 PM
Or he was lucky.

Again, with headlights illuminating the sidewalk Z loses sight of TM.
Of course, like most modern cars, the headlights go off after 30 seconds or so, thus not illuminating the sidewalk any longer - which, BTW, is what Z said.
Quote from: IgnatiusJDonnelly
I could accept this except that he supposedly had just seen TM enter the same area then reemerge. In his written statement Z says TM emerged from the darkness with no sidewalk embellishment.
Go back and read his statements in the interviews I've posted.  He lost TM at the clubhouse, then lost him again on TTL.  There's no mystery here.  It was dark, and TM was moving between houses.
Quote from: IgnatiusJDonnelly
He had more than 5 seconds to refine that story. WHY did he do it? Did it help anything?
What on earth are you talking about?
Quote from: IgnatiusJDonnelly
No, but Z seemed to think it would.
The bond hearing; Z's apology includes a statement where he says he did not know TM was so young.
"I thought he was around my age." In the NEN call z refers to TM as a kid and describes him as being in his late teens. MOM was new to the case then and didn't catch that slip.
In one of his interviews he said he thought he was either in his late teens or early twenties.

I suppose your memory is dead on perfect and never fails you, huh?

Quote from: IgnatiusJDonnelly
It's not much I guess but these kinds of inconsistancies have given the prosecution a slim hat rack of credibility
problems to hang their case on.
They'll need a great deal more than that to convict him.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Juan on August 06, 2012, 05:14:46 PM
Or he was lucky.

Again, with headlights illuminating the sidewalk Z loses sight of TM.
I could accept this except that he supposedly had just seen TM enter the same area
then reemerge. In his written statement Z says TM emerged from the darkness with no sidewalk embellishment.
He had more than 5 seconds to refine that story. WHY did he do it? Did it help anything?
No, but Z seemed to think it would.
The bond hearing; Z's apology includes a statement where he says he did not know TM was so young.
"I thought he was around my age." In the NEN call z refers to TM as a kid and describes him as being in his late teens. MOM was new to the case then and didn't catch that slip
.
It's not much I guess but these kinds of inconsistancies have given the prosecution a slim hat rack of credibility
problems to hang their case on.


I don't think he ever said, "he did not know TM was so young" at the bond hearing. He did say "I did not know how old he was". From a distance he estimated TM's age as being "late teens". It is quite conceivable that after getting up close & personal (not to mention getting smacked in the nose & thrown around like a rag doll), his estimate was changed. He easily could have then estimated he was "just a little bit younger" than he was. Then just like "close", what is a "little bit" ?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 06, 2012, 06:15:57 PM
This is beginning to look like the "incredible, shrinking probable cause."
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 05:48:44 AM
So why, if the case against Zimmerman has become as attenuated as IG and others seem to think, would one continue to hope for a conviction?  And I certainly see no graceful way of dropping Dee Dee from the case.  That will play right into the claim that her testimony is reflective of "assisted memory."  Words will be used that, in the interest of decorum, I will not use here.  The charge that the prosecution represents a politically driven sham will be awkward to deal with.  It has been proposed that the "work product" rule may operate as a bar to discovery efforts in this regard.  I would suggest that there are certain exceptions to this doctrine.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 06:33:59 AM
  It has been proposed that the "work product" rule may operate as a bar to discovery efforts in this regard.  I would suggest that there are certain exceptions to this doctrine.

Do you have any cites or are you just doing what you do best, SD?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 07, 2012, 06:56:37 AM
It has been proposed that the "work product" rule may operate as a bar to discovery efforts in this regard.  I would suggest that there are certain exceptions to this doctrine.
IANAL, but I doubt that's possible.  DeeDee's story is a matter of public record.  Benjamin Crump made it so.  So I think the defense could call her as a hostile witness, even if the prosecution demurs.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 07:08:53 AM
I could accept this except that he supposedly had just seen TM enter the same area then reemerge. In his written statement Z says TM emerged from the darkness with no sidewalk embellishment.

Go back and read his statements in the interviews I've posted.  He lost TM at the clubhouse, then lost him again on TTL.  There's no mystery here.  It was dark, and TM was moving between houses



He lost him seeing him return to where he had just emerged?  ::)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 07:13:34 AM
IANAL, but I doubt that's possible.  DeeDee's story is a matter of public record.  Benjamin Crump made it so.  So I think the defense could call her as a hostile witness, even if the prosecution demurs.

Would it depend on when the trial (if there is one) takes place? Right now she's a minor, could she be forced to appear in open court as a minor?

I know kids testify, I'm just not sure how it works if the parent/guardian says "no".
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 07:14:18 AM
In one of his interviews he said he thought he was either in his late teens or early twenties.

I suppose your memory is dead on perfect and never fails you, huh?



Tex,
What Z was addressing was the mantra, "Trayvon was only 17", Trayvon was unarmed."
The problem was he did know TM was a teenager and described him as such.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 07, 2012, 07:40:02 AM
Tex,
What Z was addressing was the mantra, "Trayvon was only 17", Trayvon was unarmed."
The problem was he did know TM was a teenager and described him as such.

Did he -really- know Mr. Martin's age, or was it a guess?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 07, 2012, 08:04:19 AM
I could accept this except that he supposedly had just seen TM enter the same area then reemerge. In his written statement Z says TM emerged from the darkness with no sidewalk embellishment.

Go back and read his statements in the interviews I've posted.  He lost TM at the clubhouse, then lost him again on TTL.  There's no mystery here.  It was dark, and TM was moving between houses



He lost him seeing him return to where he had just emerged?  ::)
Try to keep up. Z was going to the store.  As he rounded the turn on RVC to turn left at the gate, he spotted Trayvon.  He drove past him.  Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.  Then Z moved his car over onto TTL and parked.  Suddenly TM re-emerged out of the shadows and circled his car.  Then he ran down the sidewalk and turned right on the T.  At that point Z lost him again.  As he exited his vehicle and headed toward the T, he looked to his right to see where TM had gone, but he couldn't locate him.

Then he walked to RVC, got an address, reversed course and headed toward the T, where TM jumped him.

Clear now?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 08:08:48 AM
Try to keep up. Z was going to the store.  As he rounded the turn on RVC to turn left at the gate, he spotted Trayvon.  He drove past him.  Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.  Then Z moved his car over onto TTL and parked.  Suddenly TM re-emerged out of the shadows and circled his car.  Then he ran down the sidewalk and turned right on the T.  At that point Z lost him again.  As he exited his vehicle and headed toward the T, he looked to his right to see where TM had gone, but he couldn't locate him.

Then he walked to RVC, got an address, reversed course and headed toward the T, where TM jumped him.

Clear now?

Oh well, we don't need TL anymore if we're not going to endlessly debate minutiae!

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 07, 2012, 08:15:56 AM
In one of his interviews he said he thought he was either in his late teens or early twenties.

I suppose your memory is dead on perfect and never fails you, huh?



Tex,
What Z was addressing was the mantra, "Trayvon was only 17", Trayvon was unarmed."
The problem was he did know TM was a teenager and described him as such.
Don't be silly.  Unless he saw his ID, the best he could have done was an educated guess.  When describing him on the NEN he said "late teens".  After getting his butt whipped, he amended that to "late teens or early twenties".

[snark]You, of course, are completely certain about the age of everyone you meet, no matter how much interaction you have with them, and you would never amend that judgment after receiving further information.[/snark]
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 08:18:34 AM
I have no idea how I picked up the handle "SD," or what it signifies.  Some sort of insult, I assume.

The exception to the "work product" rule I have in mind was burned into my memory by personal experience.  I'm not a lawyer, and don't come here by way of computer, so you will have to do your own research.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 08:26:43 AM
Try to keep up. Z was going to the store.  As he rounded the turn on RVC to turn left at the gate, he spotted Trayvon.  He drove past him.  Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.  Then Z moved his car over onto TTL and parked.  Suddenly TM re-emerged out of the shadows and circled his car.  Then he ran down the sidewalk and turned right on the T.  At that point Z lost him again.  As he exited his vehicle and headed toward the T, he looked to his right to see where TM had gone, but he couldn't locate him.

Then he walked to RVC, got an address, reversed course and headed toward the T, where TM jumped him.

Clear now?

So GZ actually knew where TM went? :D
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 08:28:08 AM
Try to keep up. Z was going to the store.  As he rounded the turn on RVC to turn left at the gate, he spotted Trayvon.  He drove past him.  Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.  Then Z moved his car over onto TTL and parked.  Suddenly TM re-emerged out of the shadows and circled his car.  Then he ran down the sidewalk and turned right on the T.  At that point Z lost him again.  As he exited his vehicle and headed toward the T, he looked to his right to see where TM had gone, but he couldn't locate him.

Then he walked to RVC, got an address, reversed course and headed toward the T, where TM jumped him.

Clear now?

Boy, you are a snotty one.
How do you get away with these replies?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 08:29:55 AM
I have no idea how I picked up the handle "SD," or what it signifies.  Some sort of insult, I assume.

The exception to the "work product" rule I have in mind was burned into my memory by personal experience.  I'm not a lawyer, and don't come here by way of computer, so you will have to do your own research.

Why would you think it was an insult?

So...you're not a lawyer--it doesn't much matter, doctor, lawyer, grocery store clerk... it's all the same behind a keyboard, right?

You don't use a computer--which means you're here on an iPad or a phone, and if you can access the web with your iPad or your phone to post here you can access google.

It's not my job to prove or disprove the things you allege. If you're going to make statements you need to be prepared to back them up if challenged. This isn't a personal blog where you can say whatever you like and ban people who question or disagree, after all.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 08:38:38 AM
SD = Sweet Dreams  (Ah wuz always a dreama.)

I'm here by way of Google TV, which means I can't highlight text or post links.  Now, were I subservient enough, I suppose I could research the "work product" issue and post a cite, but sure as the dickens someone would accuse me of "unauthorized practice of law." 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 08:41:13 AM
SD = Sweet Dreams  (Ah wuz always a dreama.)

I'm here by way of Google TV, which means I can't highlight text or post links.  Now, were I subservient enough, I suppose I could research the "work product" issue and post a cite, but sure as the dickens someone would accuse me of "unauthorized practice of law."

Or even sun dance, which is kind of the same thing right?

But...you make claims you then claim you can't back up, then you claim you won't back up your claims. So in other words--your claims are...kinda useless.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 08:50:33 AM
"Sundance," heh.  You go over there just as a means of self-flagellation? 

Any lawyer or informed layman is well aware of the exception to the "work product" doctrine I've referred to.  Like I explained, carefully, I do not want to use here the diction required to identify it further.  It would just be, to some, too upsetting.  Why don't you just put me on "ignore"?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 09:01:54 AM
"Sundance," heh.  You go over there just as a means of self-flagellation? 

Any lawyer or informed layman is well aware of the exception to the "work product" doctrine I've referred to.  Like I explained, carefully, I do not want to use here the diction required to identify it further.  It would just be, to some, too upsetting.  Why don't you just put me on "ignore"?

Oh yes. Any lawyer or informed layman is. However, you've made specific claims about it, which you then refuse to back up.

You sort of sound like Harry Reid with that.


Put you on ignore? And deprive myself of all the wit, wisdom and other things that drip from your posts?


BTW, been doing some reading about google tv, and they claim full browsing functionality for it. Guess they were wrong, huh?
 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 09:13:16 AM
Well, Annoyed, if anyone here wishes to accept instruction from you about what they are to make of what I say, I've got no problem with that. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 09:34:16 AM
Well, Annoyed, if anyone here wishes to accept instruction from you about what they are to make of what I say, I've got no problem with that.

It's not my job. It's your job to back up the things you opine on.

That you claim you can't or won't speaks volumes.

Enjoy the rest of the day. I hope it's nice where you are.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 07, 2012, 09:38:20 AM
So GZ actually knew where TM went? :D

He knew where TM disappeared. In several places his comment would lead one to believe that he assumed that the suspect was heading to the rear exit - but was not positive.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JoeMenardo on August 07, 2012, 09:51:51 AM
Don't be silly.  Unless he saw his ID, the best he could have done was an educated guess.  When describing him on the NEN he said "late teens".  After getting his butt whipped, he amended that to "late teens or early twenties".

[snark]You, of course, are completely certain about the age of everyone you meet, no matter how much interaction you have with them, and you would never amend that judgment after receiving further information.[/snark]

Cmon.  He described him accurately as "late teens" on his call to NEN.  He was close enough to see he was wearing a button.  But you think as he got in closer proximity to TM, he would give a less accurate guess of his age?  His statement was self serving at best.  Even if he felt he was in his early 20's, GZ is 28.  A little bit younger would be be mid 20's. 

I believe he also said during that apology that he wasn't sure if TM was armed.  In the Hannity interview he leaves the impression that he thought TM was just trying to make him believe he was armed.  But I haven't listen to either in a while.   
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 09:54:19 AM
All of which leads to a most delicate question:  What are a prosecutor's ethical duties when she is forced to the realization that "probable cause" has evaporated in a high-profile case she is prosecuting?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 09:57:14 AM
He knew where TM disappeared. In several places his comment would lead one to believe that he assumed that the suspect was heading to the rear exit - but was not positive.

I hear that too, Lousy.
That changes the discussion a bit.
He had a good idea where Tm went.
If he was merely hunting TM, why head up to the street?
Why not head into the sidewalk area right away?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 07, 2012, 10:00:38 AM
Boy, you are a snotty one.
How do you get away with these replies?
Really?  You express all sorts of confusion about where Z was and what he was doing.  I clear it up based on the police interviews with him, and you call that snotty?

Why don't you go read the transcripts for yourself?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 07, 2012, 10:02:34 AM
All of which leads to a most delicate question:  What are a prosecutor's ethical duties when she is forced to the realization that "probable cause" has evaporated in a high-profile case she is prosecuting?
Dismiss the charges. But some prosecutors aren't ethical. They're concerned about convictions.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 10:17:58 AM
Really?  You express all sorts of confusion about where Z was and what he was doing.  I clear it up based on the police interviews with him, and you call that snotty?

Why don't you go read the transcripts for yourself?

You didn't clear anything up for me. Obviously I've read the transcripts.
2/26/2012- In his written statement ,GZ doesn't mention seeing TM enter and reemerge from the sidewalk area.  He describes the reentry and escape the next day. So, he either saw where TM ran and believed he might still be in the backyard area or he made up the enter, reemerge and escape story. You, having studied the transcripts like a Talmudic scholar believe the former. Amongst the Zimmerites, you speak heresy.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Cylinder on August 07, 2012, 10:43:38 AM
...So, he either saw where TM ran and believed he might still be in the backyard area or he made up the enter, reemerge and escape story...

Zimmerman never describes speculating where Martin went after he disappeared. There's nothing that restricts Zimmerman's belief to where Martin went.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 07, 2012, 10:48:34 AM
Try to keep up. Z was going to the store.  As he rounded the turn on RVC to turn left at the gate, he spotted Trayvon.  He drove past him.  Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.  Then Z moved his car over onto TTL and parked.  Suddenly TM re-emerged out of the shadows and circled his car.  Then he ran down the sidewalk and turned right on the T.  At that point Z lost him again.  As he exited his vehicle and headed toward the T, he looked to his right to see where TM had gone, but he couldn't locate him.

Then he walked to RVC, got an address, reversed course and headed toward the T, where TM jumped him.

Clear now?

I'm having trouble visualizing exactly who was exactly where exactly when.

Somewhere after "He drove past him." and before "Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.", doesn't George need to park somewhere?

Was that when he pulled into the clubhouse?

Did Trayvon take the same path as George's truck north and then east on RVC, or did he cut across behind the clubhouse between the pool and the pond, or did he cut through the pool area behind the clubhouse (or is there a fence all around the pool that would prevent that if he didn't have a grappling hook?)?

And between which two houses was it that Trayvon disappeared?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 10:49:08 AM
Zimmerman never describes speculating where Martin went after he disappeared. There's nothing that restricts Zimmerman's belief to where Martin went.

Tex says he did
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 12:21:00 PM
So Zimmerman was engaged in creative fiction while he was on the phone with the dispatcher.  Well, come to think of it, we now have a judicial determination that he is a past master of "manipulation," don't we?  Seems like it would have been a lot less trouble not to have called the cops, though.

Remember where you heard it first:  when O'Mara notices Dee Dee for her deposition, a medical affidavit attesting that she is too emotionally fragile for this ordeal will be laid before Lester's sympathetic eye.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 07, 2012, 01:00:45 PM
I'm having trouble visualizing exactly who was exactly where exactly when.

Somewhere after "He drove past him." and before "Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.", doesn't George need to park somewhere?
He said he "pulled over" near the clubhouse.  Later he moved the car around to TTL and parked it.

Quote from: unitron
Was that when he pulled into the clubhouse?
See above.
Quote from: unitron
Did Trayvon take the same path as George's truck north and then east on RVC, or did he cut across behind the clubhouse between the pool and the pond, or did he cut through the pool area behind the clubhouse (or is there a fence all around the pool that would prevent that if he didn't have a grappling hook?)?
He apparently did at first, because Z says he passed his car.

Quote from: unitron
And between which two houses was it that Trayvon disappeared?
First, why would it matter?  Second, George describes it in the interview, so since it's audio, there's no way for us to know, unless the drawing has been made public.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 07, 2012, 01:14:20 PM
I'm having trouble visualizing exactly who was exactly where exactly when.

Somewhere after "He drove past him." and before "Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.", doesn't George need to park somewhere?

Was that when he pulled into the clubhouse?


From the videotaped recreation he says he pulled in at the clubhouse to call NEN after passing TM and noticing his odd behaviour.  TM catches up to him there in the time it takes him to get through.  In the last interview with Singleton and Serino where they play back the NEN call, he says he is still at the clubhouse when TM passes him ("he's coming to check me out").  He never says when he moves to TTL, but my best guess is that it happens about the time he says "these assholes, they always getaway".  That fits because after that GZ starts giving new directions to the dispatcher on where to go. 

Quote
1:29:89 - Yeah, we've got him on the way. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
1:34:25- Okay [turns in seat]. These assholes, they always get away. Yep [power window switch and
four footsteps/fade].
1:45:65 - When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you'd – would
go past the clubhouse— [he's trying to explain his location on Twin Trees, southeast of the clubhouse,
not at the clubhouse itself].
1:54:26 - Okay, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?
1:57:62 - No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight
in, don't turn and make a left – [2:06:89] sh*t, he's running. [in real time this is at 7:11:41 PM].

The posted transcript (http://www.talkleft.com/zimm/alternatetranscript.pdf) indicates that sounds can be heard in the background at this time, which it suggests are automatic windows or door locks, but how many times do you need to roll up your windows or lock your doors?  Those could be the sounds of him driving to TTL.  It makes sense that TM would run shortly after he moves to TTL since that move would have likely made him believe he was being followed.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 07, 2012, 01:21:05 PM
....He apparently did at first, because Z says he passed his car.
...

Well, actually any of those 3 paths would count as passing Zimmerman's vehicle, in that he would start out to its west and wind up to its east, it's just that taking RVC seems like taking the long way 'round, which seems unlikely for a teenager, especially in the rain.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 01:37:29 PM
Well, actually any of those 3 paths would count as passing Zimmerman's vehicle, in that he would start out to its west and wind up to its east, it's just that taking RVC seems like taking the long way 'round, which seems unlikely for a teenager, especially in the rain.

Isn't that part of why GZ was initially suspicious and why he stayed suspicious?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 01:40:25 PM
He's occupied with talking to Dee Dee and in no apparent hurry to get home some taking the long way isn't out of the realm of possibilty. :-\
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 01:44:18 PM
He's occupied with talking to Dee Dee and in no apparent hurry to get home some taking the long way isn't out of the realm of possibilty. :-\

But don't we already know the rain bothered him since he stopped to hang out in that ...well whatever she called it...the place where the mail goes... ;) and we know he made a point of telling her it was raining and he put his hood up, cuz he'd had his hood down while walking in the rain even though he had it up while he was inside the 7-11.

Add in that he was supposedly freaked out by GZ...yet he still went for a sunny sunday perambulation...and what do you have, Ignats?  8)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 07, 2012, 02:08:19 PM
Isn't that part of why GZ was initially suspicious and why he stayed suspicious?

I don't know, I wasn't there to watch what he did and Zimmerman has never been really specific about Martin's exact path.

I wish they'd made him do the re-enactment again, but the second time as Martin, standing where he stood and walking where he walked.

For instance, if he stayed on RVC, did he walk behind the truck as he passed the clubhouse, or did he get under it's overhang, out of the rain, and actually pass in front of the truck with it on his left and the clubhouse on his right?

Is it possible that some of what Zimmerman saw he misinterpreted?

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 02:14:39 PM
I don't know, I wasn't there to watch what he did and Zimmerman has never been really specific about Martin's exact path.

I wish they'd made him do the re-enactment again, but the second time as Martin, standing where he stood and walking where he walked.

For instance, if he stayed on RVC, did he walk behind the truck as he passed the clubhouse, or did he get under it's overhang, out of the rain, and actually pass in front of the truck with it on his left and the clubhouse on his right?

Is it possible that some of what Zimmerman saw he misinterpreted?

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear enough.  Isn't it part of the documentation that TM's sort of wandering style of walking--in the rain--is what attracted and/or held his attention?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 02:19:20 PM
And the 6 ft. tall "child" we see in the 7-11 video was terrified of this evil stranger?  Ok.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 07, 2012, 02:24:13 PM
And the 6 ft. tall "child" we see in the 7-11 video was terrified of this evil stranger?  Ok.

That's not really here or there.

You weren't there, you don't know if he was or he wasn't. All we have at this point is DD saying he was at least apprehensive (not a direct quote) and the confrontation.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Redbrow on August 07, 2012, 03:03:25 PM
He's occupied with talking to Dee Dee and in no apparent hurry to get home some taking the long way isn't out of the realm of possibilty. :-\

One problem, DeeDee claims Trayvon was rushing to get home.

Quote
Dee Dee:  Yeah, he left his little brother, so he trying to rush and…

BDLR:  Rushing to go back home and watch the game?

Dee Dee:  Yeah.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 07, 2012, 03:32:27 PM
 :D


Redbrow,
Good point.  No one is going to accuse me of using Dee Dee as a reliable source.
Title: Who, Where, and When
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 07, 2012, 04:26:06 PM
I'm having trouble visualizing exactly who was exactly where exactly when.

Somewhere after "He drove past him." and before "Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.", doesn't George need to park somewhere?

Was that when he pulled into the clubhouse?

That's the story.

Quote
Did Trayvon take the same path as George's truck north and then east on RVC,

He would have to, to look at Zimmerman as he passed.

Quote
did he cut through the pool area behind the clubhouse

If he did he would be on video.

Quote
And between which two houses was it that Trayvon disappeared?

Zimmerman didn't say 'two houses'. It's 'between houses' (2/26-1,11:06-17), or 'between the houses' (2/27V, 28:00-09, 6:48:38-46; 2/29-1, 22:46-23:02), or 'between the back [sic] of some houses' (2/26W).

In the later statements, the voice stress test and the last interview, Zimmerman explicitly meant the cut-through.

He may have meant the cut-through in the earlier statements as well. In the early statements (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2094.msg100315.html#msg100315) Zimmerman parked once, in an unspecified location.

The first time Zimmerman claimed to have parked at the clubhouse was when he and Singleton worked on the map. I think he told her that Martin escaped his sight by rounding the corner of 3251 Retreat View Circle. I argued that in an ancient blog comment. (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/6/26/223357/828/157#157)

Illustration. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630878225642/)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 07, 2012, 04:34:46 PM
  He never says when he moves to TTL, but my best guess is that it happens about the time he says "these assholes, they always getaway". 

Have you checked that against the time it takes Sgt. Smith to do it in the reenactment?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: whitecap333 on August 07, 2012, 05:07:44 PM
Anybody see the 2nd Bond Hearing?  De la Rionda got all bent out of shape when O'Mara put into the record an image of Trayvon from the 7-11 video.  He demanded to know "why on earth" O'Mara was doing this, and indignantly sputtered that it "spoke volumes" about the case.  Nothing has done more, of course, to poison the mind of the public and potential jury pool than the carefully selected images of Trayvon as "model youth" spoon fed to us by the media.  Bernie seems to think he has a proprietary interest of some sort in keeping this image in the public eye, rather than that of the 6 ft. youth, bulked out by a hooded garment, Zimmerman was confronted by that night.  (Before someone pounces on the "hooded" reference, let me clarify that it does make Trayvon look larger.)  No, I have trouble visualizing him being intimidated by Zimmerman.  The reverse would seem to be true, actually.
Title: Re: Who, Where, and When
Post by: unitron on August 07, 2012, 05:10:41 PM
...

Zimmerman didn't say 'two houses'. ...

txantimedia did

"Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses."

Title: Re: Who, Where, and When
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 07, 2012, 06:03:34 PM
txantimedia did

I think Txantimedia was implicitly attributing the information to Zimmerman.
Title: Re: Who, Where, and When
Post by: txantimedia on August 07, 2012, 08:44:48 PM
I think Txantimedia was implicitly attributing the information to Zimmerman.
Yes, and that was a mistake on my part.  I just went back and checked each transcript.  He never used the word "two" in reference to houses.
Title: Re: Who, Where, and When
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 12:33:24 AM
I think Txantimedia was implicitly attributing the information to Zimmerman.

And since I was responding to him and his post, I was perfectly justified in asking the question.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 12:46:20 AM
Try to keep up. Z was going to the store.  As he rounded the turn on RVC to turn left at the gate, he spotted Trayvon.  He drove past him.  Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.  Then Z moved his car over onto TTL and parked.  Suddenly TM re-emerged out of the shadows and circled his car.  Then he ran down the sidewalk and turned right on the T.  At that point Z lost him again.  As he exited his vehicle and headed toward the T, he looked to his right to see where TM had gone, but he couldn't locate him.

Then he walked to RVC, got an address, reversed course and headed toward the T, where TM jumped him.

Clear now?

Let's try again.

Zimmerman sees Martin by Taaffe's house as he's driving up RVC, keeps going around the curve and pulls in or over at the clubhouse, at which point Martin reappears and walks past the truck.

Does Martin then disappear from view while Zimmerman is still parked, or can Zimmmerman see him walk along, turn right on TTL and then left and go east all the way to the vicinity of the "T" before disappearing from sight?

And does Zimmerman move the truck to TTL while Martin is still visible before getting to the "T"?

Is the clubhouse the only place where Martin is not as far east as the truck and passes it heading east without circling it?

Cause I'm still having a lot of trouble making what he said later fit the phone call, and I'm hoping someone understands it better than do I.
Title: No Address
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 01:07:59 AM
Then he walked to RVC, got an address

Zimmerman never claimed to have gotten the address. In his narrative, he seemed to lose interest in the address at the very moment it came within reach.
Title: Re: No Address
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 02:22:07 AM
Zimmerman never claimed to have gotten the address. In his narrative, he seemed to lose interest in the address at the very moment it came within reach.

Doesn't that just drive you nuts?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 08, 2012, 07:02:43 AM
Have you checked that against the time it takes Sgt. Smith to do it in the reenactment?

I have not, but that's a good idea.  In the transcript there are about 11 seconds between when he says "these assholes..." and when he begins giving different directions to the dispatcher.  Unfortunately I am at the office today and they are blocking access to the reenactment video so I will have to wait until I get home to see if it takes 11 seconds or less for Smith to move from the clubhouse to the spot on TTL.  Of course, that's assuming he is parked at the time he begins giving new directions, so not sure if that's an accurate measure.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 11:25:56 AM
Try to keep up. Z was going to the store.  As he rounded the turn on RVC to turn left at the gate, he spotted Trayvon.  He drove past him.  Then Trayvon walked past his car, looking at him as he went by, and disappeared between two houses.  Then Z moved his car over onto TTL and parked.  Suddenly TM re-emerged out of the shadows and circled his car.  Then he ran down the sidewalk and turned right on the T.  At that point Z lost him again.  As he exited his vehicle and headed toward the T, he looked to his right to see where TM had gone, but he couldn't locate him.

Then he walked to RVC, got an address, reversed course and headed toward the T, where TM jumped him.

Clear now?

This is what I understood Z stated.  What I don't get is the timing and dispatcher requests claimed by Z.
-----
A)
Z spotted and passed TM by FT's house.  He calls NEN and, as he states in the reenactment, as he connected with dispatcher, he parked to the front of the clubhouse. 
It took 42sec in the reenactment to go from FT's to the parking spot at the clubhouse. 
At typical walking speed, and TM was walking at typical to fast speed judging from the 7-11 videos, it takes about 1m & 44sec to swallow the same distance.  So, TM would catch up with Z at about 1min in the  NEN call.
This is about right as Z notices TM 42sec in his call and says "Now, he's coming toward me" at the 1:03 mark.  When pressed by Singleton on Feb. 29th, Z stressed that he was still in front of the clubhouse 1min in his call.  So again, it fits well his narrative.
The "now" suggests TM stopped walking as he was staring at Z.  So, at ~1min TM still is 20sec away from Z's Ridgeline.   Meaning he would pass by Z at ~1:20 in the NEN call. This is about when Z says "Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.  He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.".  This sounds very consistent at this point.
----
B)
Z clearly says in the reenactment that TM walked by him while he was on the phone and made a right turn on TTL after what he lost sight on him. 
This is when, according to Z, Dispatcher would have asked Z to move to a place where he would see TM.
##
That  leads to the 1st remark: I can't pin point in the NEN call when Dispatcher made that requested.
##
In any case, TM must have turned right on TTL and disappeared at or after the 1:20 mark in the NEN call.
----
C)
Still pressed by Singleton on Feb. 29th, Z points to the background noise at 1:41 in his NEN call as the time he was parking on TTL. 
So, it took ~21sec for Z to tell Dispatcher about loosing TM, get Dispatcher's request that I can' find, back off the parking spot, drive to the cut through on TTL and park.  In the reenactment, just the driving part took 38sec. 
##
2nd remark: Time looks short for Z to go from the clubhouse to the cut through on TTL
##
---
D)
In the reenactment Z states that as he parked, he could see TM disappears in the darkness turning south at the T after noticing him.
To get to the T from the clubhouse, TM had to walk a distance of roughly 400ft.
Following Z's statement, TM would have traveled the 400ft in roughly 21sec.
##
3rd remark: According to Z, TM must have traveled on foot at ~13MPH from the clubhouse to the T.
##
---
E)
T reemerges from the darkness to circle Z's Ridgeline.
##
4th remark: The circling is missing in the Feb. 29th interview when Z is asked to match his story to his NEN call.  At least, i can't pinpoint it.
##
In the reenactment, Z explains that a saw TM coming back from the T, walking to his truck, and circling it before running to disappear again at the T.
In his NEN cal Z says "sh*t! He's running" at the 2:07 mark.  So, the walking-to-circling must have happen between the 1:41 & 2:07 marks.
In that period, Z talks about how to find his truck from the north gate.
##
5th remark: The circling is absent of the NEN call. It sounds like a pretty significant event, though.
##
Walking from the T and circling the truck covers roughly 250ft (including circling the truck).  TM would have traveled ~250ft in ~26sec at a speed of ~9.6ft/sec. The average walking speed is 4.4ft/sec.
##
6th remark: TM was not running yet but managed to move at ~9.6ft/sec.
##
---
E)
Z states that after TM disappeared, Dispatcher demanded the address he was parked at.  So, he exited his truck to find that address.
##
7th remark: On the NEN call, Z is already out of his truck when dispatcher asks for an address.
##
Once he exited his truck, wind interference can be heard on the call.  Dispatcher thinks Z is running after the suspect.  Serino & Singleton think the same on Feb. 29th and press Z for an answer to whether he was running.  Z claims he was not running and that the weather was windy.
Two weather stations, one 1.5Mi east of RATL & one 0.75 SSW of RATL show the weather was not windy.  It was even not breezy.  It was just calm but rainy.
The weather stations also show that whatever slow wind there was, it's general direction was East or North-East meaning that probably Z should have have the wind blowing in his back.
Wind is measured 50ft-70ft above ground where it is faster.
The M&I Bank video located confirms the rain and the absence of wind (no visible rain angle).
##
8th remark: There was a very local wind at the cut through on TTL
##
Z states he exited his truck to walk to RVC where he could give an address to Dispatcher.
However, he never give that address.  I don't get the reasoning behind looking for an address away from where he is parked.  It would have been easier for him to drive to a place he knows like any of the tow gates.
##
9th remark: I can't find when in the NEN call he tells Dispatcher
10th remark: I don't have the reasoning for going on foot looking for an address on RVC while parked on TTL.
##
---
F)
Z claims he is at the RVC end of the dog walk when he ends his NEN call by agreeing to meet at his truck.
However, at the 3:49 mark of his call, he suddenly interrupts Dispatcher who was confirming the meeting at the mailboxes and asks to be called instead.
##
11th remark: Z sounds like he changed his mind about meeting at the mailboxes.
##
---
G)
Z claims he walked back to his truck right after ending his NEN call and was attacked by TM 100ft from RVC.
The NEN call ends at 7:13:39 and the first 911 call by W11 starts at 7:16:11.  W11 claims she promptly called 911 after she heard the argument turning into cryings. 
Z claims there barely was no argument: 1) TM confronted him with "Do you have a problem/".  2) Z answered with  "I don't have a problem", 3) Z looked for his cellphone, 4) TM replied "You have  a problem now".  ad punched Z in the nose. 
##
12th remark: There is a 2min & 32sec gap that is not accounted for.
##
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on August 08, 2012, 11:47:44 AM
Several times in various interviews and the reenactment I've noticed George get something out of order, or get ahead of himself trying to explain something.  I think George did the same with Singleton, and that he actually connected with NEN a bit later than he thought when trying to match that up with Singleton, causing him to effectively have to "squeeze" more events into the time period than there really was.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 12:06:04 PM
Several times in various interviews and the reenactment I've noticed George get something out of order, or get ahead of himself trying to explain something.  I think George did the same with Singleton, and that he actually connected with NEN a bit later than he thought when trying to match that up with Singleton, causing him to effectively have to "squeeze" more events into the time period than there really was.

That's understandable.  Thanks.

I still have some troubles though:

Could you pin point in the NEN call at what moment Dispatcher Sean asks Z to drive to somewhere he could see the suspect? 

If you cannot pin it, according to you, at about what moment in the NEN call Z would have to pulled off the clubhouse to drive to TTL?

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 08, 2012, 12:33:01 PM
The dispatcher gave GZ similiar directions in z's previous call to the NEN. That may have influenced his actions  on 2/26, or it may have influenced his story.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 12:40:36 PM
Could you pin point in the NEN call at what moment Dispatcher Sean asks Z to drive to somewhere he could see the suspect?

Never happened.

Everyone familiar with the call agrees on that.

Those who want to defend Zimmerman on this point say it's his interpretation or misrecollection of one or two things the dispatcher did say. These are 'Just let me know if this guy does anything else' (1:31), and 'Which way is he running?' (2:08).

Quote
If you cannot pin it, according to you, at about what moment in the NEN call Z would have to pulled off the clubhouse to drive to TTL?

I assume Zimmerman parked on TTL as or before he said 'Yeah, now he's coming towards me' (0:58). If he made the drive in 32 seconds, 10 seconds less that Sgt. Smith took, he would have to be starting to back out of the lot around 'is he white, black, or Hispanic?' (0:26).

I consider that an implausible upper limit. Zimmerman probably started moving from the lot earlier, possibly before the call began recording, if he was there at all. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2094.msg100315.html#msg100315)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 02:43:20 PM
Those who are new here, if not new to the study of the case, should understand that for Zimmerman words like 'near' and 'now' have a large plus/minus factor.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 08, 2012, 02:56:04 PM
I consider that an implausible upper limit. Zimmerman probably started moving from the lot earlier, possibly before the call began recording, if he was there at all.


I hear none of the car noises others hear.
I hear him put his car in park but nothing else.
I think he was parked during the call.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: FromBelow on August 08, 2012, 03:07:44 PM
Those who are new here, if not new to the study of the case, should understand that for Zimmerman words like 'near' and 'now' have a large plus/minus factor.

They do for most people. As I've said before people aren't precise in their language. For example you used the word new. Does that mean within the past minute, hour, day, week? And what is a "large plus/minus factor"? How large is large?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 03:16:06 PM
Never happened.
Everyone familiar with the call agrees on that.

I agree. 
The conclusion is then that GZ took upon himself the decision to following TM from the clubhouse to the cut through on TTL in the night under the rain. 
That's no good for GZ's case?   

Those who want to defend Zimmerman on this point say it's his interpretation or misrecollection of one or two things the dispatcher did say. These are 'Just let me know if this guy does anything else' (1:31), and 'Which way is he running?' (2:08).

That doesn't help the timing issues I was pointing at in my original post. 
If GZ was asked to move to TTL to check on TM past 1:31, he could only park on TTL to see TM running away at 2:07 before he even circled his truck.  That make no sense.

I assume Zimmerman parked on TTL as or before he said 'Yeah, now he's coming towards me' (0:58). If he made the drive in 32 seconds, 10 seconds less that Sgt. Smith took, he would have to be starting to back out of the lot around 'is he white, black, or Hispanic?' (0:26).

That makes no sense at all because it means that, while driving from the clubhouse to TTL, GZ was saying things like "He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]" or "Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]", or mumbling "He’s at the [clubhouse|???-??ance].[00:53]"

Moreover the "Yeah" in the sentence you believe he said when parking ("Yeah, now he's coming towards me' [0:58]"), is an answer to the Sean's question "He’s near the clubhouse right now?". GZ said clearly that while parking he saw TM at the T not at the clubhouse.


I consider that an implausible upper limit. Zimmerman probably started moving from the lot earlier, possibly before the call began recording, if he was there at all. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2094.msg100315.html#msg100315)

I think the main conclusion then is that GZ took upon himself to follow the kid in the night under the rain.  That's not good for him.  What do you guys think?

After all, in the first two statement he made (1st Singleton interview & written statement), GZ did not state that he parked one place and then he parked at a second place upon request.  He stated then that he spotted a suspect individual, pulled over, called NEN, was circled by the suspect, ... 
If he decided himself to follow TM and said that Dispatcher demanded him to follow TM, does it constitute a lie under oath?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on August 08, 2012, 03:33:01 PM
Don't have time to address the full post but I'll chip at this part and answer the rest later if someone else hasn't already beaten me to it like last time. =)

I think the main conclusion then is that GZ took upon himself to follow the kid in the night under the rain.  That's not good for him.  What do you guys think?

It's not bad for him either.  The following has no legal relevance to the moment that GZ fired the weapon in self defense.  Nothing on the NEN call is contemporaneous with the encounter and so has no relevance on the self defense claim.

The most relevance it could really have is if the judgement comes down from the finder of fact that GZ didn't act in self defense, then the finder of fact can start looking if the State meets it's burden of proving a depraved mind; ill-will, malice, or spite.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 08, 2012, 03:36:42 PM

I think the main conclusion then is that GZ took upon himself to follow the kid in the night under the rain.  That's not good for him.  What do you guys think?

After all, in the first two statement he made (1st Singleton interview & written statement), GZ did not state that he parked one place and then he parked at a second place upon request.  He stated then that he spotted a suspect individual, pulled over, called NEN, was circled by the suspect, ... 
If he decided himself to follow TM and said that Dispatcher demanded him to follow TM, does it constitute a lie under oath?

What are you even saying? He didn't take it upon himself. The NEN operator asked that he keep him in sight, so he tried, then the operator said we don't need you to do that and GZ said okay and by all accounts stopped and was heading back to his vehicle.

As to the rest of the gibberish--why are you even mentioning lying under oath? None of that happened. So why bring it up?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 08, 2012, 03:37:06 PM
The most relevance it could really have is if the judgement comes down from the finder of fact that GZ didn't act in self defense, then the finder of fact can start looking if the State meets it's burden of proving a depraved mind; ill-will, malice, or spite.
Kyreth,
How likely is that?
Can the state prove that?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 04:18:09 PM
The dispatcher gave GZ similiar directions in z's previous call to the NEN.

She did not. Zimmerman made that up too.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 04:29:29 PM
What are you even saying? He didn't take it upon himself. The NEN operator asked that he keep him in sight, so he tried, then the operator said we don't need you to do that and GZ said okay and by all accounts stopped and was heading back to his vehicle.

As to the rest of the gibberish--why are you even mentioning lying under oath? None of that happened. So why bring it up?

In my original post (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg100389.html#msg100389) I raised my concern about matching GZ's narrative to his NEN call particularly timing and Sean request.
So, I have made 12 honest remarks for which I hope to get answers.

One of the remarks was about GZ's claim that Sean demanded him to move from his parking spot at the clubhouse to where he could see the suspect.
I've got a reply to that remark which to sum it up is that it never happened.  To put it differently, Sean never asked GZ to move his car.  And, I tend to agree with that as after listening to the tape again and again, I could not point to the sentence Sean said that would imply that GZ has to move to TTL.

Another remark I was making is that timing looks impossible for the whole narrative from the clubhouse to the moment TM  runs.  I just take a map measure distances and compare it to the NEN call and GZ's narrative. 
For example, I was saying that it took 38sec in the reenactment to pull off the clubhouse and drive to the cut through on TTL.  Moreover, GZ was very clear that 1min in his call, he was still at the clubhouse while TM was still walking towards him.   That puts the timing of everything else until TM runs in less than 1min.  That means TM still has to pass GZ's truck, walk to the T, disappear reappear, circle GZ's truck, to finally run away.  You put that on the map and the only conclusion I see is that it is physically impossible.
The reply I got was going in that direction too.  but, it justified the timing issue by GZ being confused and having in fact pulled from the clubhouse earlier in the NEN call giving more time to TM do do all he did according to GZ.

I still see an issue with the proposed time as it would place TM at the clubhouse when GZ was parking on TTL while in GZ's statement TM was at the T.

In any case, the core of my concerns are:
1) If Sean never asked GZ to follow TM, the GZ took upon himself to do it.  The kid didn't know GZ, it was night and it was rainy.  So, is it a problem for GZ's self-defense claim?
2) If GZ justified to police his following of TM by stating that Sean told him so while Sean never did, is that a lie?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 08, 2012, 04:43:41 PM
I agree. 
The conclusion is then that GZ took upon himself the decision to following TM from the clubhouse to the cut through on TTL in the night under the rain. 
That's no good for GZ's case?   

That doesn't help the timing issues I was pointing at in my original post. 
If GZ was asked to move to TTL to check on TM past 1:31, he could only park on TTL to see TM running away at 2:07 before he even circled his truck.  That make no sense.

That makes no sense at all because it means that, while driving from the clubhouse to TTL, GZ was saying things like "He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]" or "Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]", or mumbling "He’s at the [clubhouse|???-??ance].[00:53]"

Moreover the "Yeah" in the sentence you believe he said when parking ("Yeah, now he's coming towards me' [0:58]"), is an answer to the Sean's question "He’s near the clubhouse right now?". GZ said clearly that while parking he saw TM at the T not at the clubhouse.


I think the main conclusion then is that GZ took upon himself to follow the kid in the night under the rain.  That's not good for him.  What do you guys think?

After all, in the first two statement he made (1st Singleton interview & written statement), GZ did not state that he parked one place and then he parked at a second place upon request.  He stated then that he spotted a suspect individual, pulled over, called NEN, was circled by the suspect, ... 
If he decided himself to follow TM and said that Dispatcher demanded him to follow TM, does it constitute a lie under oath?

Because you have only approximate placements, how can you be accurate in your determinations?  It seems to me, and Dog knows I am not a mathematician,  you would need to know exact locations or it will be off.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 04:55:07 PM
What are you even saying? He didn't take it upon himself. The NEN operator asked that he keep him in sight, so he tried, then the operator said we don't need you to do that and GZ said okay and by all accounts stopped and was heading back to his vehicle.

As to the rest of the gibberish--why are you even mentioning lying under oath? None of that happened. So why bring it up?

The dispatcher never says to watch him or keep an eye on him or keep track of where he goes in any way that implies that Zimmerman needs to do anything other than watch from his then current position.

He says "Just let me know if he does anything, okay?" and "Just let me know if this guy does anything else." and asks "He's running? Which way is he running?" and "Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?".

If Zimmerman said "He ran toward the back entrance and went out of sight", then that would have fullfilled all of the dispatcher's requests.

A dispatcher IS NOT going to direct a civilian to follow a subject or maintain surveillance in a way that requires following because that's a good way to get a civilian killed, either by the subject or by a responding officer who doesn't know which one is which, and to get the city sued for millions.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 04:55:25 PM
... How large is large?

You tell me.

How far away in feet could Martin have been from the clubhouse and it still be reasonable for Zimmerman to agree that he was, at the moment of agreeing, "near" the clubhouse?

What is the magic radius beyond which it would no longer be considered reasonable to refer to him as being "near" the clubhouse?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 04:55:41 PM
My latest attempt to figure this out has Zimmerman already on TTL and Martin already disappeared behind 1211 and reappeared when Zimmerman says "Now he's just staring at me.", and then the coming back and circling of the truck happens, even though Zimmerman follows that by answering in the affirmative when the dispatcher asks "...he's near the clubhouse right now?".

It's a little puzzling that the description of Martin coming towards him with a button on his shirt and his hands in his pants doesn't continue with any mention of him continuing on past the truck and back around towards its front, but instead Zimmerman digresses into giving directions, although the distractedness during that could, I suppose, be because he's trying to keep his head on a swivel as Martin does the 360.

Perhaps all the noises during that part are him locking the doors and running up the windows to keep Martin from getting to him.

He must have already been parked on TTL before the dispatcher came on the line.

I'm still having trouble with the notion that just as Martin runs back the second and last time into the darkness behind 1211 Zimmerman suddenly decides he needs to get out of his truck and proceed on foot in the dark and the rain over to RVC to get an address where his truck isn't, instead of just driving around to that same spot which would put his truck where the address he thinks he needs to get is.

In the re-enactment, Zimmerman gets to the end of the "cut-through" and is talking about getting an address at which to meet the police and starts talking about the dispatcher asking if he still wants a cop out there and if he still wants to meet up with him, and he says yes (and this is the last we hear about that all important address), and goes off into saying he told the dispatcher to have the cop meet him at his truck and that it's a silver Honda Ridgeline.

He may have said something about the truck when the dispatcher talked over him but on the recording of the call he agrees to meet at the mailboxes and then changes his mind and asks to be called when they get there.

He may have had some notion of getting an RVC address when he left the truck, but I don't think it was as uppermost in his mind as he seems later to think that it was.

I suppose one can match up the call with his later recollections, but I have to go through a lot of mental gymnastics and acrobatics to re-interpret the call differently from what it sounds like on first hearing to make it all work.

I'll be very curious to hear how Mr. O'Mara goes about explaining to a jury how they need to go about interpreting what they hear on that call in a way that's other than what they might have done if given no information other than the call.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 05:06:26 PM
In any case, the core of my concerns are:
1) If Sean never asked GZ to follow TM, the GZ took upon himself to do it.  The kid didn't know GZ, it was night and it was rainy.  So, is it a problem for GZ's self-defense claim?
2) If GZ justified to police his following of TM by stating that Sean told him so while Sean never did, is that a lie?
The answer to question 1 is no.  There is no law against following someone except for stalking laws which require repeated and persistent following.  Since he wasn't doing anything illegal, his right to self defense remains.

The answer to 2 I can't answer because I don't know what you're referring to.  I've posted almost all the transcripts in the transcript section.  Would you please quote the section you're referring to and identify which transcript it comes from?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 08, 2012, 05:08:18 PM
The dispatcher never says to watch him or keep an eye on him or keep track of where he goes in any way that implies that Zimmerman needs to do anything other than watch from his then current position.

He says "Just let me know if he does anything, okay?" and "Just let me know if this guy does anything else." and asks "He's running? Which way is he running?" and "Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?".

If Zimmerman said "He ran toward the back entrance and went out of sight", then that would have fullfilled all of the dispatcher's requests.

A dispatcher IS NOT going to direct a civilian to follow a subject or maintain surveillance in a way that requires following because that's a good way to get a civilian killed, either by the subject or by a responding officer who doesn't know which one is which, and to get the city sued for millions.

Technically you're right, yes. I was sloppy.

Of course, to most people things like "let me know if he does anything okay" does in fact sound like "keep an eye on him".

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 05:15:25 PM
That makes no sense at all because it means that, while driving from the clubhouse to TTL, GZ was saying things like "He’s here now … he’s just staring. [00:42]" or "Now he’s staring at me. [00:48]",

You're right. Thanks for pointing that out.

It's an excellent point.

The duration of the drive from the parking lot to the claimed parking spot on TTL is mostly taken up by backing out of the lot and making the turns. The drive east on TTL only takes a few seconds. I was neglecting that when I made that estimate. I'll do it over.

Quote
or mumbling "He’s at the [clubhouse|???-??ance].[00:53]"

That's the biggest hole in Zimmerman's story, and the biggest mystery in the whole business. Some people insist that it's nothing, with no explanation that I can understand.

If Zimmerman was telling the truth about Martin approaching the truck from the clubhouse, he cannot be telling the truth about him doing it from the cut-through.

In the previous comment, I left that aside and assumed the cut-through version.

Quote

If he decided himself to follow TM and said that Dispatcher demanded him to follow TM, does it constitute a lie under oath?

Zimmerman wasn't under oath when the SPD took his statements.

When the FDLE/SAO interviewed witnesses they swore them in. The SPD didn't.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: FromBelow on August 08, 2012, 05:18:20 PM
Technically you're right, yes. I was sloppy.

Of course, to most people things like "let me know if he does anything okay" does in fact sound like "keep an eye on him".

Also, to most people things like "He's running? Which way is he running?" and "Which entrance is that that he's heading towards?" does sound like "I want to know where he went". Something GZ could only find out by getting out to look. Again, I'm not sure why it matters. It's not illegal for GZ to get out of his truck or even follow TM. Hell, AFAIK it's not even illegal for GZ to chase after TM in order to ask him a question.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 08, 2012, 05:23:52 PM
None of Tchoupi's calculations are fact. They are his own, based on his interpretation of what he hears on selected portions of the non-emergency call and in interviews.

Where did GZ ever claim GZ's the dispatcher "demanded him to move from his parking spot at the clubhouse to where he could see the suspect."

In Singleton's interview -- the first that night -- he says the dispatcher asked what direction TM had run and for the address GZ was at.

In the video recreation, which is the next day, he says:

Quote
Then the dispatcher said where did he go, what direction did he go in and I said I don't know I Iost ...because he cut down here and made a right. I guess its Twin Trees Lane and made a right in there. And they said well what direction did he go in and I said I don't know, I can't see him. And they said can you get to somewhere where you can see him. And I said Yeah, I can. So I backed out

That's hardly a demand, and that it's not on the 911 call is hardly a lie by Zimmerman. It's his mis-recollection and considering how many times he repeated consistently they asked him which direction TM had gone and where he (GZ) was located, it's a pretty minor mis-remembrance. It's what he thought the dispatcher wanted him to do when asking him "Which direction did he go?" He went to find out.

This also doesn't refute that the encounter took place like he said it did and where he said it did.

It's hard to respond to comments that misstate the facts with emotionally laden terms or accusations, or  ask us to assume calculations  are valid when they are based on subjective and speculative interpretations of calls and interviews by a person who continually asserts GZ is guilty.

Tchoupi is a principal author at a very anti-Zimmerman website.  Minute calculations of time and space, like Willis used to do here before being banned, are not helpful when they are not based on facts but suppositions.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 05:58:34 PM

It's also in the interview preceding the voice stress test.

2/27V,  (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/statements/video_interview_cvsa_0227.asf)26:42-27:02, 6:45:19-39

Quote
As I was on the phone with the non-emergency line, he walked past my car, and I lost visual contact of him. The operator asked me if I could get to somewhere where I could see, or at least give them a direction of where he was headed.

I agree that this is a 'request', not a 'demand', but in context that seems like hair-splitting to me. The point is that Zimmerman made up something that didn't happen.

He seems to have done it to transfer agency and responsibility from himself to another.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 06:06:45 PM
That's hardly a demand, and that it's not on the 911 call is hardly a lie by Zimmerman. It's his mis-recollection

That's a supposition.

We know Zimmerman said something untrue, that he alleged an event that did not happen. Whether he believed it himself we can only speculate.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 06:13:47 PM
Here's my attempt at making sense of the call.  From police interviews we know that GZ drove up RVC from his condo toward the entrance on his way to Target.  When he passed Frank Taafe's house, he saw TM coming through the shortcut in the rain.  His behavior was suspicious to GZ, so he made a mental note of his location, behavior and clothing, turned the corner, pulled in at the clubhouse and called the NEN.  During the time he was doing that TM was proceeding on his way home.

In the recording he says
Quote
0:48 Zimmerman: And now he’s just staring at me.
  At this point he obviously sees TM in his rear view mirror walking toward him.  So it took 48 seconds from the start of the call before TM shows up in GZ's range of vision.  How long it took for GZ to turn the corner, pull in and call the NEN is anybody's guess.  Maybe one of you mathematicians can figure it out.

Then comes this:
Quote
0:57 Dispatcher: Do you know what the…he’s near the clubhouse right now?

0:58 Zimmerman: Yeah.  Now he’s comin towards me.
So TM is walking in the general direction of the route to his residence, probably on RVC.  (Unless he goes behind the condos on RVC, he has to walk down the street past the clubhouse.  But then he wouldn't have passed within "a car length" of GZ's truck.)

Next comes this:
Quote
1:01 (sound of gear selector)

1:03 Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband.

1:06 (sound of gear selector)

Zimmerman: And he’s a black male.

1:10 (sound of gear selector)

1:10 Dispatcher: OK.  How old would you say he

1:11 Zimmerman: He’s got

1:12 Dispatcher: looks?

1:13 Zimmerman: a button on his shirt.  Late teens.

1:14 Dispatcher: Late teens.  OK.

1:16 Zimmerman: Um hum.

1:16 (sound of gear selector)

1:17 Zimmerman: Sumpin’s wrong with him.  Yup.  He’s comin’ to check me out. He’s got sumpin in his hands.  I don’t know what his deal is.

1:27 Dispatcher: OK, just let me know

1:28 Zimmerman: Please get an officer

1:29 Dispatcher: if he does anything…1

1:30 Zimmerman: over here.

1:32 Dispatcher: Yeah, we got em on the way.  Just let me know if this guy does anything else.
I could be wrong about the gear selector sounds.  They could be door locks or windows being rolled up.

GZ told Serino they weren't.
Quote
Zimmerman: I, I , I, it was raining, so I had my windows up, and I was on the phone, I didn’t…
but he told Singleton they were.
Quote
Zimmerman: I couldn’t hear him. My windows were up.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: As soon as I saw him coming up I rolled up my windows and I stayed on the phone with dispatch.
Singleton: OK. He,..your car was running?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.

So maybe the first sound is door locks and the 2nd is the gear selector, but I think GZ is moving by 1:10 or 1:16 at least.

He gets out of his car at 2:10, so he has 1:22 from the time he first spots TM coming toward him and the time he is parked at TTL and exiting his vehicle.  That's more than the 45 seconds it took the police to recreate the movement, so any time within there could be the time when he was moving.

At 2:10 GZ reports TM running down the T.
Quote
2:10 (door opens, sound of door alarm)

2:10 Zimmerman: Ah, down towards the, ah, other entrance of the neighborhood.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 06:19:03 PM
When he passed Frank Taafe's house, he saw TM coming through the shortcut in the rain.

Zimmerman said he saw Martin in front of the house. In the reenactment he pointed out the location where he saw him.

Zimmerman never said anything to SPD about seeing how Martin came into the neighborhood, or seeing him between 1460 and 1510.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 06:27:27 PM
He described an incident prior to this one where a guy was looking into a house and he called the NEN.  When the police arrived, they found the house was unsecured; doors and windows unlocked, garage door open.  Who's house was that?  Because that's the same house where he saw TM.

From the 1st Singleton tape:
Quote
Zimmerman: Um, and this time I was leaving to go to the grocery store and, like I said, I saw him, um, walking in the neighborhood the same, in front of the same house that I had called the police before to come to because this guy leaves his doors unlocked and stuff. And he was walking leisurely and looking at the houses, and, um, so I just pulled my car to the side and I called the non emergency line, um
From the 1st Serino tape on 2/29:
Quote
Zimmerman: Well, um, 2 or 3 weeks prior to that I’d seen somebody looking in the window of the house that he was in front of.
Serino: Was he white or black?
Zimmerman: Black.
Serino: OK.
Zimmerman: And the guy that lives there I know, he’s active in the neighborhood watch and he’s Caucasian.
Serino: OK.
Zimmerman: The guy, ah, the suspicious looking guy, went up to the house, I was walking my dog around the neighborhood, and he walked up to the house, and he was smoking. No, I’m sorry, he wasn’t smoking at that time. He turned around and he saw me walking my dog, so he lit a cigarette and leaned up against the wall, pretending like he lived there.
Serino: Mm hmm.
Zimmerman: And, ah, so I walked past him and I called non-emergency, and, ah, I got under a streetlight, and they asked me if I could see where he went, where he went inside the house and I said, no. And they said,  can you get to where you can see and I said, I really don’t want to move closer. Um, oh, and they needed the address. And I don’t know why, adrenalin was rushing, a thousand things went through my mind. I gave them what I thought was my address
Serino: Um hm.
Zimmerman: further down, the 1900 building instead of the 1400. And, ah, when I walked to see the address, I saw the end of the house, and he was at the side of the house looking in the window. He either threw or spit his, he looked at me and threw or spit his cigarette out and then ran around the back. So I told non-emergency, I think it was still non-emergency at that time, that, you know I don’t know where you guys are coming from
Serino: Um hum.
Zimmerman: but he’s around back. And, ah, I don’t know where he went. And, um, I stayed in front of the house where the street light was. And I waited and I waited and I waited and then it hit me, the police came and drove past me. And then is when it hit me that I gave them what I thought was my address instead of that address. So I called back and I said, you know, um, the correct address. The police officer came back. I didn’t even see, cause the house was completely dark
Serino: Um hum.
Zimmerman: the window was open. So, and the front door was un, the police later told me that the front door was unlocked. All the windows were open in the house. And, ah, the front door was unlocked, the garage was open. Um, so they went in, they cleared the house. Oh, they asked me for the owner’s name and phone number. And then they asked me for permission to go inside the house, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Then the next week, not at that building but at the next building, on the end unit, the s, the guy I saw, broke in, apparently stole a laptop from what I understand. Ran off, but one of the maintenance guys saw him and was able to give the police a direction of where he was going…
Serino: Um hum.
Zimmerman: And he was actually arrested. Um, so when I saw him in the same area, in front of the guy’s house, that I know’s, that they keep it unsecured, and he was looking into the house. I just thought something doesn’t fit right here.
Serino: And this is, but this, but this is the one prior to this one, right?
Zimmerman: No, no, this is, I’m sorry, that’s why I felt he
Serino: OK
Zimmerman:  was suspicious.
Serino: OK. OK. What did you see Trayvon doing that caught you as being suspicious?
Zimmerman: He was looking at the house intently and then…
Serino: What, the same house?
Zimmerman: The same house that, yeah, that I had called about before.
So whose house is he referring to?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 08, 2012, 06:32:15 PM
I will throw an observation...

I think he is calling NEN while paused in front of the clubhouse.  I don't think he got through to them until after he is on Twin Trees.

I read something in one of the interviews with Singleton that struck me that way but I am not home to get unlimited access to my computer.  All IMO.  I will look for it when I get home in a couple of hours...
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 06:39:31 PM
So whose house is he referring to?

Frank Taaffe's.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 06:42:37 PM
Frank Taaffe's.
Isn't Taafe's house 1460 RVC?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 08, 2012, 06:49:06 PM
I will throw an observation...

I think he is calling NEN while paused in front of the clubhouse.  I don't think he got through to them until after he is on Twin Trees.

I read something in one of the interviews with Singleton that struck me that way but I am not home to get unlimited access to my computer.  All IMO.  I will look for it when I get home in a couple of hours...

Quote
Singleton: OK, and then he’s behind you? He’s still over here, correct…
Zimmerman: I…
Singleton: Cause you pass him…
Zimmerman: Right.
Singleton: OK, you pass him and this is where he’s looking in the houses, OK. And then…where do you go when you realize…you said he comes and he circles your car?
Zimmerman: No, ma’am. I lost contact of him as I was trying to get through cause you have to…
Singleton: So does he continue past you? Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.

Why can't interviewers let people finish what they're saying?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 06:52:15 PM
None of Tchoupi's calculations are fact. They are his own, based on his interpretation of what he hears on selected portions of the non-emergency call and in interviews.

Where did GZ ever claim GZ's the dispatcher "demanded him to move from his parking spot at the clubhouse to where he could see the suspect."

In Singleton's interview -- the first that night -- he says the dispatcher asked what direction TM had run and for the address GZ was at.

In the video recreation, which is the next day, he says:

That's hardly a demand, and that it's not on the 911 call is hardly a lie by Zimmerman. It's his mis-recollection and considering how many times he repeated consistently they asked him which direction TM had gone and where he (GZ) was located, it's a pretty minor mis-remembrance. It's what he thought the dispatcher wanted him to do when asking him "Which direction did he go?" He went to find out.

This also doesn't refute that the encounter took place like he said it did and where he said it did.

It's hard to respond to comments that misstate the facts with emotionally laden terms or accusations, or  ask us to assume calculations  are valid when they are based on subjective and speculative interpretations of calls and interviews by a person who continually asserts GZ is guilty.

Tchoupi is a principal author at a very anti-Zimmerman website.  Minute calculations of time and space, like Willis used to do here before being banned, are not helpful when they are not based on facts but suppositions.


Thanks Talkleft,

I appreciate your return to my comments.  That said, I don't think you understood what I'm trying to do here.
When someone recounts a past event, his story has to match some physical realities. 
GZ has a narrative, and contrary to what you just stated, I perfectly know and understand that narrative.
My problem is that, I can't match it with some physical realities. 
There are two possibilities then: Either GZ's story is wrong, or I don't understand it.

I assumed that I don't understand story and I listed my remarks for people here to bring their comments.  I believe I've been successful in engaging a discussion with some people who are critical of my initial point of view.

The big lines of GZ's story are the following:
1) GZ goes shopping and spots TM at Taafe's.
2) GZ parks on RVC in front of the clubhouse at around the time he connects with Sean in his NEN call.
3) TM passes by GZ's truck and actually looks inside it before disappearing after a right turn on TTL.
4) On Sean request (not a demand indeed), GZ drives to TTL and parks at the cut through.
5) As he parks he sees TM at the T, going between houses.  Actually, TM notices GZ before disappearing.
6) TM comes back from the T to circle GZ's truck.
7) TM disappears again between houses after turning south from the T.
8) On Sean's request, TM exits his truck to find an address on RVC across the T.
9) Frustrated with Sean inability to understand him, he to go back to his truck after hanging up.
10) TM ambushes GZ by the T.

It is true that the part of GZ's story where he parks at the clubhouse and then drives from there to TTL to help Sean in his request for TM's location only appears after the 1st interview with Singleton and the written statement.  I made that very earlier comment in another post.  I tend to put that as an omission on GZ's.

So, the matter is the following, how do you match GZ's statement with the NEN call & the map?
I have made 12 remarks.  You may have the answer to some, most or all. 

I have had some returns concerning the 1st 2min of the NEN call.  This is important as it covers points 2 to 7 in the 10 points listed above. 

The fact is that, there's only so much you can do in 2min.  If you drive, walk or run, there is only so much distance you can travel in 2min. 
During those 2min, there are statements made that also should match GZ's narrative. As example:
[00:56] SEAN: "He’s near the clubhouse right now?"
[00:58]  GZ: "Yeah, now he’s coming toward me."
There are claims made by GZ about the discussion with Sean that we should find in the NEN call.  One example: "The operator asked me if I could get to somewhere where I could see, or at least give them a direction of where he was headed."


So, I beg you to tell me what I don't understand how to match at least those 2min of the NEN call with his statement at least in the bowl park of what is physically and humanly possible.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 06:56:16 PM
The phone call only refers to one instance of Martin going to "check out" Zimmerman, and Zimmerman relays it in the present tense.

After that he announces that Martin ran and we hear him get out of the truck, and supposedly the next time he was in a vehicle was the back of Smith's patrol car.

If Martin came and circled the truck while it was on TTL as Zimmerman subsequently claimed, then either that's the incident he's describing in the present tense on the phone call, or it happened before he parked on TTL and he described it in the present tense even though it had already occurred, and after hanging up he rushed back to his truck and Martin rushed out of hiding to circle him and they both rushed back to be behind the houses in order not to be late for the start of their physical encounter.

Or else the truck is a d*mned TARDIS.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 07:01:39 PM
I've updated the annotated transcript.  I listened to the audio at least 10 or 20 times, and I noticed there are four distinct sounds that are the same, kind of a "chunk chunk" sound.  I think that's the gear selector.  The other two sounds could be door locks and a window rolling up.  The "chunk chunk" sounds occur at 1:01, 1:16, 1:40 and 1:56 on the NEN recording.  At 2:10 GZ get's out of his car, so he had to have parked on TTL by that time.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 07:09:00 PM
The phone call only refers to one instance of Martin going to "check out" Zimmerman, and Zimmerman relays it in the present tense.

After that he announces that Martin ran and we hear him get out of the truck, and supposedly the next time he was in a vehicle was the back of Smith's patrol car.

If Martin came and circled the truck while it was on TTL as Zimmerman subsequently claimed, then either that's the incident he's describing in the present tense on the phone call, or it happened before he parked on TTL and he described it in the present tense even though it had already occurred, and after hanging up he rushed back to his truck and Martin rushed out of hiding to circle him and they both rushed back to be behind the houses in order not to be late for the start of their physical encounter.

Or else the truck is a d*mned TARDIS.
Here's the sequence of events on the NEN.
Quote
0:33 Zimmerman: Yeah, a, a dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes.  He’s here now and he’s just staring,

0:44Dispatcher: OK, he’s just walking around the area?

0:46 Zimmerman: looking at all the houses.

0:47 Dispatcher: OK.

0:48 Zimmerman: And now he’s just staring at me.

0:49 Dispatcher: OK.  It’s just it’s 1 1 1 1  Retreat View?  Or 111?

0:53 Zimmerman: That’s the, that’s the clubhouse (unintelligible)

0:55 Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse.

0:56 Zimmerman: (unintelligible)

0:57 Dispatcher: Do you know what the…he’s near the clubhouse right now?

0:58 Zimmerman: Yeah.  Now he’s comin towards me.

1:00 Dispatcher: OK.
1:01 (sound of gear selector)

1:03 Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband.

1:06 (sound of window rolling up?)

Zimmerman: And he’s a black male.

1:10 (sound of door locks?)

1:10 Dispatcher: OK.  How old would you say he

1:11 Zimmerman: He’s got

1:12 Dispatcher: looks?

1:13 Zimmerman: a button on his shirt.  Late teens.

1:14 Dispatcher: Late teens.  OK.

1:16 Zimmerman: Um hum.

1:16 (sound of gear selector)

1:17 Zimmerman: Sumpin’s wrong with him.  Yup.  He’s comin’ to check me out. He’s got sumpin in his hands.  I don’t know what his deal is.

1:27 Dispatcher: OK, just let me know

1:28 Zimmerman: Please get an officer

1:29 Dispatcher: if he does anything…1

1:30 Zimmerman: over here.

1:32 Dispatcher: Yeah, we got em on the way.  Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

1:34 Zimmerman: OK.  These assholes, they always get away.

1:40 (sound of gear selector)

1:44 Zimmerman: Yup.  When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and make a left.  Actually you would go past the clubhouse.
Note that the directions he's giving at 1:44 are to TTL, not the clubhouse.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 08, 2012, 07:09:07 PM

8.) On Sean's request, TM exits his truck to find an address on RVC across the T.
9.) Frustrated with Sean inability to understand him, he to go back to his truck after hanging up.
10) TM ambushes GZ by the T.
.

8.) Is incorrect. Zimmerman was asked for a location by dispatch. You are confusing the specific steps he took to meet that request with the general wording of the request itself.

9) That GZ was 'Frustrated with Sean inability to understand him' is your unique speculation not supported by fact

10) Correct. One outta three ain't too bad!
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 07:12:38 PM
I will throw an observation...

I think he is calling NEN while paused in front of the clubhouse.  I don't think he got through to them until after he is on Twin Trees.

I read something in one of the interviews with Singleton that struck me that way but I am not home to get unlimited access to my computer.  All IMO.  I will look for it when I get home in a couple of hours...

That's the most plausible hypothesis I've seen as it  doesn't requires TM to be moving as fast as a car. 

One conclusion is that Dispatcher Sean never asked GZ anything that would be interpreted as a request for driving to TTL to have a look on TM.  GZ made that call alone.

There is another point to be made here.
In the NEN call, we have:
[00:56] SEAN "He’s near the clubhouse right now?"
[00:58] GZ: "Yeah, now he’s coming towards me "
That strongly suggests that TM was still near the clubhouse when GZ was on the phone with Sean and parked on TTL.  So, if you're right GZ would have driven passed TM.  The story becomes: GZ passes TM by Taafee's, TM passes GZ by the clubhouse, GZ passes again TM while going parking on TTL.

I don't think that hypothesis work unless GZ is omitting significant stuff.  I believe it has to be more simple.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 08, 2012, 07:16:10 PM
1) If Sean never asked GZ to follow TM, the GZ took upon himself to do it.  The kid didn't know GZ, it was night and it was rainy.  So, is it a problem for GZ's self-defense claim?
2) If GZ justified to police his following of TM by stating that Sean told him so while Sean never did, is that a lie?

1 So you think Martin was justified assualting a stranger that during a previous period of time happened to be walking in the same direction?

2. Gee I thought GZ was very specifc that he was not following Treyvon after he received the " we don't need you to do that ". Indeed Martin was out of sight and presumably long gone at that point.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 08, 2012, 07:20:08 PM
  So, if you're right GZ would have driven passed TM.  The story becomes: GZ passes TM by Taafee's, TM passes GZ by the clubhouse, GZ passes again TM while going parking on TTL.

I don't think that hypothesis work unless GZ is omitting significant stuff.  I believe it has to be more simple.

Or if he is omitting insignificant details. Did anyone ask him to clarify your massive ommissions? Perhaps the SPD didn't find them probative either?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 07:25:36 PM
Here's the sequence of events on the NEN.Note that the directions he's giving at 1:44 are to TTL, not the clubhouse.

Yup, that's the biggest indication that GZ was parked on TTL by 1:44 in his NEN call.


What do you make of what was said just 50sec before? 
[00:56] SEAN: "He’s near the clubhouse right now?"
[1’00”] Audible windshield wiper.
[00:58] GZ: "Yeah, now he’s coming toward me."
Does it indicate that TM is near the clubhouse at [00:58] walking towards GZ?


What do you make of what was said just 20sec after?
[2’07”] GZ: "sh*t he’s running."
In GZ's narrative, this is after TM circled his truck.  Right?

So there are major milestones in the NEN call that we can relate to the narrative. What we need to do now is to place the 2 actors on the map and evaluate the distances traveled and the times of those travels.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 07:33:39 PM
The story becomes: GZ passes TM by Taafee's, TM passes GZ by the clubhouse, GZ passes again TM while going parking on TTL.

People always talk about Zimmerman 'following' Martin. It seems that they may have been playing leap-frog.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 07:58:55 PM
9) That GZ was 'Frustrated with Sean inability to understand him' is your unique speculation not supported by fact

Actually I borrowed that speculation from TalkLeft.  The wording may not be exact as I had not her post in front of me.  However, this is a shared understanding of GZ's mood at the end of his NEN call.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 08:00:30 PM
Quote
Here's the sequence of events on the NEN.Note that the directions he's giving at 1:44 are to TTL, not the clubhouse.
Yup, that's the biggest indication that GZ was parked on TTL by 1:44 in his NEN call.
No, it's not.  It's an indicator that he was either there or already on his way and describing how to get to where he was soon going to be.
Quote from: tchoupi
What do you make of what was said just 50sec before? 
[00:56] SEAN: "He’s near the clubhouse right now?"
[1’00”] Audible windshield wiper.
[00:58] GZ: "Yeah, now he’s coming toward me."
Does it indicate that TM is near the clubhouse at [00:58] walking towards GZ?
Yes, and it takes about 45 seconds to drive to where he parked on TTL.  So....
Quote from: tchoupi
What do you make of what was said just 20sec after?
[2’07”] GZ: "sh*t he’s running."
In GZ's narrative, this is after TM circled his truck.  Right?
Yes.
Quote from: tchoupi
So there are major milestones in the NEN call that we can relate to the narrative. What we need to do now is to place the 2 actors on the map and evaluate the distances traveled and the times of those travels.
OK.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 08, 2012, 08:26:29 PM
Quote from: Lousy1 on Today at 08:09:07 PM

Quote
9) That GZ was 'Frustrated with Sean['s] inability to understand him' is your unique speculation not supported by fact


Actually I borrowed that speculation from TalkLeft.  The wording may not be exact as I had not her post in front of me.  However, this is a shared understanding of GZ's mood at the end of his NEN call.

Jeralyn said:
Quote
He still wants an officer to come, he continues walking to RVC to get an exact address. Frustrated with the dispatcher not understanding his general location, he tells dispatcher to have police call when they get there, meaning  he'll explain his location to them. He says he doesn't know where Trayvon went. They hang up, he's walking back to his truck (where, when police call, he'll explain location) and gets to the west of the T when Trayvon confronts him out of nowhere.

I won't say you misrepresented what she said, but I do think that your version sounds as if Zimmerman is frustrated with Sean, whereas Jearlyn's version  is more neutral.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 08, 2012, 08:42:47 PM
Quote
Quote
9) That GZ was 'Frustrated with Sean['s] inability to understand him' is your unique speculation not supported by fact
Actually I borrowed that speculation from TalkLeft.  The wording may not be exact as I had not her post in front of me.  However, this is a shared understanding of GZ's mood at the end of his NEN call.

You are wrong.
Also wording is important as you are aware. Since George hadn't given a viable location any frustration would have been with circumstance.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 08, 2012, 08:44:15 PM
That's the most plausible hypothesis I've seen as it  doesn't requires TM to be moving as fast as a car. 

One conclusion is that Dispatcher Sean never asked GZ anything that would be interpreted as a request for driving to TTL to have a look on TM.  GZ made that call alone.

There is another point to be made here.
In the NEN call, we have:
[00:56] SEAN "He’s near the clubhouse right now?"
[00:58] GZ: "Yeah, now he’s coming towards me "
That strongly suggests that TM was still near the clubhouse when GZ was on the phone with Sean and parked on TTL.  So, if you're right GZ would have driven passed TM.  The story becomes: GZ passes TM by Taafee's, TM passes GZ by the clubhouse, GZ passes again TM while going parking on TTL.

I don't think that hypothesis work unless GZ is omitting significant stuff.  I believe it has to be more simple.

I don't understand why you think that GZ has to interpret anything the way you do.  I can see how he might misconstrue what the dispatcher was asking.  It is exactly how I read it.  Maybe it is just to literal for you.

And the directions he began giving the dispatcher had the patrol car entering the complex and turning left immediately onto RVC.  He had to correct it to go past the mailboxes on TTL then left to find his truck.  I think that is one of the reasons that the patrol car came to the scene on RVC instead of TTL.  They were following his initial directions and by then the 911 calls were coming in.

I was looking at the addresses for the 911 calls.  It would seem a majority of the early ones originated from TTL addresses.  If the patrol car was already on RVC, it would go to the Cutcher address since it was the first one on that street.  IIRC.

((crosses fingers that I have the order right))

Tchoupi, how do you account for the missing two minutes for Trayvon Martin?  He began running at the 2:08 (approx) and he was nowhere in GZ's sight by then end of the call roughly two minutes later.  So... what about him?

Frankly, everything that was happening in and around that clubhouse is just not that important to me.  The actual charged crime happened around that "T" and happened in the space of a minute or two. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 08:45:51 PM

Actually I borrowed that speculation from TalkLeft.  The wording may not be exact as I had not her post in front of me.  However, this is a shared understanding of GZ's mood at the end of his NEN call.


Jeralyn said:
I won't say you misrepresented what she said, but I do think that your version sounds as if Zimmerman is frustrated with Sean, whereas Jearlyn's version  is more neutral.



"Frustrated with the dispatcher not understanding his general location..."

"Frustrated with Sean inability to understand him..."

Oh, wow, you're right, the first one is totally over the top!

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 08, 2012, 08:51:34 PM
That's the most plausible hypothesis I've seen as it  doesn't requires TM to be moving as fast as a car. 

One conclusion is that Dispatcher Sean never asked GZ anything that would be interpreted as a request for driving to TTL to have a look on TM.  GZ made that call alone.

There is another point to be made here.
In the NEN call, we have:
[00:56] SEAN "He’s near the clubhouse right now?"
[00:58] GZ: "Yeah, now he’s coming towards me "
That strongly suggests that TM was still near the clubhouse when GZ was on the phone with Sean and parked on TTL.  So, if you're right GZ would have driven passed TM.  The story becomes: GZ passes TM by Taafee's, TM passes GZ by the clubhouse, GZ passes again TM while going parking on TTL.

I don't think that hypothesis work unless GZ is omitting significant stuff.  I believe it has to be more simple.

It is more simple.

Zimmerman is using a much more broad definition of "near" than would you or I in describing Martin's location relative to the clubhouse at that point in time.

He also failed to say "Yeah, now he’s coming back towards me ", as that would have to be when the circling on TTL happened.

Unless he's also using a very broad definition of "now".
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 08:53:07 PM
2/29-3, 15:41-16:03
Quote
Singleton: Why did you tell them, "Nevermind, just have them call me when they get here, and I'll tell them where I'm at?"

Zimmerman: I was frustrated that I couldn't think of the street name [crosstalk].

Singleton: But you were gonna be back in your car, from that distance, in less than fifteen or twenty seconds. So why would they need to call you?

Zimmerman: I felt like I didn't give them an adequate description of where I was from the clubhouse.

By the time Zimmerman admitted this, he had several times described himself ending the phone call apparently satisfied that his directions were adequate.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 08, 2012, 09:05:21 PM
Have you checked that against the time it takes Sgt. Smith to do it in the reenactment?

Finally got a chance to look...

Between the time he says "these assholes..." and "sh*t he's running" roughly 32 seconds pass.

Quote
1:34:25- Okay [turns in seat]. These assholes, they always get away. Yep [power window switch and
four footsteps/fade].
1:45:65 - When you come to the clubhouse you come straight in and make a left. Actually you'd – would
go past the clubhouse— [he's trying to explain his location on Twin Trees, southeast of the clubhouse,
not at the clubhouse itself].
1:54:26 - Okay, it's on the left-hand side from the clubhouse?
1:57:62 - No, you go in straight through the entrance and then you make a left. Uh, yeah, you go straight
in, don't turn and make a left – [2:06:89] sh*t, he's running. [in real time this is at 7:11:41 PM].

In the re-enactment it takes Smith about 35 seconds (that's an eyeball estimate based on the video timer).  So to me it's within the realm of possibility that he started moving from the clubhouse at about that time give or take some seconds. txantimedia has a similar and more detailed analysis.  It's also possible that he was still moving when he said "sh*t he's running" and parked just before he got out.  He has enough time to move to his parked location in that time (but TM probably does not have enough time to emerge and circle him again).

I think it's pretty unlikely that he was on TTL when the call began -- it would be hard to observe TM at the clubhouse with his back to him, and it wouldn't make any sense for him to park in that location on TTL unless he knew TM was going to go there, which he wouldn't.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 08, 2012, 09:09:26 PM
2/29-3, 15:41-16:03
By the time Zimmerman admitted this, he had several times described himself ending the phone call apparently satisfied that his directions were adequate.

...as well as describing ending the call at RVC, at which point he could have given them the address he sought and waited where he was for the police.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 09:11:16 PM
I think that is one of the reasons that the patrol car came to the scene on RVC instead of TTL.  They were following his initial directions and by then the 911 calls were coming in.

Does the radio traffic show that those directions were relayed to the officers? I wouldn't think they would be if the dispatcher distrusted them.

From what I recall of the written reports, I think they were responding to 1111 RVC until the 911 calls came in.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 09:20:07 PM
Between the time he says "these assholes..." and "sh*t he's running" roughly 32 seconds pass.

You think Martin, on foot, made it from the area of the clubhouse to the area of the cut-through in that time?

Quote
In the re-enactment it takes Smith about 35 seconds

I get 42 seconds, gear shift to gear shift.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 08, 2012, 09:27:25 PM


"Frustrated with the dispatcher not understanding his general location..."

"Frustrated with Sean inability to understand him..."

Oh, wow, you're right, the first one is totally over the top!

I think you mean the second one; the first is Jeralyn's. But, yes, by saying, " I do think that your version sounds as if Zimmerman is frustrated with Sean, whereas Jearlyn's version  is more neutral," I'm obviously claiming the second one is over the top.

The fact is, the second one is more similar to saying, "Frustrated with the dispatcher for not understanding his general location..."
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 08, 2012, 09:35:01 PM
You think Martin, on foot, made it from the area of the clubhouse to the area of the cut-through in that time?
I don't know where Martin was when he started running so I don't know what distance he had to cover in that time.  I also don't know where he was when GZ decided to move.  According to at least one account he "lost visual" before moving to TTL -- that would seem to mean that TM had at least already turned the corner by the clubhouse.  And he's on foot, his path is not the same as a car's.  He doesn't have the same distance to cover.

Quote
I get 42 seconds, gear shift to gear shift.
Ok, it's still within the realm of possibility to me though, especially if GZ didn't take the time to wave at the neighbors or stop at the stop sign.  I think that, based on the call alone, it's hard to argue that GZ was not at the clubhouse at the point where he gives the clubhouse address and says TM is at the clubhouse.  And we know that he ended up parked on TTL.  So he had to move at some point in the conversation.  I can't see any other place in the transcript that makes sense.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 09:42:34 PM
Quote
Quote
Here's the sequence of events on the NEN.Note that the directions he's giving at 1:44 are to TTL, not the clubhouse.
Yup, that's the biggest indication that GZ was parked on TTL by 1:44 in his NEN call.
No, it's not.  It's an indicator that he was either there or already on his way and describing how to get to where he was soon going to be.

That's correct: GZ may even not be parked yet.  How much time's left for TM to come back from the T, circle GZ's truck before running?  Watch that milestone too!   
I'll do it for you.
2:07 - 1:44 = 23sec
At typical a speed of 4.5ft/sec that's 103ft. 
Even if TM was walking fast (I can push it to 6ft/sec) that makes for ~138ft.
You need about 190ft to walk from the T to where GZ locates his truck in the reenactment. And, this is not including TM circling the truck. 
I took the dimensions of a Honda Ridgeline and have calculated its periphery: 50ft. You can google the truck's specs.  It's a pretty big animal. 
So, you're talking about a minimum distance of 240ft = 190ft + 50ft.  This is assuming that :
1) GZ parked where he said he parked,
2) TM circled GZ's truck keeping his back against the vehicle (no wide loop allowed), and
3) TM started running from GZ's truck rather than walk away before running.

So, If GZ wasn't parked yet where he said he parked at the 1:44 mark in his NEN call,  TM would not have enough time to walk to GZ's truck and circle it.   
If GZ just parked at the 1:44 mark, TM still can't make it.  He would be able to walk only ~60% of the distance.

If assumption 1 is wrong meaning that GZ in fact parked somewhere else.  Then obviously the distance requirement will be different. 
To help make the circling happen, we have to assume GZ parked much closer to the T than what he stated.  Let say he parked right at the beginning of the sidewalk on TTL.  Only then, it becomes possible for TM to come and circle GZ. 

Yes, and it takes about 45 seconds to drive to where he parked on TTL.  So....

Actually in the reenactment it took 38sec but that's about right.  But, GZ's ability to move around in the 2min time frame is not really the issue.  The issue is TM's mobility.  He is on foot. 
If he was still at the front of the clubhouse walking towards GZ's truck at the 1:00 mark.  How could it be at the T walking in the shadow between houses at the 1:44 mark?
Because this is the other milestone of GZ's narrative:  When GZ parked on TTL he saw TM at the T.  TM notices him and disappears after noticing GZ.   
You have the ruler on Googlemap's lab to help you evaluate distances.  I invite you to try many scenarios concerning TM's path from the front of the clubhouse to the T.   You'll end up with numbers in the range of 400ft-470ft.
Now you take the most optimistic distance (400ft) and you divide it by the time most optimistic time (let say 44sec = 1:44 - 1:00) and you get the average speed of ~9ft/set. 

So, we cold finally squeeze two milestones of GZ's NEN call in GZ's story.  But, the conclusion is that TM would have to have run all the time.  Even when GZ says, "Now, He's coming towards me" in front of the clubhouse, he must have been running.


We can now look at other milestones.  The next one is
[01:20] GZ: "Yep, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.".

According to what we said above, at [1:20] GZ must be driving towards his destination on TTL and TM must be ahead of him on his way to  the T.

How does it work now?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 09:45:21 PM
I think you mean the second one; the first is Jeralyn's. But, yes, by saying, " I do think that your version sounds as if Zimmerman is frustrated with Sean, whereas Jearlyn's version  is more neutral," I'm obviously claiming the second one is over the top.

The fact is, the second one is more similar to saying, "Frustrated with the dispatcher for not understanding his general location..."

Yes indeed.  Sorry I'm not an native English speaker.  But I swear, I have other skills...
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 09:49:27 PM
I don't know where Martin was when he started running
So are you thinking that Zimmerman drove past Martin? Martin was west of the truck when he started running, and passed Zimmerman again on his way to the cut-through?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 08, 2012, 09:52:27 PM
Does the radio traffic show that those directions were relayed to the officers? I wouldn't think they would be if the dispatcher distrusted them.

From what I recall of the written reports, I think they were responding to 1111 RVC until the 911 calls came in.

You are right, I just went back and reread some of the reports.  The first one arriving, Smith, went to 2821 RCV.  I guess I just don't understand why he would go there instead of 1211 TTL.  To me, it is more direct to go TTL.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 09:57:18 PM
And he's on foot, his path is not the same as a car's.

It doesn't make that much difference. Martin could walk, or run, close to the houses, but he couldn't go through them.

Anyway, I suggest measuring the distances and doing the math.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 08, 2012, 10:02:11 PM
So are you thinking that Zimmerman drove past Martin? Martin was west of the truck when he started running, and passed Zimmerman again on his way to the cut-through?

No, I'm thinking TM passed GZ at the clubhouse and continued down TTL (cutting the corner and crossing the street) -- east I believe of GZ's truck.  I'm guessing (pure speculation) that Martin was part way down TTL when GZ starts moving and that he sees the truck round the corner and starts running.  I don't think GZ gets in front of him again but I don't know that.  My guess is that GZ is still in motion when TM starts running and that's how he knows to park as close as possible to the cut through.  That's all pure speculation based on what makes sense to me from the NE call and an eyeball of the distances involved.  But I don't have clear start and end points for TM so it would be difficult to prove other than by process of eliminating all other scenarios.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 08, 2012, 10:13:29 PM
Yes indeed.  Sorry I'm not an native English speaker.  But I swear, I have other skills...

I wasn't really criticizing you. For not having Jeralyn's version in front of you, you did a pretty good job of summarizing it. I just meant to point out that in Jeralyn's version, the frustration could be directed at Zimmerman, himself, for not being able to make his direction clear.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 08, 2012, 10:16:09 PM
It doesn't make that much difference. Martin could walk, or run, close to the houses, but he couldn't go through them.
I was thinking more in terms of cutting a corner and crossing a street versus backing out and driving around the corner.  Houses don't come into play unless you are assuming that he is at the T at the moment GZ says he's running, which I think is illogical.

Quote
Anyway, I suggest measuring the distances and doing the math.

I'm not sure it matters.  It doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not GZ moved from the clubhouse around the "these a**holes" mark because TM's movement is independent of GZ's.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 10:26:38 PM
It's also possible that he was still moving when he said "sh*t he's running" and parked just before he got out. 

If that's the case then there is no more circling.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 08, 2012, 10:30:57 PM
You need about 190ft to walk from the T to where GZ locates his truck in the reenactment. And, this is not including TM circling the truck. 

I don't think Zimmerman ever said Martin started from the "T," or even from the path.

From the second Singleton interview:
Quote
Singleton: OK, you ended up here, and then…is that when he circles your car?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. He comes out from where?
Zimmerman: I don’t know.
Singleton: OK. All of a sudden you just notice he’s circling your car.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. So he’s circling your car...
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 10:31:50 PM
If that's the case then there is no more circling.

Or the circling happened in the clubhouse parking lot, notwithstanding Zimmerman's explicit denials.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 08, 2012, 10:53:41 PM
Arrrrgh.  I cannot find a link to the map that GZ was drawing on while in his interview with Singleton.

No Matter, you are the best at this, do you know where I can find it?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 11:03:42 PM
I've posted a copy, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7702299476/in/photostream) with a link to the SPD reports that include it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 08, 2012, 11:11:27 PM
I've posted a copy, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7702299476/in/photostream) with a link to the SPD reports that include it.

Thanks!  I knew you would know!
Title: Gearshift to Gearshift
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 08, 2012, 11:23:22 PM

I said before that parking lot to TTL in the reenactment was 42 seconds. That should be 41 seconds. Sgt. Smith put the car in reverse at 2:55, in park at 3:36.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 11:28:46 PM
Or the circling happened in the clubhouse parking lot, notwithstanding Zimmerman's explicit denials.

I find it interesting indeed though a major modification of GZ's story. 

It has the simplicity you can find in GZ's written statement made right after (or before) his 1st interview with Singleton.  Actually, the written statement matches pretty well that 1st interview.   
However, in the written statement you have the following:
"I pulled my vehicle over and called SPD non-emergency phone number. I told the dispatcher what I had witnessed, the dispatcher took note of my location & the suspect fled to a darkened area of the sidewalk.  As the dispatcher was asking me for an exact location, the suspect emerged  from the darkness & circled my vehicle.  I could not hear if he said anything. The suspect once again disappeared between the break of some houses.  The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location.  I could not remember the name of the street. So, I got out of my car to look for a street sign."

The street GZ remembers is RVC.  That's the street you're on if you park in front of the clubhouse.  If circling there was, and this is something consistent to every statements GZ made, it shouldn't be on RVC.  It has to be on TTL or possibly on LOW (though very unlikely).


Moreover, it you're correct and the circling was in fact done on RVC, it would also mean that GZ never drove to TTL as in all statements after TM circled the truck and disappeared again, GZ exits his vehicle to look for an address (cf. written statement).  That doesn't match either.

Can you point to any indication in the NEN call that the circling may have happened at the clubhouse?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 11:34:10 PM
Assume for the moment that TM has to go from the clubhouse to the T in the 42 seconds that Z is driving from the clubhouse to TTL.  Assume also that it's 500 ft.  500 ft/42 secs=11.90476 ft/sec.  A mile is 5280 feet, so 5280 ft/11.90467 ft=443.52342 sec mile /60 = 7.39 minute mile.  Not hard for someone in good to excellent shape.  Drop that to 400 ft, and it's a 9.5 minute mile.  Shorten it to 190 ft, which is the distance from the clubhouse to the place George parked on TTL, and you have a 19 minute mile, or just over 5 miles per hour - a decent walk.

So, it wouldn't have been at all hard for TM to get from the clubhouse to GZ's truck, circle it and then start running toward the T.  As GZ is reporting this, TM is at a full run, rounds the corner and heads down the T.

I take "sh*t! He's running!" to mean he just started running.  But that doesn't mean he hadn't run between the clubhouse and GZ's car.  He could easily cover the last 200 feet from GZ's car to the corner of the first condo in 18 to 22 seconds.  As soon as he turned the corner, GZ would have seen the direction he was heading and been able to report it.

So, GZ arrives at 1:56, TM circles his car then takes off running.  GZ reports the running 12 seconds after he arrives.  (This is the latest he could have arrived if I'm right about the gear selector sounds.) 15 seconds later he reports the direction TM is heading (down toward the back entrance).

But TM only needs to circle from front to back to the side before starting his run.  So, given the 50 ft that tchoupi claims for the entire car, he had to travel around the car at about 5 miles per hour - a brisk walk.  (50 ft/12 sec=4.166666.  5280 ft/4.1666 ft/sec = 1267 sec/mi/60 = 21.12 minute mile or approximately 5 miles per hour.)

Sure seems doable to me.

It TM was shadowing GZ, which seems plausible at this point in the call (he'd already eyeballed him at the clubhouse), he may have already begun circling the car as GZ was parking, sneaking up on him and then circling, then taking off running, as if to say, catch me if you can.

The timings seem quite plausible to me.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 08, 2012, 11:37:56 PM
between the break of some houses.  The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location.  I could not remember the name of the street. So, I got out of my car to look for a street sign."

The street GZ remembers is RVC.  That's the street you're on if you park in front of the clubhouse.  If circling there was, and this is something consistent to every statements GZ made, it shouldn't be on RVC.  It has to be on TTL or possibly on LOW (though very unlikely).
He knew RVC.  He didn't know TTL.  So whenever he says he couldn't remember the name of the street, he's referring to TTL, not RVC.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 11:58:27 PM
I don't think Zimmerman ever said Martin started from the "T," or even from the path.

From the second Singleton interview:

Maybe...

Please have a look to the reenactment again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c). 
GZ speaks and shows with his right hand what he sees. Tell me what you think he said concerning where he saw TM going when he was parking on TTL.

At 5:50 GZ says: "[...] And I saw him walking back that way [GZ points straight in front of him to the walkway connecting TTL to RVC] And then cut through the back of the houses [GZ indicates with his hand a right turn made when moving away from him] He looks back and he notices me, and he cuts through the back of the houses.  I was still on the phone with Non-Emergency.  Hum! And then he came back [GZ indicates with his right finger with a left turn towards him coming towards him from the right] and he started walking up towards the grass and he came down and circled my car.  And I told the operator that he's circling my car.  I didn't hear if he said anything.  And he had his hands in his waistband.  And i think I told the operator that [making a phone sign with 2 fingers] And they said 'Where are you?' And I could nor remember the name of the street, because I don't live on this street.  RVC goes in a circle. And I said 'I don't know'.  And he goes 'We need an address'.  And I said 'I don't know an address'. I think I gave him my address.  And he said hum... 'Give us directions we we can get to you'. [...]"
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 08, 2012, 11:59:52 PM
He knew RVC.  He didn't know TTL.  So whenever he says he couldn't remember the name of the street, he's referring to TTL, not RVC.

That's what I wrote, indeed.  Thanks
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 12:02:12 AM
At this point he obviously sees TM in his rear view mirror walking toward him.

Why the mirror? If he was parked facing the clubhouse, he could look out the passenger side window and see a person approaching from the west on Retreat View Circle.

Quote
So it took 48 seconds from the start of the call before TM shows up in GZ's range of vision.

About 12 seconds into the call Zimmerman said 'The best address I can give you is one-eleven Retreat View Circle.' If Zimmerman hadn't seen Martin since he left him standing or walking slowly in front of 1460, I think he would have given that address.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 01:03:26 AM
I think you mean the second one; the first is Jeralyn's. But, yes, by saying, " I do think that your version sounds as if Zimmerman is frustrated with Sean, whereas Jearlyn's version  is more neutral," I'm obviously claiming the second one is over the top.

The fact is, the second one is more similar to saying, "Frustrated with the dispatcher for not understanding his general location..."

It would appear that your browser ignores or cannot handle the sarcasm tag.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 01:11:18 AM
Tchoupi, how do you account for the missing two minutes for Trayvon Martin?  He began running at the 2:08 (approx) and he was nowhere in GZ's sight by then end of the call roughly two minutes later.  So... what about him?

I don't, and honestly speaking, anything I or anybody says concerning TMs whereabouts between 7:11:41pm & 7:16:11pm (after he ran and before the 1st 911 call) is just speculation.  There isn't any evidence or witness that I know that give that information. There is some information from DeeDee but she is not an eyewitness and she knows nothing about the complex.  All she states is that GZ ran, stopped running as he felt he lost GZ and he was close enough from home.  But, with the information available, there is no way on hearth to know what path he went, where he stopped, where he walked.  How long he hid if he ever hid.

What I just write about TM is also valid concerning GZ's whereabouts between 7:11:41pm & 7:13:39pm & 7:16:11pm.  From my recollection, GZ keeps on telling where his truck is located but says nothing about where he is himself.  I mean, not in the NEN call.  He his the self serving witness of his own self-defense story.  So, we can trust what he says or be critical.  It's up to your sensitivity.   In any case, GZ's story doesn't account for the 2.5min (approx.) between the end of his NEN call (7:13:39) and the first 911 call from W11 (7:16:11). So, even if you drink GZ's words to the last drop, there is no way on hearth GZ would have only walked 100ft from RVC to the T in 2min-2.5min as he explains in nearly all his statements. 

We've been talking about how fast TM has to be moving across the complex.  Here we have the exact opposite case

Frankly, everything that was happening in and around that clubhouse is just not that important to me.  The actual charged crime happened around that "T" and happened in the space of a minute or two.

I don't agree at all on that one.  If that was true, I guess the reenactment would have only started from the 1st punch.  It's all about trying GZ's truthfulness.  He has a story. So, just try it.  If, on one hand, his story doesn't fit with the evidences or if that story is physically impossible then he obviously have a problem with what really happened.  On the other hand, if that story is physically possible and matches evidences  then GZ truthfulness can't be questioned.

I guess that no parent would be satisfied with just and only the  story of their son or daughter's killer.  It doesn't mean that the killing wasn't justified.  It just means that we have to accept that both parties have fundamental rights.  Since one party is dead and can't claim those rights anymore, somebody else has to claim them against the other party that is still alive and can still defend his own rights. This is the only way I can envision to try extracting the truth and get justice rendered.  This is why there is a prosecution and this is why you have to expect being prosecuted if you kill someone.  Even if it really was in self defense and mostly if nobody else but you knows that it was in self-defense.   
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 01:14:58 AM
tchoupi

Boy, are you gonna get it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 01:27:25 AM
tchoupi

Boy, are you gonna get it.

You really don't believe me when I say that I'm actually challenging myself.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 02:35:18 AM
Assume for the moment that TM has to go from the clubhouse to the T in the 42 seconds that Z is driving from the clubhouse to TTL.  Assume also that it's 500 ft.  500 ft/42 secs=11.90476 ft/sec.  A mile is 5280 feet, so 5280 ft/11.90467 ft=443.52342 sec mile /60 = 7.39 minute mile.  Not hard for someone in good to excellent shape.  Drop that to 400 ft, and it's a 9.5 minute mile.  Shorten it to 190 ft, which is the distance from the clubhouse to the place George parked on TTL, and you have a 19 minute mile, or just over 5 miles per hour - a decent walk.

So, it wouldn't have been at all hard for TM to get from the clubhouse to GZ's truck, circle it and then start running toward the T.  As GZ is reporting this, TM is at a full run, rounds the corner and heads down the T.

I take "sh*t! He's running!" to mean he just started running.  But that doesn't mean he hadn't run between the clubhouse and GZ's car.  He could easily cover the last 200 feet from GZ's car to the corner of the first condo in 18 to 22 seconds.  As soon as he turned the corner, GZ would have seen the direction he was heading and been able to report it.

So, GZ arrives at 1:56, TM circles his car then takes off running.  GZ reports the running 12 seconds after he arrives.  (This is the latest he could have arrived if I'm right about the gear selector sounds.) 15 seconds later he reports the direction TM is heading (down toward the back entrance).

But TM only needs to circle from front to back to the side before starting his run.  So, given the 50 ft that tchoupi claims for the entire car, he had to travel around the car at about 5 miles per hour - a brisk walk.  (50 ft/12 sec=4.166666.  5280 ft/4.1666 ft/sec = 1267 sec/mi/60 = 21.12 minute mile or approximately 5 miles per hour.)

Sure seems doable to me.

It TM was shadowing GZ, which seems plausible at this point in the call (he'd already eyeballed him at the clubhouse), he may have already begun circling the car as GZ was parking, sneaking up on him and then circling, then taking off running, as if to say, catch me if you can.

The timings seem quite plausible to me.

The math you're running is kind of complicated and can be simplified significantly. It is correct though.

In the 1st part where you assume TM has to travel from the clubhouse to the T in 42sec.  You reach the same conclusion then I that is that TM had to jog/run to make it, including from the the front of the clubhouse meaning GZ should have noticed it.

After that, you assume that TM actually circled GZ's truck while walking from the clubhouse.  This is in direct contradiction with the reenactment.  In there, GZ is very clear about TM coming from the T.  You should have a look again (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX1sxARNq_c) it is at the 5:50 mark.

If indeed TM did not walk to the T but instead stayed near the clubhouse before coming back to GZ's truck to circle it then you're right:  It eases a lot of everything.

I can't remember any statement GZ made where TM comes from the clubhouse to circle his truck.   From my recollection:
In the 1st interview with Singleton, the written statement, the 2nd interview with Singleton, the interview on the 27th prior to the lie detector test, GZ isn't specific about or doesn't know where TM comes from to circle him.
In the interview with Serino on the 29th (3rd part) the circling is asked by Singleton, but too early when GZ says he is still at the clubhouse.  After GZ pinpoints when he is on TTL, there is no mention of the circling and therefore no statement about where TM was coming from to circle his truck.
The only time GZ specifies from where TM comes from is in the reenactment and he looks pretty precise.  I'd like to have your opinion.

What I like about your hypothesis is that it also fits another milestone of the NEN call:
[01:20] GZ: "Yep, he’s coming to check me out. He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is.".

I still have a question though: Why would GZ remember less than 24h after the shooting,  the suspect at the T noticing him, disappearing between buildings and reappearing from at the T to walk towards the grass to circle him before leaving, if TM was actually coming from the clubhouse?

It can't be classified as an omission, obviously.  So, what during the reenactment made him tell such story?

Would it be considered as a lie?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 03:03:26 AM
Tcoupi, no, we really don't. And I''ll be watching closely as I have time. (I'm not online as much as you are -- and it could be hours or even a day later before I get to moderating.)  Please be sure to save your long posts here on your computer in case I delete them.  I really don't want anyone to lose their work just because I delete it from these forums.

You are exceedingly polite here, which I appreciate, but   you have been extremely unflattering to me on your own site -- even making absurd and  false allegations -- for example, just last week you brought me up in one of your posts and said I "apparently believe harassment, assault, aggravated stalking, Murder 2 (I’ll add the possibility of a premeditated Murder 1 charge), etc. are legal."   That's ridiculous and false and insulting.

You followed that with a comment on your site, "Then again, debating George Zimmerman supporters is worthless."  And you linked to an earlier post where you said the same thing.

 I'm not sure why you have chosen to post here, but yes, I'm skeptical and watching.  I will also try to remain polite. You are obviously a true believer in your position, which is that Zimmerman is guilty.  There's nothing wrong with that, but you have chosen to post here, a criminal defense-oriented site that does not claim to be neutral, and now say you are just challenging yourself?

I know who you are (your online self,  not in real life of course)  but others here may not.  I don't think you are being completely honest about your motives or your comments.

If it's just that you honestly have doubts about your position,  and that you aren't comfortable posting them on your own site because commenters there  would react negatively, then I apologize for misjudging you. But I suspect at some point you will write on your own blog that you came here and raised all sorts of issues and no one could refute you. Which of course, won't be true --  you shouldn't take my or anyone else's refusal to respond to your theories as a concession they are valid. 

Again, I don't want to be impolite as you have been extremely courteous here, and almost always adhere to the rules. Please feel free to continue this discussion  with me tomorrow using the personal message feature so we don't get too far off topic.  If I've misjudged you, I have no problem saying so and will do so.

I believe you're confusing me (Tchoupi) with the moderator of bcclist (where I usually post) or other bloggers on that blog. I usually avoid getting personal.  I know it leads nowhere. 
The comments you're referring to are clearly not from me. Particularly the "debating George Zimmerman supporters is worthless.".

Also, I don't have doubts in my conclusions.  I am perfecting them by challenging me but also you on the way.  That's part of how I am.  Even at bcclist, I regularly beg for criticism.

I'm pretty happy about the response I got from your followers.  I have learn a few things.  I'd probably bring some of my learning back home (bcclist). 

But to be direct and honest, the lesson that pops up above all is that many of the regular bloggers here didn't really tried to confront GZ's narrative with the map of RATL and the NEN call.  So, the discussion took  a direction that I have very much appreciated.

And again, I'm Tchoupi and will respond only to what I said and wrote.   
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 03:37:58 AM

I still have a question though: Why would GZ remember less than 24h after the shooting,  the suspect at the T noticing him, disappearing between buildings and reappearing from at the T to walk towards the grass to circle him before leaving, if TM was actually coming from the clubhouse?

It can't be classified as an omission, obviously.  So, what during the reenactment made him tell such story?

Would it be considered as a lie?
You are posting your opinion as a fact.

Why don't you tell us why you think your speculation is relevant? If your construct was correct, why would GZ purposely lie about such an insignificant detail?

Your oft repeated  'question' IS IT A LIE?  appears to be little more than a thinly veiled smear. Unless you have some proof that a purposeful misrepresentation was made ( please include Zimmerman's motivation to do so )  please stop.

I  find your venomous attempts at to slander George. based on your speculation, objectionable. It does not move the debate forward.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 04:07:46 AM
Assume for the moment that TM has to go from the clubhouse to the T in the 42 seconds that Z is driving from the clubhouse to TTL.  Assume also that it's 500 ft.  500 ft/42 secs=11.90476 ft/sec.  A mile is 5280 feet, so 5280 ft/11.90467 ft=443.52342 sec mile /60 = 7.39 minute mile.  Not hard for someone in good to excellent shape.  Drop that to 400 ft, and it's a 9.5 minute mile.  Shorten it to 190 ft, which is the distance from the clubhouse to the place George parked on TTL, and you have a 19 minute mile, or just over 5 miles per hour - a decent walk.
This post proves I should be kept away from ballpark estimates late at night.  A 19 minute mile means a speed of 3.15 mph, not 5. {sigh}

Quote from: txantimedia'
But TM only needs to circle from front to back to the side before starting his run.  So, given the 50 ft that tchoupi claims for the entire car, he had to travel around the car at about 5 miles per hour - a brisk walk.  (50 ft/12 sec=4.166666.  5280 ft/4.1666 ft/sec = 1267 sec/mi/60 = 21.12 minute mile or approximately 5 miles per hour.)
And a 21.12 minute mile means 2.83 mph, not 5.

Obviously I'm a frigginidiot who should never do math in my head. {double sigh}

Quote from: txantimedia'
Sure seems doable to me.
Yeah.  Eminently doable.  As in, walking slow, taking his time doable.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 04:10:47 AM
Why the mirror? If he was parked facing the clubhouse, he could look out the passenger side window and see a person approaching from the west on Retreat View Circle.

About 12 seconds into the call Zimmerman said 'The best address I can give you is one-eleven Retreat View Circle.' If Zimmerman hadn't seen Martin since he left him standing or walking slowly in front of 1460, I think he would have given that address.
And you would be wrong.  He gave the address where he was, not where he saw TM.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 04:15:06 AM
But to be direct and honest, the lesson that pops up above all is that many of the regular bloggers here didn't really tried to confront GZ's narrative with the map of RATL and the NEN call.  So, the discussion took  a direction that I have very much appreciated.

I hate to break it to you but minute investigation into the minutiae of Zimmerman's multiple statements has been on going  at TL for months.

What you fail to appreciate is that, after a while, most honest posters tend to realize that witness statements are not videotapes.

The heart of Zimmerman's narrative remains unchallenged by credible witnesses or evidence. As many have pointed out, one would have to believe GZ was the luckiest man alive if he was able to fabricate the story about his activities after ending the NEN call without any subsequent significant contradiction.

You are far from the first first to :
  -Quibble over minor details
  -Speculate aboutsome dark motive spawning  insignificant discrepancies
  -Fabricate a alternative view that is consistent with currently known facts( an easy task) but not directly supported by evidence.

Perhaps some might look inward to examine their motivations for such intellectual dishonesty

 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 09, 2012, 06:17:27 AM
I don't, and honestly speaking, anything I or anybody says concerning TMs whereabouts between 7:11:41pm & 7:16:11pm (after he ran and before the 1st 911 call) is just speculation.  There isn't any evidence or witness that I know that give that information. There is some information from DeeDee but she is not an eyewitness and she knows nothing about the complex.  All she states is that GZ ran, stopped running as he felt he lost GZ and he was close enough from home.  But, with the information available, there is no way on hearth to know what path he went, where he stopped, where he walked.  How long he hid if he ever hid.

What I just write about TM is also valid concerning GZ's whereabouts between 7:11:41pm & 7:13:39pm & 7:16:11pm.  From my recollection, GZ keeps on telling where his truck is located but says nothing about where he is himself.  I mean, not in the NEN call.  He his the self serving witness of his own self-defense story.  So, we can trust what he says or be critical.  It's up to your sensitivity.   In any case, GZ's story doesn't account for the 2.5min (approx.) between the end of his NEN call (7:13:39) and the first 911 call from W11 (7:16:11). So, even if you drink GZ's words to the last drop, there is no way on hearth GZ would have only walked 100ft from RVC to the T in 2min-2.5min as he explains in nearly all his statements. 

We've been talking about how fast TM has to be moving across the complex.  Here we have the exact opposite case

I don't agree at all on that one.  If that was true, I guess the reenactment would have only started from the 1st punch.  It's all about trying GZ's truthfulness.  He has a story. So, just try it.  If, on one hand, his story doesn't fit with the evidences or if that story is physically impossible then he obviously have a problem with what really happened.  On the other hand, if that story is physically possible and matches evidences  then GZ truthfulness can't be questioned.

I guess that no parent would be satisfied with just and only the  story of their son or daughter's killer.  It doesn't mean that the killing wasn't justified.  It just means that we have to accept that both parties have fundamental rights.  Since one party is dead and can't claim those rights anymore, somebody else has to claim them against the other party that is still alive and can still defend his own rights. This is the only way I can envision to try extracting the truth and get justice rendered.  This is why there is a prosecution and this is why you have to expect being prosecuted if you kill someone.  Even if it really was in self defense and mostly if nobody else but you knows that it was in self-defense.

It would seem to me that if you are in such a search for the "truth" you would have to include the movements of Trayvon Martin also since they dictate the movements of George Zimmerman.  That is established at the beginning of the NEN and culminated with the shooting.

You are being disingenuous, IMO.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 07:06:22 AM
There is far too much that we don't know to really make any sort of reasonable calculations, and I absolutely hate math, but since you've challenged GZ's account, here goes.  First, we don't know where TM was when GZ pulled out of the clubhouse.  All we know is he was ahead of GZ.  Second, we don't know the patch TM took, except that he headed down TTL.  Third, we don't know when or even if he ran and whether or not GZ could see him running.  (Doubtful)

Setting aside all those unknowns, I have never watched the video reenactment in its entirety.  So, I've started watching it.  The investigator backs out of the space at the clubhouse at 5:14 and arrives at the location where GZ parked on TTL at 5:56.  This is remarkably close to the timings in the NEN call.  You hear gear selector sounds at 1:10, which apparently is GZ backing out.  Then you hear another at 1:16, which is GZ proceeding to TTL.  You hear the last one at 1:56, so this accords quite well with the reenactment.

So that part of GZ's account is confirmed.

The distance from the clubhouse center to the T and back to where GZ's car was parked is approximately 183 meters.  (I used Google to measure it.)  Usain Bolt holds the record for the 200 meters at 19.9 seconds.  183 meters is 91.5% of 200 meters, so his time would be about 18.2 seconds at that distance.  The American high school record is 20.13 seconds, so 183 meters would be about 18.41.  A decent high school athlete could do that in no more than twice the time (and likely much less than twice), or about 36 seconds.  As I wrote earlier, circling the car would be easily doable in 12 seconds, so the total is 48 seconds.  GZ's time from leaving the clubhouse to saying "sh*t! He's running!" is, oddly enough, 48 seconds.

So what was the problem with the timing again?  It seems his account is certainly possible if not probable.  So you have to ask, why would he make such a story up?  It complicates the scenario due to timing, yet he states it unequivocally.  Almost as if he was there and experienced it himself.

Oh wait....he was there.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on August 09, 2012, 07:20:07 AM
So you have to ask, why would he make such a story up?  It complicates the scenario due to timing, yet he states it unequivocally.  Almost as if he was there and experienced it himself.

Oh wait....he was there.

And that's a question I don't think enough people ask.  Why would he make something up?  If you treat the statements as multiple versions (which I don't think there's enough differences to, but for the sake of argument), neither "version" helps George more; so really there's little reason to make those things up.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 07:23:27 AM
Setting aside all those unknowns, I have never watched the video reenactment in its entirety.  So, I've started watching it.  The investigator backs out of the space at the clubhouse at 5:14 and arrives at the location where GZ parked on TTL at 5:56.  This is remarkably close to the timings in the NEN call.  You hear gear selector sounds at 1:10, which apparently is GZ backing out.  Then you hear another at 1:16, which is GZ proceeding to TTL.  You hear the last one at 1:56, so this accords quite well with the reenactment.

So that part of GZ's account is confirmed.

I wouldn't say that it's confirmed. I have doubts about this timeline due to the gear selector and turn signal sounds within the first 20 seconds of the call. My theory puts Mr. Zimmerman at his final location in the vehicle right before he starts talking about Mr. Martin coming toward him (0:58, 0:58 - 0:16 = 42 seconds to get there) - which is where Mr. Martin would've come back to circle the vehicle. This is somewhat confirmed by the walk through because that's the only time Mr. Zimmerman mentions Mr. Martin having something in his hands in both the non-emergency call and the walk through. There's another somewhat-confirmation in both also - in the non-emergency call Mr. Zimmerman says "he's just staring at me now" before Mr. Martin moves toward him, in the walk-through Mr. Zimmerman said something similar (I forget the exact words). Mr. Martin had plenty of time to circle the vehicle between the "he's coming toward me" and "he's running" (2:06 - 0:58 = 68 * 4.56 = 310.08 feet) .
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 07:24:56 AM
If that's the case then there is no more circling.

I don't think there's time for more circling regardless.  The time between "he's at the clubhouse" and "he's running" is about a minute and 10 seconds.  At 3ft/s that's about 210 feet.  That's roughly halfway down TTL.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 07:34:37 AM
I don't think there's time for more circling regardless.  The time between "he's at the clubhouse" and "he's running" is about a minute and 10 seconds.  At 3ft/s that's about 210 feet.  That's roughly halfway down TTL.

3ft/sec ? Where did you come up with that figure? I've heard of people taking 3mph as a standard, but not 3ft/sec. The actual average is 5km/h which computes to 4.5567022ft/sec, and this average is just that, an average. For younger individuals you'd expect them to be faster, for older individuals or those with medical issues you'd expect them to be slower.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 07:47:41 AM
I wouldn't say that it's confirmed. I have doubts about this timeline due to the gear selector and turn signal sounds within the first 20 seconds of the call. My theory puts Mr. Zimmerman at his final location in the vehicle right before he starts talking about Mr. Martin coming toward him (0:58, 0:58 - 0:16 = 42 seconds to get there) - which is where Mr. Martin would've come back to circle the vehicle.

The problem with that is that 1) it has GZ observing TM at the clubhouse at least 400 feet in his rear view mirror, 2) it requires GZ to have conveniently chosen a final parking spot exactly where TM cuts through, meaning he knew TM was going to go down TTL from the clubhouse and not continue around RVC, which he couldn't have known, and 3) gives Martin even less time to get from the clubhouse to the cut through where GZ is supposedly parked -- at 0:52 he says "he's at the clubhouse now". 

Quote
0:52:53- That's the – that's the clubhouse [crosstalk: that's the clubhouse, do you know what the] he's at
the clubhouse now.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 07:51:48 AM
The problem with that is that 1) it has GZ observing TM at the clubhouse at least 400 feet in his rear view mirror, 2) it requires GZ to have conveniently chosen a final parking spot exactly where TM cuts through, meaning he knew TM was going to go down TTL from the clubhouse and not continue around RVC, which he couldn't have known, and 3) gives Martin even less time to get from the clubhouse to the cut through where GZ is supposedly parked -- at 0:52 he says "he's at the clubhouse now".

Bold: Stating your opinion as fact. I've done quite a bit of audio work in my day and I do not hear Mr. Zimmerman ever say anyone is AT the clubhouse.
2) is invalid based on the refuted bold
3) is invalid based on the refuted bold
Underline: Your opinion. My opinion of what is said there is posted elsewhere. Lee M. and Jeralyn have both stated that his transcript is not official - it was his interpretation, which was much appreciated but he did miss some things and we've talked about a few of them briefly (ie: the turn signal at 0:16).
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 07:55:30 AM
3ft/sec ? Where did you come up with that figure? I've heard of people taking 3mph as a standard, but not 3ft/sec. The actual average is 5km/h which computes to 4.5567022ft/sec, and this average is just that, an average. For younger individuals you'd expect them to be faster, for older individuals or those with medical issues you'd expect them to be slower.

Ok, go with that then.  That puts him roughly 350 feet down TTL, closer to the cut through but still not enough to go down the dog walk and come back out.  Could he have been moving faster?  Maybe, but GZ says he found him suspicious precisely because he was meandering. 

The most likely scenario is that what GZ later calls circling was actually just the passing at the clubhouse where TM looked at him.  He mixes up the timeline in almost every telling so it's consistent with his memory issues that he would mix it up.  He even says in the re-enactment "I told the dispatcher that" when talking about the circling.  The part of the call most consistent with telling the dispatcher about an encounter with TM is at the clubhouse.  Why would GZ retell it in a way that has TM lurking in and out of the darkness in a menacing way? I can think of a number of reasons.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 07:56:13 AM
There is far too much that we don't know to really make any sort of reasonable calculations, and I absolutely hate math, but since you've challenged GZ's account, here goes.  First, we don't know where TM was when GZ pulled out of the clubhouse.  All we know is he was ahead of GZ.  Second, we don't know the patch TM took, except that he headed down TTL.  Third, we don't know when or even if he ran and whether or not GZ could see him running.  (Doubtful)

Setting aside all those unknowns, I have never watched the video reenactment in its entirety.  So, I've started watching it.  The investigator backs out of the space at the clubhouse at 5:14 and arrives at the location where GZ parked on TTL at 5:56.  This is remarkably close to the timings in the NEN call.  You hear gear selector sounds at 1:10, which apparently is GZ backing out.  Then you hear another at 1:16, which is GZ proceeding to TTL.  You hear the last one at 1:56, so this accords quite well with the reenactment.

So that part of GZ's account is confirmed.

The distance from the clubhouse center to the T and back to where GZ's car was parked is approximately 183 meters.  (I used Google to measure it.)  Usain Bolt holds the record for the 200 meters at 19.9 seconds.  183 meters is 91.5% of 200 meters, so his time would be about 18.2 seconds at that distance.  The American high school record is 20.13 seconds, so 183 meters would be about 18.41.  A decent high school athlete could do that in no more than twice the time (and likely much less than twice), or about 36 seconds.  As I wrote earlier, circling the car would be easily doable in 12 seconds, so the total is 48 seconds.  GZ's time from leaving the clubhouse to saying "sh*t! He's running!" is, oddly enough, 48 seconds.

So what was the problem with the timing again?  It seems his account is certainly possible if not probable.  So you have to ask, why would he make such a story up?  It complicates the scenario due to timing, yet he states it unequivocally.  Almost as if he was there and experienced it himself.

Oh wait....he was there.

Nice work.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 07:58:10 AM
Ok, go with that then.  That puts him roughly 350 feet down TTL, closer to the cut through but still not enough to go down the dog walk and come back out.  Could he have been moving faster?  Maybe, but GZ says he found him suspicious precisely because he was meandering. 

The most likely scenario is that what GZ later calls circling was actually just the passing at the clubhouse where TM looked at him.  He mixes up the timeline in almost every telling so it's consistent with his memory issues that he would mix it up.  He even says in the re-enactment "I told the dispatcher that" when talking about the circling.  The part of the call most consistent with telling the dispatcher about an encounter with TM is at the clubhouse.  Why would GZ retell it in a way that has TM lurking in and out of the darkness in a menacing way? I can think of a number of reasons.

Hmmm...maybe because it was night time and thus dark and going in and out of the darkness is, quite literally, a given?

I don't recall GZ using the phrase "menacing way" anywhere. Is that an editorial comment?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 08:05:53 AM
Bold: Stating your opinion as fact. I've done quite a bit of audio work in my day and I do not hear Mr. Zimmerman ever say anyone is AT the clubhouse.
2) is invalid based on the refuted bold
3) is invalid based on the refuted bold
Underline: Your opinion. My opinion of what is said there is posted elsewhere. Lee M. and Jeralyn have both stated that his transcript is not official - it was his interpretation, which was much appreciated but he did miss some things and we've talked about a few of them briefly (ie: the turn signal at 0:16).

So you can hear gear shifting but you can't hear him say "he's at the clubhouse".  Ok, go with that...

Quote
0:04:38 - Hey, we’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real suspicious guy. Uh, it’s
Retreat View Circle. Um, the best address I can give you is one-eleven Retreat View Circle. This guy
looks like he’s up to no good or he’s on drugs, or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around,
looking about.
0:26:68 – Okay, and this guy, is he white, black or Hispanic?
0:28:68 - He looks black.
0:30:28 - Did you see what he was wearing?
0:32:40 – Yeah, mm, a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie and either jeans or sweat pants and white tennis
shoes. He’s here now, he’s just staring [crosstalk: oh, he's just walking around the area] looking at all
the houses
[okay]. And now he just staring at me.
0:48:74 - Okay and you say it's one-one-one-one Retreat View or one-eleven?
0:52:53- That's the – that's the clubhouse [crosstalk: that's the clubhouse, do you know what the] he's at
the clubhouse now.
0:55:82 - He's near the clubhouse right now?
0:58:01- Yeah, now he's coming towards me [possible door lock].

At some time after 0:32 he says "he's here now".  Assuming GZ is parked at the cut through at that point, why would he ever give the clubhouse address?  Why would he say at :58 that he's near the clubhouse?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 08:08:32 AM
Hmmm...maybe because it was night time and thus dark and going in and out of the darkness is, quite literally, a given?

I don't recall GZ using the phrase "menacing way" anywhere. Is that an editorial comment?

Yes, yes it is.  This is, after all, a discussion forum.  How would you interpret his description of TM's behaviour?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 08:08:38 AM
Large block of opinion deleted

Mostly your opinion stated as fact - it's not fact.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 08:11:23 AM
So you can hear gear shifting but you can't hear him say "he's at the clubhouse".  Ok, go with that...

As stated, what he says there is YOUR opinion. MY opinion is stated elsewhere. I stated that previously.

Quote
At some time after 0:32 he says "he's here now".  Assuming GZ is parked at the cut through at that point, why would he ever give the clubhouse address?  Why would he say at :58 that he's near the clubhouse?

Because that's the address he knew off of the top of his head. There was some discussion about it on this very forum about how he always gave that address when calling in. I'm not even going to entertain the bold, it's a skeleton of what was previously a dead horse - one which Jeralyn told everyone to move on about, so you might go read over those conversations.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 08:13:05 AM
Because that's the address he knew off of the top of his head.

Is this not your opinion stated as fact?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 08:14:52 AM
Is this not your opinion stated as fact?

Logic. He tells the investigators ... that he didn't know the address of where he parked, which was the reason for moving along the sidewalk to the east of the intersection (aka "the T"). Now, if he doesn't know the address of where he's at, isn't it logical that he would give an address that he DOES know?

Edit: He also stated that he didn't know the address because he was at a cut through in the non-emergency call. Also, I believe there has been some discussion on this forum about how he typically gave that address when calling in.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 08:18:02 AM
I wouldn't say that it's confirmed. I have doubts about this timeline due to the gear selector and turn signal sounds within the first 20 seconds of the call. My theory puts Mr. Zimmerman at his final location in the vehicle right before he starts talking about Mr. Martin coming toward him (0:58, 0:58 - 0:16 = 42 seconds to get there) - which is where Mr. Martin would've come back to circle the vehicle. This is somewhat confirmed by the walk through because that's the only time Mr. Zimmerman mentions Mr. Martin having something in his hands in both the non-emergency call and the walk through. There's another somewhat-confirmation in both also - in the non-emergency call Mr. Zimmerman says "he's just staring at me now" before Mr. Martin moves toward him, in the walk-through Mr. Zimmerman said something similar (I forget the exact words). Mr. Martin had plenty of time to circle the vehicle between the "he's coming toward me" and "he's running" (2:06 - 0:58 = 68 * 4.56 = 310.08 feet) .
I'll listen to it again tonight, but I never heard any noises until 1:10.  I'm not sure where you get the sound at 20 seconds, but I suppose I could have missed it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 08:20:45 AM
I'll listen to it again tonight, but I never heard any noises until 1:10.  I'm not sure where you get the sound at 20 seconds, but I suppose I could have missed it.

I don't have the time to look up my post right now, but I believe the gear selector is at 11 seconds and I know the sound that I think is the turn signal is at 16 seconds. Also (and I'm sure you know this) - headphones are pretty much a must!
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 08:21:21 AM
You and I apparently have differing interpretations of the word "logic".

I don't want to turn this into a pissing match but the bottom line is that your scenario isn't supported by the evidence.  Even if you could contort the NEN call to fit a scenario where he's parked at the cut through the entire time, GZ himself says, in the re-enactment and at least one interview, that he makes the call from the clubhouse after observing TM near Taafe's house.  When played the NEN audio in his last interview with Singleton he says he's at the clubhouse at the very point that he says "he's coming to check me out".  Why would he say that if it really happened at the cut through?  It doesn't help his case at all?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 09, 2012, 08:25:24 AM
I don't want to turn this into a pissing match but the bottom line is that your scenario isn't supported by the evidence. 

Rest ignored.

Your opinion as fact yet again. I didn't read the rest because you haven't refuted my theory - which I assure you IS based on the evidence.

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,1982.0.html
Rule #6 there.

I'm done with you. If you can't respect me enough to take a few minutes to think about what I said and how it IS based on evidence, then you're not worth my time.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 08:32:38 AM
http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,1982.0.html
Rule #6 there.


I haven't violated rule #6 but feel free to report whichever posts of mine you feel have. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 08:57:37 AM
Yes, yes it is.  This is, after all, a discussion forum.  How would you interpret his description of TM's behaviour?

Behaviour? British?

Well, it is and it isn't. Jeralyn likes us to stick to facts and not throw out our own opinions, especially something like 'george was describing trayvon as moving menacingly in and out of the shadows'.

I know it's hard, trust me.
 ;D


It's not up to me to interpret it. GZ already did. He felt it was suspicious and worthy of a call to the police NEN.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 09:04:01 AM
When the dispatcher says "Sanford Police Department", where are Zimmerman and his truck, and where is Martin?

When Zimmerman says "...the best address I can give you is one-eleven Retreat View Circle.", is he referring to his location, Martin's location, the nearest landmark to either or both of them?

Of what use were the police to make of that address?

When Zimmerman says "He's here now, and he's just staring", where are Zimmerman and his truck, and where is Martin?

When Zimmerman says "Yeah, now he's coming towards me.", where are Zimmerman and his truck, and where is Martin?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 09:22:57 AM
Well, it is and it isn't. Jeralyn likes us to stick to facts and not throw out our own opinions, especially something like 'george was describing trayvon as moving menacingly in and out of the shadows'.

I understand that this board demands a higher level of intellectual rigor, which is why I like it, but I believe opinions are allowed so long as they are not stated as irrefutable fact.  Unlike the blog comments, I don't believe we have to precede every opinion with the words "it's my opinion that..." on the forums, though I could be wrong.  If so, please do go ahead report the posts you believe are over the line and I'll take direction from the moderator.  I don't take it personally.  :)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 09:44:28 AM
I understand that this board demands a higher level of intellectual rigor, which is why I like it, but I believe opinions are allowed so long as they are not stated as irrefutable fact.  Unlike the blog comments, I don't believe we have to precede every opinion with the words "it's my opinion that..." on the forums, though I could be wrong.  If so, please do go ahead report the posts you believe are over the line and I'll take direction from the moderator.  I don't take it personally.  :)

The people who had read the Zimmerman statements recently were able to follow that you were not quoting GZ directly. Others may not.

Not chiding you personally,I do it sometimes also. But it is best to clearly delineate opinions. Otherwise your opinion becomes the factual basis of someone elses conjecture.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: leftwig on August 09, 2012, 09:45:57 AM
When the dispatcher says "Sanford Police Department", where are Zimmerman and his truck, and where is Martin?
I don't think we know exactly.  I think GZ is clear he was at the clubhouse or just pulling in as he dialed NEN and I think its evident he was in the vacinity when the call connected.  Whether he was stationary and parked perpendicular, or parked parallel, or about to move to keep tabs on Martin isn't completely clear.

[/quote]
When Zimmerman says "...the best address I can give you is one-eleven Retreat View Circle.", is he referring to his location, Martin's location, the nearest landmark to either or both of them?
[/quote]
Again, not sure we know exactly, but my best guess is its the nearest landmark as its "the best address I can give you".  He doesn't say either one of them are there, but it seems they were both near the clubhouse.  How close "near" means is subjective, but I don't believe GZ ever tells NEN either are "at" the clubhouse.  The clubhouse is the only address GZ knows and its a recognizable landmark, which he can see form his car parked on TTL. 

[/quote]
Of what use were the police to make of that address?
[/quote]
IT was the best one they had and were given directions to go past the clubhouse and veer left past the mailboxes and thats where GZ's truck would be.  Its easily the most recognizable land mark in the complex and one that GZ can see during his entire NEN call.

[/quote]
When Zimmerman says "He's here now, and he's just staring", where are Zimmerman and his truck, and where is Martin?
[/quote]
On the NEN, I believe GZ is on TTL.  Where Martin is probably depends on which direction GZ's truck is pointed.  I'd say with it being dark and rainy, he's likely to be describing someone in front of him.  I'm guessing now that GZ has had access to the tape to be able to fit it to his memory, it will be clearer the next time he testifies.

[/quote]
When Zimmerman says "Yeah, now he's coming towards me.", where are Zimmerman and his truck, and where is Martin?
[/quote]
Same as above.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 09:46:07 AM
The people who had read the Zimmerman statements recently were able to follow that you were not quoting GZ directly. Others may not.

Not chiding you personally,I do it sometimes also. But it is best to clearly delineate opinions. Otherwise your opinion becomes the factual basis of someone elses conjecture.

Indeed--it's happened to me, I believed something someone said once and repeated it as fact.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 11:29:08 AM
I've done quite a bit of audio work in my day and I do not hear Mr. Zimmerman ever say anyone is AT the clubhouse.

I've done no audio work, and I hear it clearly.

I don't understand how your audio work is supposed to prove I am hallucinating.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 11:45:02 AM
I've done no audio work, and I hear it clearly.

I don't understand how your audio work is supposed to prove I am hallucinating.

Could you quote a few words, from him or the dispatcher or both, from just before him saying that and just after him saying that, so I can get an idea of where in the call he actually says "at the clubhouse"?

I hear him agreeing with the dispatcher about Martin being near the clubhouse, but I'm obviously not listening in the right place for "at" the clubhouse.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 11:46:45 AM
I don't think we know exactly.  I think GZ is clear he was at the clubhouse or just pulling in as he dialed NEN and I think its evident he was in the vacinity when the call connected.  Whether he was stationary and parked perpendicular, or parked parallel, or about to move to keep tabs on Martin isn't completely clear.


When Zimmerman says "...the best address I can give you is one-eleven Retreat View Circle.", is he referring to his location, Martin's location, the nearest landmark to either or both of them?

Again, not sure we know exactly, but my best guess is its the nearest landmark as its "the best address I can give you".  He doesn't say either one of them are there, but it seems they were both near the clubhouse.  How close "near" means is subjective, but I don't believe GZ ever tells NEN either are "at" the clubhouse.  The clubhouse is the only address GZ knows and its a recognizable landmark, which he can see form his car parked on TTL. 


Of what use were the police to make of that address?

IT was the best one they had and were given directions to go past the clubhouse and veer left past the mailboxes and thats where GZ's truck would be.  Its easily the most recognizable land mark in the complex and one that GZ can see during his entire NEN call.


When Zimmerman says "He's here now, and he's just staring", where are Zimmerman and his truck, and where is Martin?

On the NEN, I believe GZ is on TTL.  Where Martin is probably depends on which direction GZ's truck is pointed.  I'd say with it being dark and rainy, he's likely to be describing someone in front of him.  I'm guessing now that GZ has had access to the tape to be able to fit it to his memory, it will be clearer the next time he testifies.


When Zimmerman says "Yeah, now he's coming towards me.", where are Zimmerman and his truck, and where is Martin?

Same as above.

Does anyone wish to disagree with any of the above?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 09, 2012, 12:08:54 PM
He gives the address of the clubhouse because he knows the address by heart. He's no longer there though.
He's using the clubhouse as a landmark. He's trying to give directions to where he is while he is on the phone.
Why his story is what it is during the reenactment,  I will leave to you "speculators".
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: RickyJim on August 09, 2012, 12:13:56 PM
I understand that this board demands a higher level of intellectual rigor, which is why I like it, but I believe opinions are allowed so long as they are not stated as irrefutable fact.  Unlike the blog comments, I don't believe we have to precede every opinion with the words "it's my opinion that..." on the forums, though I could be wrong.  If so, please do go ahead report the posts you believe are over the line and I'll take direction from the moderator.  I don't take it personally.  :)

Since you are new, I hope you are more tolerant than the others of a question I keep asking:  Why are you guys and gals so intent on analyzing the motions of Zimmerman in his vehicle?  Maybe I am just jealous because I have given up hope of following the details these discussions.  But I just find them of miniscule relevance in determining whether Zimmerman is guilty of a crime.  I thought, at one time, they might explain why Martin was so annoyed at Zimmerman, but I have given up hope on that. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 09, 2012, 12:16:29 PM
The CSI effect
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 09, 2012, 12:16:57 PM
I believe you're confusing me (Tchoupi) with the moderator of bcclist (where I usually post) or other bloggers on that blog. I usually avoid getting personal.  I know it leads nowhere. 
The comments you're referring to are clearly not from me. Particularly the "debating George Zimmerman supporters is worthless.".

Also, I don't have doubts in my conclusions.  I am perfecting them by challenging me but also you on the way.  That's part of how I am.  Even at bcclist, I regularly beg for criticism.

I'm pretty happy about the response I got from your followers.  I have learn a few things.  I'd probably bring some of my learning back home (bcclist).  But to be direct and honest, the lesson that pops up above all is that many of the regular bloggers here didn't really tried to confront GZ's narrative with the map of RATL and the NEN call.  So, the discussion took  a direction that I have very much appreciated.

And again, I'm Tchoupi and will respond only to what I said and wrote.

Tchoupi, I deleted my comment about you since you are not primary writer at that site and did not author the post I  referred to. You are mentioned in the Herald article as a person the site relies on.  I apologize for disparaging your motives, and again thank you for your civility here.

I think this page (http://imgur.com/a/bcAII#nFkZH) is a collection of some of your work on the case, am I correct?

For others, Frances Robles at the Miami Herald describes Tchoupi (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/04/v-fullstory/2933157/the-trayvon-martin-truth-squad.html#storylink=cpy) as a person whose work is relied on by bcclist :

Quote
Both men are often guided by the work of “Tchoupi,” an engineer with a Ph.D. in physics who has spent countless hours making maps, analyzing witness statements and fleeting headlight patterns in surveillance videos to compute George Zimmerman’s moves the night he killed Trayvon.

Thank you for clearing that up.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 12:24:16 PM
There is far too much that we don't know to really make any sort of reasonable calculations

I agree.  There is a lot of unknown.  But in my opinion, there is enough to work bowl park calculations and screen out the impossible.  As example, in your own work posted earlier, you've excluded the possible that TM walked from the T to circle GZ's truck.  Instead, you assumed that he walked from the clubhouse.  This happen to be the conclusion I reached a while ago. 
That said, you may find a way to match the Reenactment with the NEN call.  Personally, I tried and failed. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 12:35:07 PM
I agree.  There is a lot of unknown.  But in my opinion, there is enough to work bowl park calculations and screen out the impossible.  As example, in your own work posted earlier, you've excluded the possible that TM walked from the T to circle GZ's truck.  Instead, you assumed that he walked from the clubhouse.  This happen to be the conclusion I reached a while ago. 
That said, you may find a way to match the Reenactment with the NEN call.  Personally, I tried and failed.
However, I later amended my remarks (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg100564.html#msg100564) based upon the reenactment video, which you pointed me to and showed that it was still possible within the time allotted for TM to have gone to near the T, returned and circled GZ's car and then taken off running.  You might want to read that.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 12:39:16 PM
Since you are new, I hope you are more tolerant than the others of a question I keep asking:  Why are you guys and gals so intent on analyzing the motions of Zimmerman in his vehicle?  Maybe I am just jealous because I have given up hope of following the details these discussions.  But I just find them of miniscule relevance in determining whether Zimmerman is guilty of a crime.  I thought, at one time, they might explain why Martin was so annoyed at Zimmerman, but I have given up hope on that.

Curiosity.  And not the one on Mars.

I don't think it proves whether or not he's guilty of a crime, but it does give some background.  For myself, when I hear many conflicting accounts of something I am drawn to finding the one closest to the truth, and in my opinion that's the NEN call in GZ's own words before he ever had any incentive to lie.  Matching that up with his statements informs my opinion about GZ and whether or not to believe his account of the attack in whole, part, or not at all.  I'm nobody, of course, so what I believe doesn't matter to the case at all. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 12:47:08 PM
Curiosity.  And not the one on Mars.

I don't think it proves whether or not he's guilty of a crime, but it does give some background.  For myself, when I hear many conflicting accounts of something I am drawn to finding the one closest to the truth, and in my opinion that's the NEN call in GZ's own words before he ever had any incentive to lie.  Matching that up with his statements informs my opinion about GZ and whether or not to believe his account of the attack in whole, part, or not at all.  I'm nobody, of course, so what I believe doesn't matter to the case at all.

I lean more toward "the phone call was before he had a chance to muddleheadly mis-remember almost everything, for whatever reason".  I'm not seeing George as having the mental chops to be a criminal mastermind who comes up with an elaborate plot in the mere moments before the police arrive that lets him get away with murder.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 12:48:29 PM
I've done quite a bit of audio work in my day and I do not hear Mr. Zimmerman ever say anyone is AT the clubhouse.

GZ's NEN call Feb 26th:
Dispatcher Sean: He’s near the clubhouse right now? [00:56]
GZ: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me [00:58].
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 12:49:55 PM

So what was the problem with the timing again?  It seems his account is certainly possible if not probable.  So you have to ask, why would he make such a story up?  It complicates the scenario due to timing, yet he states it unequivocally.  Almost as if he was there and experienced it himself.

Oh wait....he was there.

The biggest problem is that he would have to be already running long before "sh*t he's running", which makes one wonder why GZ would say it at that point in the call.  The implication being he was walking until the point that GZ says he's running.  It also requires TM to be in a big hurry to run to the T (does he have to touch the baseline before he runs back?), run back to GZ, walk around his car, and then take off running again.  I don't know that didn't happen, all I can say is it would be very strange if it did.  And also, I thought the time between "these a**holes" and "he's running" was 32 seconds? I'm going off the posted alternative transcript so I may be wrong.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 12:53:09 PM
I lean more toward "the phone call was before he had a chance to muddleheadly mis-remember almost everything, for whatever reason".  I'm not seeing George as having the mental chops to be a criminal mastermind who comes up with an elaborate plot in the mere moments before the police arrive that lets him get away with murder.

Good point, I didn't mean to imply that any contradictions would be lies, only that you can reasonably assume that what he says on the call is not a lie as he has no incentive to at that point.  I firmly believe he has a poor memory and events are blurred because of the trauma.  I don't think he's a mastermind, but I can see how a person who killed someone would want to remember events in a way that minimized his own mistakes and justified his own behaviour.  It's just human nature.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 12:53:42 PM
GZ's NEN call Feb 26th:
Dispatcher Sean: He’s near the clubhouse right now? [00:56]
GZ: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me [00:58].

Around here you'll get an argument lively discussion about exactly what near means, but I think we're just about all in agreement that it's not exactly the same as "at".

So if Zimmerman ever actually uttered the particular words "at the clubhouse", it must have been when the dispatcher was talking over him.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 12:55:54 PM

GZ's own words before he ever had any incentive to lie. 

Please explain why GZ had an incentive to lie? Nevermind you cleared that up. Its seems much more likely to me that GZ would have a strong incentive not to lie. Particularly when he was unaware of the content of other witnesses and evidence .
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 12:57:11 PM
Tchoupi, I deleted my comment about you since you are not primary writer at that site and did not author the post I  referred to. You are mentioned in the Herald article as a person the site relies on.  I apologize for disparaging your motives, and again thank you for your civility here.

You're welcome and I was sincerely not expecting less from you.

I think this page (http://imgur.com/a/bcAII#nFkZH) is a collection of some of your work on the case, am I correct?

That's correct.

For others, Frances Robles at the Miami Herald describes Tchoupi (http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/08/04/v-fullstory/2933157/the-trayvon-martin-truth-squad.html#storylink=cpy) as a person whose work is relied on by bcclist :

Thank you for clearing that up.

You're very welcome
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 12:58:12 PM
Around here you'll get an argument lively discussion about exactly what near means, but I think we're just about all in agreement that it's not exactly the same as "at".

So if Zimmerman ever actually uttered the particular words "at the clubhouse", it must have been when the dispatcher was talking over him.

Congrats- you got it nearly right.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 12:59:14 PM
Congrats- you got it nearly right.

What part did I not get right?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 01:04:55 PM
What part did I not get right?

The nearly pun 8)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: RiseFRomBelow on August 09, 2012, 01:07:06 PM
Please explain why GZ had an incentive to lie? Nevermind you cleared that up. Its seems much more likely to me that GZ would have a strong incentive not to lie. Particularly when he was unaware of the content of other witnesses and evidence .

If GZ was concerned enough to lie it seems to me he would have also gotten a lawyer before talking to the police. The fact that he didn't get a lawyer, waived Miranda and even took a voice stress test suggests to me that he intended to just tell the truth thinking that it would keep him free. Too trusting.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 01:07:29 PM

I think this page (http://imgur.com/a/bcAII#nFkZH) is a collection of some of your work on the case, am I correct?


Pure catnip.  Thanks for posting that.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: FromBelow on August 09, 2012, 01:11:18 PM
Geesh, I had logged in with an old account. Obviously RiseFromBelow is me. :)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 01:15:05 PM
Geesh, I had logged in with an old account. Obviously RiseFromBelow is me. :)

Most transparent sock puppet eveh! :)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: FromBelow on August 09, 2012, 01:22:47 PM
Most transparent sock puppet eveh! :)
LOL No, I just screwed up the capitalization. FRom instead of From so decided to just make this account. I wouldn't even have noticed I had logged in with the wrong one if I hadn't wondered why the forum kept asking me what country borders the US to the north every time I made a post.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Philly on August 09, 2012, 01:26:39 PM
The analysis of car movements seems pretty objective and compelling to me.

The NEN call forms an objective record of the actual timeline and conversation between George and the dispatcher, though as has been pointed out, George is never precise about his or Trayvon's location.

George being asked to recount what happened and when (without access to the tape to jog his memory) is a classic police tactic.  He's not going to get everything right, leaving people the opportunity to jump on any discrepency, however innocuous, as a "lie."

Yep calculated tripe based on bad assumtions and opinions. Nothing new there.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 09, 2012, 01:38:59 PM
GZ's NEN call Feb 26th:
Dispatcher Sean: He’s near the clubhouse right now? [00:56]
GZ: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me [00:58].
I think it's worth mentioning that Zimmerman sounds very distracted when he says "Yeah." Perhaps if he weren't suddenly concerned about Martin heading toward him, he might have qualified that answer a little more.

Also, it seems to me that saying the clubhouse is the best address he could give suggests Zimmerman wasn't at the clubhouse at the time. If he were, the clubhouse would be the exact address, not just the best address.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 09, 2012, 02:11:13 PM
Commenters, please, you may disagree with another commenter's opinions but don't insult him or his work using disparaging adjectives. Just say you disagree with it (and why) or point out parts you think are based on speculation and not facts. No insults.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 02:48:51 PM
There was some discussion about it on this very forum about how he always gave that address when calling in.

In which discussion I pointed out that this is not correct.
Title: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: RickyJim on August 09, 2012, 02:52:36 PM
Bienvenu M. Tchoupi.  I am sure your knowledge and enthusiasm will educate everyone.  Maybe you should start a new Evidence thread just devoted to discussing the analysis on http://imgur.com/a/bcAII#nFkZH .  The all graphic format makes much hard to read.  I remember once bringing up here your wind analysis which is intended to cast doubt on Zimmerman's claim that he was not running after exiting his car.  Others have pointed out that the wind noise is audible on the NEN call and the wind speed numbers you have may not be indicative of the conditions where Zimmerman was.   

If you are familiar with how self defense cases are handled in the French legal system, I would also be interested in hearing about any big differences.  I would think that such a case, with almost no witnesses and ambiguous forensic evidence, would end up giving the accused the benefit of the doubt in the French system, but probably it would take less time.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 02:53:35 PM
Also (and I'm sure you know this) - headphones are pretty much a must!

I use headphones, but not expensive ones. Sony MDR-XD200, if that's useful.

Sorry, I'm not impressed by claims of superior expertise and equipment, when you claim not to hear something that I do hear.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 09, 2012, 02:58:37 PM
I use headphones, but not expensive ones. Sony MDR-XD200, if that's useful.

Sorry, I'm not impressed by claims of superior expertise and equipment, when you claim not to hear something that I do hear.

Humor me.

Exactly where in the call is it that you're hearing the specific words "at the clubhouse", so that I may go and listen for them as well?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 09, 2012, 03:09:48 PM
Humor me.

Exactly where in the call is it that you're hearing the specific words "at the clubhouse", so that I may go and listen for them as well?

I hear it (without headphones) in the crosstalk around 0:53 when he says "that's the clubhouse...".  The dispatcher talks over him but you can hear it.
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: TalkLeft on August 09, 2012, 03:10:38 PM
Bienvenu M. Tchoupi.  I am sure your knowledge and enthusiasm will educate everyone.  Maybe you should start a new Evidence thread just devoted to discussing the analysis on http://imgur.com/a/bcAII#nFkZH . 

That would not be appropriate since it is not evidence and changes the discussion from the evidence in the case to the opinions of one specific person which may or may not be accurate.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 09, 2012, 03:19:58 PM
I hear it (without headphones) in the crosstalk around 0:53 when he says "that's the clubhouse...".  The dispatcher talks over him but you can hear it.
Amateur,
He's correcting the  dispatcher there. This exchange confuses people. The dispatcher gives the 1111 address
and Z cuts him off and says, "that's the clubhouse". GZ is no longer at the clubhouse.
Z isn't being intentionally deceptive or confusing on the NEN call. He just comes off that way.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 03:26:27 PM
Could you quote a few words, from him or the dispatcher or both, from just before him saying that and just after him saying that, so I can get an idea of where in the call he actually says "at the clubhouse"?

Quote
Zimmerman (0:52-54): That's the, that's the clubhouse.

Zimmerman (0:54-55): He's at the clubhouse [unintelligible].

Dispatcher: (0:54-57): That's the clubhouse? Do you know what the- He's near the clubhouse right now?

I can't make out the monosyllable after 'clubhouse', which others say is 'now'.

Zimmerman says the word 'clubhouse' shortly after the first time the dispatcher does. I wish I could pin it down more precisely, but I have to tune out one voice to understand the other.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 09, 2012, 03:29:18 PM
I can't make out the monosyllable after 'clubhouse', which others say is 'now'.

Zimmerman says the word 'clubhouse' shortly after the first time the dispatcher does. I wish I could pin it down more precisely, but I have to tune out one voice to understand the other.


He's trying to give directions to the best landmark he can think of.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 03:34:51 PM

He's trying to give directions to the best landmark he can think of.

You're surprising me today, Ignats. Yes, the best one he can think of. And thinking of cops who might not be familiar, they should be able to find the mailboxes and/or clubhouse pretty easily. At least that would be my thought.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 03:38:57 PM
Humor me.

No humoring. I responded to this request the first time, as soon as I saw it.
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 03:50:18 PM
Bienvenu M. Tchoupi.  I am sure your knowledge and enthusiasm will educate everyone.  Maybe you should start a new Evidence thread just devoted to discussing the analysis on http://imgur.com/a/bcAII#nFkZH .  The all graphic format makes much hard to read.  I remember once bringing up here your wind analysis which is intended to cast doubt on Zimmerman's claim that he was not running after exiting his car.  Others have pointed out that the wind noise is audible on the NEN call and the wind speed numbers you have may not be indicative of the conditions where Zimmerman was.   

If you are familiar with how self defense cases are handled in the French legal system, I would also be interested in hearing about any big differences.  I would think that such a case, with almost no witnesses and ambiguous forensic evidence, would end up giving the accused the benefit of the doubt in the French system, but probably it would take less time.

IMO Its a pretty flawed and biased piece of analysis. I think its in a fine place just where it is. I for one am sick of conjecture stated as fact.  If you want to try and waste time refuting it can be done on Tchopi's site.

Or If he is interested he can review the posts here which refute much of what he contends.


Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 09, 2012, 03:50:31 PM
You're surprising me today, Ignats. Yes, the best one he can think of. And thinking of cops who might not be familiar, they should be able to find the mailboxes and/or clubhouse pretty easily. At least that would be my thought.

Exactly. He doesn't articulate the directions very well. To GZ it must have seemed obvious that he had moved to another location but of course it wasn't/isn't. Correct me if I'm wrong. During the previous NEN call didn't the dispatcher ask for an address? Didn't he ask Z to keep THAT kid in sight? Is that what Z was trying to do on 2/26?  The next day, well I don't know how to explain that.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 09, 2012, 03:52:11 PM
In that crosstalk after "that's the clubhouse," I can't understand a word either of them say. I've tried every Audacity trick I know (which is not saying much), and none help. Does anyone have a guess as to what Sean says?

I assume there's no chance the original recordings were stereo, with each person on a separate channel. Sure would have been nice if they were.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 03:53:57 PM
Exactly. The other common reference point is the rear entrance. I always assumed that when GZ established mentioned near he was doing so in the context of thhose two  mentally established reference points.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 03:56:29 PM
There is far too much that we don't know to really make any sort of reasonable calculations, and I absolutely hate math, but since you've challenged GZ's account, here goes.  First, we don't know where TM was when GZ pulled out of the clubhouse.  All we know is he was ahead of GZ.  Second, we don't know the patch TM took, except that he headed down TTL.  Third, we don't know when or even if he ran and whether or not GZ could see him running.  (Doubtful)

Setting aside all those unknowns, I have never watched the video reenactment in its entirety.  So, I've started watching it.  The investigator backs out of the space at the clubhouse at 5:14 and arrives at the location where GZ parked on TTL at 5:56.  This is remarkably close to the timings in the NEN call.  You hear gear selector sounds at 1:10, which apparently is GZ backing out.  Then you hear another at 1:16, which is GZ proceeding to TTL.  You hear the last one at 1:56, so this accords quite well with the reenactment.

So that part of GZ's account is confirmed.

The distance from the clubhouse center to the T and back to where GZ's car was parked is approximately 183 meters.  (I used Google to measure it.)  Usain Bolt holds the record for the 200 meters at 19.9 seconds.  183 meters is 91.5% of 200 meters, so his time would be about 18.2 seconds at that distance.  The American high school record is 20.13 seconds, so 183 meters would be about 18.41.  A decent high school athlete could do that in no more than twice the time (and likely much less than twice), or about 36 seconds.  As I wrote earlier, circling the car would be easily doable in 12 seconds, so the total is 48 seconds.  GZ's time from leaving the clubhouse to saying "sh*t! He's running!" is, oddly enough, 48 seconds.

So what was the problem with the timing again?  It seems his account is certainly possible if not probable.  So you have to ask, why would he make such a story up?  It complicates the scenario due to timing, yet he states it unequivocally.  Almost as if he was there and experienced it himself.

Oh wait....he was there.

There are quite a bit of assumptions you're making here.  And some are really massive to my opinion.  I'll focus on just two:

1) You're making the assumptions that the noises are switching gears. There is no evidence of that.
     I personally searched an logged and classified most and hopefully all noises made during the first 2 min of the call.
    The noise at 1:09.5 may very well be a gear noise as you're pointing out.  however, you have to be cautious there.  That noise is partially covered by GZ's voice as he finishes saying "Black male".  Moreover I couldn't find any other instance of such a double-clack noise during those 2min.
    There are elements suggesting that most of the noises heard in the 1st 2min actually are wipers.
    As example, the noise at 1:16 you're claim is GZ switch gears to Drive (if my understanding is correct) is a thump noise.  I have located thump noises at 00:16, 00:31.5, 1:00.5, 1:05.5, 1:16.5, 1:39.5 & 1:54.  In all of these instances, the thump noise is rather well isolated (no talking cover).  There are a few more instances where we can guess covered thump noises but I refrained from going there though I'm still thinking about running some waves correlation to reveal those covered thump noises.   
    The noise you hear at 1:56 is simply absent of my copy of the record.  What I have is a thump noise at 1:54.  Is that the one you're talking about? If not could you tell me what copy you're using.  The one I have was downloaded from Sanford PD website back in March/April. 

2) Trayvon was no Usain Bolt.  Even Usain Bolt needs technology in his shoes and on the ground to beat those records.   Usain Bolt in a baggy with tennis shoe running in the rain on wet road and grass would probably not get anywhere close to his records.  But the more important, I have seen no indication that the skinny Trayvon was an athlete.  Actually, DeeDee's statement suggests he was not.  It would be interesting to know what are his real physical skills. 

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 03:56:44 PM
He's correcting the dispatcher there.

The dispatcher had the address correct. Zimmerman said 'the clubhouse', probably because he still couldn't remember the address.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 03:57:07 PM
In that crosstalk after "that's the clubhouse," I can't understand a word either of them say. I've tried every Audacity trick I know (which is not saying much), and none help. Does anyone have a guess as to what Sean says?

I assume there's no chance the original recordings were stereo, with each person on a separate channel. Sure would have been nice if they were.

You bring up a good point. Is the NEN equipment the same as the 911 equipment. If NEN is intended for administrative use  it seems that the requirements are relaxed compared to a 911 call. Do they even use the same clock?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 04:07:06 PM
2) Trayvon was no Usain Bolt.  Even Usain Bolt needs technology in his shoes and on the ground to beat those records.   Usain Bolt in a baggy with tennis shoe running in the rain on wet road and grass would probably not get anywhere close to his records.  But the more important, I have seen no indication that the skinny Trayvon was an athlete.  Actually, DeeDee's statement suggests he was not.  It would be interesting to know what are his real physical skills.

Ho Hum more guesswork. I think since you are attempting to convict GZ its up to you to provide evidence of Martins alledge poor physical condition.

We know he played competitive football just a few years earlier. But once again since your theory at least partially  relies on Trayvon being in bad shape I believe the burden of proof is on you.

Thank you in advance for you evidence .

BTW do you regard Deedee's statements ( given a month after the incident and after Crump had an opportunity to 'help' DeeDee) as totally truthful? Are you prepared to defend her statements?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 09, 2012, 04:09:00 PM
You bring up a good point. Is the NEN equipment the same as the 911 equipment. If NEN is intended for administrative use  it seems that the requirements are relaxed compared to a 911 call. Do they even use the same clock?

Someone once said that Sean took one of the 911 calls. I can't vouch for that, but it it's true, the calls almost certainly go through the same system. In any case, I think it's very likely they do.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 04:13:32 PM

2) Trayvon was no Usain Bolt.  Even Usain Bolt needs technology in his shoes and on the ground to beat those records.   Usain Bolt in a baggy with tennis shoe running in the rain on wet road and grass would probably not get anywhere close to his records.  But the more important, I have seen no indication that the skinny Trayvon was an athlete.  Actually, DeeDee's statement suggests he was not.  It would be interesting to know what are his real physical skills.

Isn't that why he doubled everything?

As for TM as athlete--all I've seen from you is that you don't think he was because you say he was skinny height/weight wise, yet you refuse to answer any questions about how a UFC lightweight would be the same size, and would you call him skinny etc?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 05:13:20 PM
I don't have the time to look up my post right now, but I believe the gear selector is at 11 seconds and I know the sound that I think is the turn signal is at 16 seconds. Also (and I'm sure you know this) - headphones are pretty much a must!
I think the sound at 16 is the same sound that I identified as the gear selector.  It has the same chunk chunk sound.  I don't hear anything at 11 seconds.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll have to listen to the tape a few more times.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 05:19:48 PM
I think the sound at 16 is the same sound that I identified as the gear selector.  It has the same chunk chunk sound.  I don't hear anything at 11 seconds.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll have to listen to the tape a few more times.
I take it back.  I hear what I believe is the gear selector at 1 second and 16 seconds.  I hear what I think is the door locks at 11 seconds.  I'm going to have to listen to this tape a lot more.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 09, 2012, 05:22:13 PM
Ho Hum more guesswork. I think since you are attempting to convict GZ its up to you to provide evidence of Martins alledge poor physical condition.

Actually I was pointing to the assumption that TM could be sprinting like an athlete and adding the following:
Quote

It would be interesting to know what are his real physical skills.


We know he played competitive football just a few years earlier. But once again since your theory at least partially  relies on Trayvon being in bad shape I believe the burden of proof is on you.

That's a valid point.  Thanks.


BTW do you regard Deedee's statements ( given a month after the incident and after Crump had an opportunity to 'help' DeeDee) as totally truthful? Are you prepared to defend her statements?

I'm less interested in defending her statements.  I'm more fascinated by GZ's.
Obviously, the prosecution relies somewhat on her but I'm not sure to what extend as most of what she says is just hearsay [she repeats what Trayvon told her on the phone].  Hearsay usually don't fly in a court of justice.  For example, she did not witnessed GZ stalking TM.  TM told her that a man was stalking him.  That make's a big difference.
The only part I expect her to really play a role is as a hear witness of the shouting match between TM & GZ in the early phase of the scuffle.     


Finally, expect me to challenge you more.  ;)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 05:22:50 PM
I take it back.  I hear what I believe is the gear selector at 1 second and 16 seconds.  I hear what I think is the door locks at 11 seconds.  I'm going to have to listen to this tape a lot more.

Wait--in most cars that I know with auto locks, some lock when you shift into drive but most lock at a certain speed--something like 7-10mph.

So how are the locks engaging first?

Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: RickyJim on August 09, 2012, 05:24:06 PM
The second article frames the "Legitime Defense" status.  Basically there are conditions you have to fulfill to claim and be granted the "Legitime Defense".
The main idea behind those conditions is that the "legitime defense" act must be the only issue, and must be a strike-back in proportion to the aggression.

The Florida law is fairly specific about when a lethal response is justified.  I would think that the French law would have to have something more than "strike-back in proportion to the aggression" in order to justify shooting to kill.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 09, 2012, 05:41:42 PM
I think the sound at 16 is the same sound that I identified as the gear selector.  It has the same chunk chunk sound.  I don't hear anything at 11 seconds.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll have to listen to the tape a few more times.

Please see  Lee M's alternate transcript (http://talkleft.com/zimm/alternatetranscript.pdf). He identifies the sounds.  He sent me clips of the segments he identifies.

Play  Ridgelinewiperandturnsignal (http://talkleft.com/Audio/Ridgelinewiperandsignal1.wav)

Play At the Clubhouse (http://talkleft.com/Audio/attheclubhouse.wav)

Play Ridgeline Window Solanoid (http://talkleft.com/Audio/Ridgelinewindowsolenoid.mp3)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 05:42:40 PM
Hearsay usually don't fly in a court of justice.

In the U.S. there are many exceptions to the hearsay exclusion. In his book on the Manson case, Vincent Bugliosi wrote something to the effect that hearsay is usually admissible under one exception or another. Bugliosi convicted Charles Manson of mass murder, largely on hearsay evidence.

Most or all of what Dee Dee claims Martin told her will probably be admissible under the Spontaneous Statement exception. See Fla. Stat. § 90.803 (1). (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 05:45:17 PM
I think the sound at 16 is the same sound that I identified as the gear selector.  It has the same chunk chunk sound.  I don't hear anything at 11 seconds.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll have to listen to the tape a few more times.
Now listening closer, I hear a sound every 15 seconds, starting at 1 second and going through 1:31.  I'm certain that's the windshield wipers on intermittent, especially because of the consistent timing.  I think you were correct about the sound at 11 seconds being the gear selector.  I just don't think that's GZ leaving the clubhouse.  Now that I'm listening for the umpteenth time, I'm picking up more and more sounds.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 05:48:28 PM
GZ's NEN call Feb 26th:
Dispatcher Sean: He’s near the clubhouse right now? [00:56]
GZ: Yeah, now he’s coming towards me [00:58].
I agree with that.  He says
Quote
0:53 Zimmerman: That’s the, that’s the clubhouse (unintelligible)
0:55 Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse.
0:56 Zimmerman: (unintelligible)
0:57 Dispatcher: Do you know what the…he’s near the clubhouse right now?
0:58 Zimmerman: Yeah.  Now he’s comin towards me.
Most of it is unintelligible, overridden by the dispatcher's voice.  Also, he responds "Yeah." to "he's near the clubhouse right now?"  GZ is usually quick to correct anyone who misunderstands his meaning.  He does it several times to both Singleton and Serino in their interviews.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 06:15:06 PM
There are quite a bit of assumptions you're making here.  And some are really massive to my opinion.  I'll focus on just two:

1) You're making the assumptions that the noises are switching gears. There is no evidence of that.
     I personally searched an logged and classified most and hopefully all noises made during the first 2 min of the call.
I agree with that.  I've been running through the tape again this evening, and I'm certain I'm hearing windshield wipers every fifteen seconds (obviously set on intermittent) at 0:01, 0:16, 0:31, 0:46, etc., going through to 1:46.  After that it gets muddled.
Quote from: tchoupi
The noise at 1:09.5 may very well be a gear noise as you're pointing out.  however, you have to be cautious there.  That noise is partially covered by GZ's voice as he finishes saying "Black male".  Moreover I couldn't find any other instance of such a double-clack noise during those 2min.
    There are elements suggesting that most of the noises heard in the 1st 2min actually are wipers.
    As example, the noise at 1:16 you're claim is GZ switch gears to Drive (if my understanding is correct) is a thump noise.  I have located thump noises at 00:16, 00:31.5, 1:00.5, 1:05.5, 1:16.5, 1:39.5 & 1:54.  In all of these instances, the thump noise is rather well isolated (no talking cover).  There are a few more instances where we can guess covered thump noises but I refrained from going there though I'm still thinking about running some waves correlation to reveal those covered thump noises.   
    The noise you hear at 1:56 is simply absent of my copy of the record.  What I have is a thump noise at 1:54.  Is that the one you're talking about?
Yes.  After listening tonight, I've amended the time.  I'm doing this on a Mac with iTunes and iPod earphones, so it's not the best equipment for doing this sort of work.
Quote from: tchoupi
If not could you tell me what copy you're using.  The one I have was downloaded from Sanford PD website back in March/April. 

2) Trayvon was no Usain Bolt.  Even Usain Bolt needs technology in his shoes and on the ground to beat those records.   Usain Bolt in a baggy with tennis shoe running in the rain on wet road and grass would probably not get anywhere close to his records.
Of course not, but TM had double the time, which is a little over 8mph.  Not exactly lightning bolt speed.
Quote from: tchoupi
But the more important, I have seen no indication that the skinny Trayvon was an athlete.  Actually, DeeDee's statement suggests he was not.  It would be interesting to know what are his real physical skills.
He was a high school football player.  I've not been able to confirm it, but I suspect he didn't play in the last year of his life.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 06:20:54 PM
In the U.S. there are many exceptions to the hearsay exclusion. In his book on the Manson case, Vincent Bugliosi wrote something to the effect that hearsay is usually admissible under one exception or another. Bugliosi convicted Charles Manson of mass murder, largely on hearsay evidence.

Most or all of what Dee Dee claims Martin told her will probably be admissible under the Spontaneous Statement exception. See Fla. Stat. § 90.803 (1). (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0000-0099/0090/Sections/0090.803.html)

Subject to cross examination of course. But I doubt that after being deposed DeeDee and her statements will be called by the prosecution.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 06:50:00 PM
But I doubt that after being deposed DeeDee and her statements will be called by the prosecution.

I've answered this before on the W-8 (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2022.msg100037.html#msg100037) thread, which is where this should go.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 08:10:41 PM
I agree with that.  He says Most of it is unintelligible, overridden by the dispatcher's voice.  Also, he responds "Yeah." to "he's near the clubhouse right now?"  GZ is usually quick to correct anyone who misunderstands his meaning.  He does it several times to both Singleton and Serino in their interviews.

Again near does not mean at.  Also the yeah is almost dismissive. The important information is that TM is closing in.
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 09, 2012, 08:19:38 PM
.  After all, it sounds logical to me that a gun is just a tool which purpose is to kill.  There are other ways and tools to do the same.

1. Could we stop talking about France now? That's what the PM feature is for.

2. Could we stop with the editorializing? Guns aren't just tools of death. Christ.
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: Lousy1 on August 09, 2012, 09:03:53 PM
I was referring to the no duty to retreat part of the Florida SYG law as something France (and many US states, I think) don't have.  One thing just about all countries but the US have for all crimes is that an indictment can be handed down only by a judge after conducting an investigation and issuing a report, so there are things like SYG hearings for everything.  If an indictment is handed down, a trial will use the Investigating Judge's report as input.   Apparently many US States allow indictment by elected prosecutors on whim, an outrage.  If the Zimmerman case was handled European style from the start, I think the Judge's report, in the case of non indictment, might have defused the situation early.

In the Zimmerman case there is no evidence that a duty to retreat was a factor. By all the evidence TM attacked GZ  without offering him any possibility of retreat.

The  Florida model that allows a prosecutor to bring a case to trial without reasonable cause is a travesty. I agree
J'accuse Mademoiselle Corey
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Juan on August 09, 2012, 09:03:59 PM
I can't make out the monosyllable after 'clubhouse', which others say is 'now'.

Zimmerman says the word 'clubhouse' shortly after the first time the dispatcher does. I wish I could pin it down more precisely, but I have to tune out one voice to understand the other.

Sounds to me he says "That's the ... the clubhouse. During crosstalk (at 55 seconds) he continues "He's at the clubhouse, now he's". Not just "He's at the clubhouse now". The when asked if TM was near the clubhouse he say's "Yeah, now he's coming towards me". I think that's what he was going to say when his sentence broke off.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 09, 2012, 10:15:14 PM
I now have posted the transcript (http://txantimedia.com/2012/08/09/complete-transcript-serino-interview-2292012-tape-3/) of the 3rd 2/29 tape of Serino and Singleton's interview of Zimmerman.  Since this transcript records them playing the NEN tape and questioning GZ about his moves, motives and location, I have added the times on the tape so that you can compare line by line with the NEN transcript (http://txantimedia.com/2012/08/07/transcript-of-zimmermans-non-emergency-call-2262012/).

In the tape, GZ is adamant that he was still at the clubhouse at the 0:48 mark on the NEN call.  He became uncertain about the 1:03 point and was completely uncertain at the 1:20 mark.  So I think the placement of the gear sound at 1:09 is probably accurate.  At that point he begins backing out of the parking space he had pulled into at the clubhouse.  At 1:19 he puts the shifter into forward and heads toward TTL.

According to him, he was at TTL parked by 1:50, so his elapsed time from the clubhouse to TTL would be about 30 seconds or so.  Of course with his poor memory, who knows.  I think it's more like the 1:54 mark, which would be 34 seconds.
Title: Race You!
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 09, 2012, 10:58:07 PM

So I think the placement of the gear sound at 1:09 is probably accurate.  At that point he begins backing out of the parking space he had pulled into at the clubhouse.  At 1:19 he puts the shifter into forward and heads toward TTL.

Zimmerman left the parking lot before Martin reached the truck? Then Martin raced him to the cut through? Martin caught up and passed Zimmerman, inspiring the 'always get away' remark at 1:37?

Was the truck moving down Twin Trees Lane when Martin 'walked around' it?
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: TalkLeft on August 09, 2012, 11:05:32 PM
1. Could we stop talking about France now? That's what the PM feature is for.


I deleted the comments about France's system. This is about Florida's system.
Title: Menacing Approach
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 12:23:01 AM
Why would GZ retell it in a way that has TM lurking in and out of the darkness in a menacing way?

I don't recall GZ using the phrase "menacing way" anywhere.

Amateur didn't say he did. He didn't use quote marks, implying a direct, verbatim quote.

Amateur used the phrase to briefly characterize Zimmerman's description of Martin's behavior. I think it's dead on.

2/29-1, 29:35-30:12
Quote
Singleton: When he, when he comes up to your car, you're telling them, right, that-

Zimmerman: Yes.

Singleton: -you, he’s reaching in his waistband?

Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.

Singleton: So what do you think there’s a possibility that he has?

Zimmerman: Well, the guy, three weeks, two weeks prior, did the same thing when he saw me. He, like put his hand in his jacket and watched me walk by, and then he lit a cigarette. So I thought that he was just trying to, look tough or intimidate-

Singleton: So you didn’t think he had a weapon?

Zimmerman: No. Not at the time.

Singleton: You thought he was just trying to bluff you.

Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 12:26:26 AM
I've done no audio work, and I hear it clearly.

I don't understand how your audio work is supposed to prove I am hallucinating.

I replied to you (url below) and I assume you missed it. I never stated anyone is hallucinating - I have stated that my opinion is that he's NOT saying anyone is at the clubhouse. It's a bit more difficult to just listen to it because you have to deal with an echo. Not to mention a preconceived theory possibly brought on by "the power of suggestion."

http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2094.msg99180.html#msg99180
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 12:32:44 AM
I use headphones, but not expensive ones. Sony MDR-XD200, if that's useful.

Sorry, I'm not impressed by claims of superior expertise and equipment, when you claim not to hear something that I do hear.

I'm not impressed with your straw man arguments either. Two of them here.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 12:46:31 AM
I think the sound at 16 is the same sound that I identified as the gear selector.  It has the same chunk chunk sound.  I don't hear anything at 11 seconds.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I'll have to listen to the tape a few more times.

The sound at 0:16 isn't a chunk chunk sound, it's a tick tock (repeating) sound.

Here they are cropped:
[0:11] http://www.filedropper.com/gear
[0:16] http://www.filedropper.com/turnsignal

(Note: I wasn't too careful when cropping, so there may be some missing or gained in the audio files.)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 12:47:24 AM
I replied to you (url below) and I assume you missed it.

I read it when it was posted. You said you don't hear what I hear, and some technical stuff.

I don't know why you don't hear it. I hear it clearly. If Zimmerman didn't say it, and the audio hasn't been manipulated, then I'm hallucinating.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
I read it when it was posted. You said you don't hear what I hear, and some technical stuff.

I don't know why you don't hear it. I hear it clearly. If Zimmerman didn't say it, and the audio hasn't been manipulated, then I'm hallucinating.

Power of suggestion would be my guess. You read or heard someone say "Mr. Zimmerman said [someone] was at the clubhouse!" and when you listen to it, it sounds like that's what he's saying. This happens pretty often and I have stories where I conducted tests where human manufactured "EVPs" were used and the results were astounding - everyone who heard through power of suggestion what it was said that it was what they heard, those who didn't get the suggestion heard something else. In fact, there's another example from this very case... the whole "f**king punks" thing - how many people believed it was a racial slur because some media outlets said it was? Did you hear the echo?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 01:05:10 AM
Power of suggestion would be my guess.

I considered that. The words are too distinct.

It's true that I didn't realize the dispatcher was talking over Zimmerman until it was pointed out. Once I focused on listening to Zimmerman's voice, it was quite clear. There's an emphasis on 'at'.

Quote
Did you hear the echo?

I don't know. You'll have to explain that more clearly.
Title: Re: Menacing Approach
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 04:48:50 AM
Amateur didn't say he did. He didn't use quote marks, implying a direct, verbatim quote.

Amateur used the phrase to briefly characterize Zimmerman's description of Martin's behavior. I think it's dead on.

2/29-1, 29:35-30:12

Oh I see. So he's using it to characterize Zimmerman's description of Martin's behavior. But that's not editorializing at all.

And it's nothing like reading DeeDee say that TM's voice dropped, he was where Zimmerman couldn't see his shadow moving and so forth is "hiding", right?

You're awfully inconsistent about things.

 :o >:(
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 04:50:37 AM
I read it when it was posted. You said you don't hear what I hear, and some technical stuff.

I don't know why you don't hear it. I hear it clearly. If Zimmerman didn't say it, and the audio hasn't been manipulated, then I'm hallucinating.

Or just wrong. Interesting that you'd jump right to the far more hyperbolic "hallucinating" instead of just saying you didn't hear it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 05:43:42 AM
I read it when it was posted. You said you don't hear what I hear, and some technical stuff.

I don't know why you don't hear it. I hear it clearly. If Zimmerman didn't say it, and the audio hasn't been manipulated, then I'm hallucinating.

No one actually hears what they hear, just like no one actually sees what they see.

Stimuli come into the eyes or the ears, get converted into nerve impulses, and the brain goes to work pattern matching.

Where do the patterns come from in the first place?

Earlier in the person's life, mostly.

Since everyone is exposed to differing stimuli as they grow up, they're going to have different patterns to match to.

Hence, differing interpretations of the same sights and sounds.

And that's before you even factor in differences in sensitivities to different frequencies of either in different people.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 10, 2012, 06:44:58 AM
The dispatcher had the address correct. Zimmerman said 'the clubhouse', probably because he still couldn't remember the address.


He's not correcting the address. He's correcting the location. He's no longer at the clubhouse.
Because GZ started to give the clubhouse address but stopped, the dispatcher thinks that's where Z is.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 06:45:42 AM
Zimmerman left the parking lot before Martin reached the truck? Then Martin raced him to the cut through? Martin caught up and passed Zimmerman, inspiring the 'always get away' remark at 1:37?

Was the truck moving down Twin Trees Lane when Martin 'walked around' it?
No.  TM had already passed the truck when GZ backed out.  That's why he backed out, because he wanted to see where TM was going.  And yes, some of his comments are made while he's driving, including the "always get away" comment.

Read the transcripts.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 06:50:46 AM
Power of suggestion would be my guess. You read or heard someone say "Mr. Zimmerman said [someone] was at the clubhouse!" and when you listen to it, it sounds like that's what he's saying. This happens pretty often and I have stories where I conducted tests where human manufactured "EVPs" were used and the results were astounding - everyone who heard through power of suggestion what it was said that it was what they heard, those who didn't get the suggestion heard something else. In fact, there's another example from this very case... the whole "f**king punks" thing - how many people believed it was a racial slur because some media outlets said it was? Did you hear the echo?
In the third tape of Serino and Singleton's GZ interview, he says at the clubhouse several times.  He never says it on the NEN call.
Quote
Singleton: Now you’re saying he’s coming up to your car. Does that mean you’ve already, at this point in the tape, you’re already on Twin Tree, the street you didn’t know the name of at the time?
Zimmerman: Um, no, I was on, I called when I was at the clubhouse.
Singleton: OK, but he’s walking up to your car now, right?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton:  On the tape. Cause you’re saying he’s walking up.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: You’re talking about when you’ve already left the clubhouse and now you’re on the corner.
Zimmerman: No, ma’am. I’m at the clubhouse.
Singleton: You’re still at the clubhouse
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: when he does this?
Zimmerman: Mm hmm.
Singleton: OK.
(plays tape 0:49 to 1:03)
Singleton: OK, pause it right there. OK, where’s he, where, where are you at now? Are you still at the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: I think I’m still at the clubhouse, yes.
Singleton: OK.
(plays tape 1:03 to 1:16)
Singleton: Have you moved yet?
Zimmerman: I don’t think so.
Notice how he becomes uncertain as the tape approaches the moment when he backed out (1:09).
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: RickyJim on August 10, 2012, 07:09:34 AM
I deleted the comments about France's system. This is about Florida's system.

I think a discussion of the deficiencies of US law that are being exposed as the case unfolds, and how such a case would have been handled outside of Florida, are interesting topics but they were far OT in a thread about Zimmerman as a witness.  Are you saying that you don't want such discussions anywhere on the forum or main site?
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 10, 2012, 07:18:17 AM
No.  TM had already passed the truck when GZ backed out.  That's why he backed out, because he wanted to see where TM was going.  And yes, some of his comments are made while he's driving, including the "always get away" comment.

Read the transcripts.

The transcripts where people hear him open and close his windows? The transcripts where people hear him lock and unlock his doors?

read the transcript. TM is staring at Z for a minute. The he approaches the car and turns around and runs.
Was TM waliking backwards, watching Z follow him from behind?


Where does this take place?

Zimmerman:

Yeah, now he’s coming toward me. He’s got his hands in his waist band.

And he’s a black male.[1:03]

911 dispatcher:

How old would you say he is?

Zimmerman:

He’s got something on his shirt. About like his late teens.

911 dispatcher:

Late teens?

Zimmerman:

Uh, huh.

Something’s wrong with him. Yep, he’s coming to check me out.

He’s got something in his hands. I don’t know what his deal is. [01:20]

911 dispatcher:

Let me know if he does anything, OK?

Zimmerman:

OK.

911 dispatcher:

We’ve got him on the wire. Just let me know if this guy does anything else.

Zimmerman:

OK.

These assholes. They always get away.

When you come to the clubhouse, you come straight in and you go left. Actually, you would go past the clubhouse. [1:39]

911 dispatcher:

OK, so it’s on the left hand side of the clubhouse?

Zimmerman:

Yeah. You go in straight through the entrance and then you would go left. You go straight in, don’t turn and make a left.

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 08:14:25 AM
The transcripts where people hear him open and close his windows? The transcripts where people hear him lock and unlock his doors?

read the transcript. TM is staring at Z for a minute. The he approaches the car and turns around and runs.
Was TM waliking backwards, watching Z follow him from behind?


Where does this take place?

--SNIP--

He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher:

He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman:

Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

911 dispatcher:

OK, which entrance is that he’s headed towards?

Zimmerman:

The back entrance.

[/i]

With Zimmerman's truck being where he later said he parked it on TTL, that last part has to take place there, because by the time he says "down toward the other entrance" he's already out of the truck, or in the process of getting out.

But if the "they always get away" part takes place while he's still driving from the clubhouse to that location, then Martin circling his truck has to take place back at the clubhouse.

Unless Martin waited for Zimmerman to get out of the truck and run over to RVC for an address before he circled the truck.

If the circling happens while the truck is parked on TTL with Zimmerman inside, then most if not all of the call before Zimmerman gets out on foot has to happen there.

I think we need a "Where was the truck when?" thread.

Can we call the truck Witness H or Witness R?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: leftwig on August 10, 2012, 09:29:11 AM
I guess I just never get past that GZ never tells the dispatcher that he is at the clubhouse and when asked for a location, says "the best address I can give you is" and provides the clubhouse address.  Maybe its just how I think, but if I were parked at the clubhouse when giving out that address, I would have relayed that I was parked there.  IT seems to me that by using this language, he's not parked in front of the clubhouse at that point in the call.  He was either at the clubhouse very briefly in the NEN before moving to see where TM went, or he had already moved around the corner to see where TM went, but not yet at his final parking spot.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 09:46:32 AM
No one actually hears what they hear, just like no one actually sees what they see.

Stimuli come into the eyes or the ears, get converted into nerve impulses, and the brain goes to work pattern matching.

Where do the patterns come from in the first place?

Earlier in the person's life, mostly.

Since everyone is exposed to differing stimuli as they grow up, they're going to have different patterns to match to.

Hence, differing interpretations of the same sights and sounds.

And that's before you even factor in differences in sensitivities to different frequencies of either in different people.

Exactly. Excellent post.

Because of certain things related to my childhood and teen years I tend to always hear and see things badly. People are mad or unhappy etc, while others see or hear the exact same thing and don't get that at all. Nature and nurture.

If a person is inclined to support GZ it's far easier to hear some things and of course vice versa.
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 09:47:58 AM
I think a discussion of the deficiencies of US law that are being exposed as the case unfolds, and how such a case would have been handled outside of Florida, are interesting topics but they were far OT in a thread about Zimmerman as a witness.  Are you saying that you don't want such discussions anywhere on the forum or main site?

Couldn't comment on the main TL site, but I certainly hope that's what she means here.

It doesn't matter how it would be handled outside Florida.

Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: RickyJim on August 10, 2012, 09:58:32 AM
Couldn't comment on the main TL site, but I certainly hope that's what she means here.

It doesn't matter how it would be handled outside Florida.

You think any discussion of how US law may or may not be inferior to that practiced in the rest of the world a taboo subject?  It seems that the Republicans who are all for tort reform don't think so.
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 10:13:17 AM
You think any discussion of how US law may or may not be inferior to that practiced in the rest of the world a taboo subject?  It seems that the Republicans who are all for tort reform don't think so.

I would think it to be way off-topic here unless there were an entirely separate thread created just for that topic.
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 10:20:54 AM
You think any discussion of how US law may or may not be inferior to that practiced in the rest of the world a taboo subject?  It seems that the Republicans who are all for tort reform don't think so.

1. I think it's way off topic here. This is about the State v. George Zimmerman. It doesn't matter what would have happened had this happened in New Hampshire, Oregon or New Mexico--so it doesn't matter what France or Spain or Germany or Mars would've done.

2. Leave off with the politics. The Hostess has already said that too.

Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 10:24:19 AM
1. I think it's way off topic here. This is about the State v. George Zimmerman. It doesn't matter what would have happened had this happened in New Hampshire, Oregon or New Mexico--so it doesn't matter what France or Spain or Germany or Mars would've done.

2. Leave off with the politics. The Hostess has already said that too.

Now wait a minute!

I, for one, think it would be highly relevant and am extrememly interested in how this would have been handled on Barsoom Mars.

 ;D
Title: Re: Tchopi's Evidence Page
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 10:37:49 AM
Now wait a minute!

I, for one, think it would be highly relevant and am extrememly interested in how this would have been handled on Barsoom Mars.

 ;D

Sometimes I get the feeling Tallahassee isn't all that different....

 
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: tchoupi on August 10, 2012, 10:55:42 AM
No.  TM had already passed the truck when GZ backed out.  That's why he backed out, because he wanted to see where TM was going.  And yes, some of his comments are made while he's driving, including the "always get away" comment.

Read the transcripts.

As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, not only the suspect already past GZ at the time he backs off the clubhouse parking lot, but also GZ lost sight of him.

I also understand that it is the reasoning for driving to and park on TTL.

From my personal reading, the next time GZ sees the suspect again is either when he comes back to circle his truck, or, according to the reenactment, when he parks on TTL.

So, what do you guys make of the fact that GZ's NEN call between 00:48 & 01:20ish is full of statements like these:
"He’s here now", 
"Now he’s staring at me",
"now he’s coming towards me",
"he’s coming to check me out."
Or like that:
"He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male"
"He's got a button on his shirt – late teens"
"He's got something in his hands"

To me, and it must be just an interpretation, it sounds like GZ sees the suspect walking towards him for a full 30sec right in the middle of the initial 2min.

Assuming, and it's just an assumption, that I'm right, when exactly did GZ lost sight of TM?  Is it in the initial 45ish seconds or after 1:20? 
I believe it is important because it tells us two things:
1) When the suspect could have possibly disappeared on TTL and gone to the T (the T story is according to the reenactment only, I believe) 
2) When GZ could have possibly left the clubhouse for parking on TTL.   
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 11:09:06 AM
In the third tape of Serino and Singleton's GZ interview, he says at the clubhouse several times.  He never says it on the NEN call.Notice how he becomes uncertain as the tape approaches the moment when he backed out (1:09).

He also says that he didn't leave the clubhouse until Sean (dispatcher) asked him to get somewhere where he could see Mr. Martin - this did not happen. Could it be that he's listening for that specific piece of conversation before committing to being away from the clubhouse? I had this discussion with WillisNewton, but I'll say it again, his uncertainty makes me believe he's not sure of where he is because that piece of conversation is missing. This was Investigator Singleton's second question to him - but you didn't include it in your bit of transcript that you quoted. Also, I still disagree on the 1:09 "backing out" timing - did you listen to the two cropped audio files I posted? Did you hear the turn signal?
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 11:36:04 AM
Read the transcripts.

At this point I think it's clear that I'm more familiar with this material than you are. I've spent a lot of time listening to the recordings, and transcribed much of them myself.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 11:40:00 AM
At this point I think it's clear that I'm more familiar with this material than you are. I've spent a lot of time listening to the recordings, and transcribed much of them myself.

Wow.

It's also clear you have a hard time being objective. That is a factor.
Title: Re: Menacing Approach
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 11:40:49 AM
And it's nothing like reading DeeDee say that TM's voice dropped, he was where Zimmerman couldn't see his shadow moving and so forth is "hiding", right?

Correct. The two cases are not alike.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 11:42:38 AM
He's correcting the location. He's no longer at the clubhouse.

That's not what Zimmerman said.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 11:47:49 AM
TM had already passed the truck when GZ backed out.

Then why did Zimmerman say 'Yeah, he's coming to check me out' just after he was done backing out?
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 11:57:28 AM
Can we call the truck Witness H or Witness R?

If only it could talk.

And would tell the truth.

And had a good memory.
Title: Re: Menacing Approach
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 11:59:46 AM
Correct. The two cases are not alike.

So in one case, a person put a and b together and got c, and in another place people put a and b together and got c, but they aren't the same? Only because you say so?

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 12:00:31 PM
If a person is inclined to support GZ it's far easier to hear some things and of course vice versa.

I am inclined to support Zimmerman.

When I point out the problems in Zimmerman statements, I am admitting to have been hugely wrong about what I expected them to show.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 10, 2012, 12:01:44 PM
Then why did Zimmerman say 'Yeah, he's coming to check me out' just after he was done backing out?

How, from the NEN call, do you get the impression GZ is backing out at this time?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 10, 2012, 12:13:46 PM
I think that after 1:30 (approx) that the truck is in motion to the final parking spot on TTL.  I can't hear the audio anymore but I remember he was very distracted sounding while giving directions.  I can't help but to think he was telling those directions to match where he was driving to and that is why those directions are so craptastic.

For all of the statements afterwards, I still think the NEN is the best actual version of things that were happening as they were happening.

I say this because I have been on "the other side of the table" during an interrogation.   They are not friendly adversaries.  He never requested a lawyer.  He waived his Miranda.  Just IMO, but he seems to want to please those interrogators.  Yes, his version changes on the exterior but the framework remains the same.

I have said it a hundred times.  Both of these young men grew suspicious of each other and every action they took helped to confirm those suspicions within themselves. 

The problem begins where the crime is charged and that is the actions at the "T" not by the clubhouse.  There is a verbal confrontation that lead to an assault that led to the shooting. 

Title: Re: Menacing Approach
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 12:18:19 PM
So in one case, a person put a and b together and got c, and in another place people put a and b together and got c, but they aren't the same?

The difference is that one did it accurately.

Did you read the transcript I posted? Or did you just fly off the handle with the false analogy?

Read the transcript, or read it again, and if you think I'm wrong support it from the transcript.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 12:29:34 PM
With Zimmerman's truck being where he later said he parked it on TTL, that last part has to take place there, because by the time he says "down toward the other entrance" he's already out of the truck, or in the process of getting out.

But if the "they always get away" part takes place while he's still driving from the clubhouse to that location, then Martin circling his truck has to take place back at the clubhouse.

Unless Martin waited for Zimmerman to get out of the truck and run over to RVC for an address before he circled the truck.

If the circling happens while the truck is parked on TTL with Zimmerman inside, then most if not all of the call before Zimmerman gets out on foot has to happen there.

I think we need a "Where was the truck when?" thread.

Can we call the truck Witness H or Witness R?
This is the transcript (http://txantimedia.com/2012/08/09/complete-transcript-serino-interview-2292012-tape-3/) of Serino and Singleton questioning Zimmerman while playing the NEN tape.

This is the transcript (http://txantimedia.com/2012/08/07/transcript-of-zimmermans-non-emergency-call-2262012/) of the NEN call.

Compare the two.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 12:31:08 PM
I guess I just never get past that GZ never tells the dispatcher that he is at the clubhouse and when asked for a location, says "the best address I can give you is" and provides the clubhouse address.  Maybe its just how I think, but if I were parked at the clubhouse when giving out that address, I would have relayed that I was parked there.  IT seems to me that by using this language, he's not parked in front of the clubhouse at that point in the call.  He was either at the clubhouse very briefly in the NEN before moving to see where TM went, or he had already moved around the corner to see where TM went, but not yet at his final parking spot.
Not according to the reenactment video.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 12:37:50 PM
I think that after 1:30 (approx) that the truck is in motion to the final parking spot on TTL.  I can't hear the audio anymore but I remember he was very distracted sounding while giving directions.  I can't help but to think he was telling those directions to match where he was driving to and that is why those directions are so craptastic.

For all of the statements afterwards, I still think the NEN is the best actual version of things that were happening as they were happening.

I say this because I have been on "the other side of the table" during an interrogation.   They are not friendly adversaries.  He never requested a lawyer.  He waived his Miranda.  Just IMO, but he seems to want to please those interrogators.  Yes, his version changes on the exterior but the framework remains the same.

I have said it a hundred times.  Both of these young men grew suspicious of each other and every action they took helped to confirm those suspicions within themselves. 

The problem begins where the crime is charged and that is the actions at the "T" not by the clubhouse.  There is a verbal confrontation that lead to an assault that led to the shooting.

I thought it was supposed to be that he was distracted during the direction giving by Martin circling all the way around his truck?

I'm assuming that the truck was not moving when Martin circumnavigated it.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 12:42:48 PM
As I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, not only the suspect already past GZ at the time he backs off the clubhouse parking lot, but also GZ lost sight of him.

I also understand that it is the reasoning for driving to and park on TTL.

From my personal reading, the next time GZ sees the suspect again is either when he comes back to circle his truck, or, according to the reenactment, when he parks on TTL.

So, what do you guys make of the fact that GZ's NEN call between 00:48 & 01:20ish is full of statements like these:
"He’s here now", 
"Now he’s staring at me",
"now he’s coming towards me",
"he’s coming to check me out."
Or like that:
"He's got his hand in his waistband. And he's a black male"
"He's got a button on his shirt – late teens"
"He's got something in his hands"

To me, and it must be just an interpretation, it sounds like GZ sees the suspect walking towards him for a full 30sec right in the middle of the initial 2min.

Assuming, and it's just an assumption, that I'm right, when exactly did GZ lost sight of TM?  Is it in the initial 45ish seconds or after 1:20? 
I believe it is important because it tells us two things:
1) When the suspect could have possibly disappeared on TTL and gone to the T (the T story is according to the reenactment only, I believe) 
2) When GZ could have possibly left the clubhouse for parking on TTL.
Here's my take on it based on my transcript.  Creating the transcript took several hours and listening to sections of the audio at least 100 times.  My comments will be interspersed in the transcript and highlighted in red.
Quote
0:57 Dispatcher: Do you know what the…he’s near the clubhouse right now?

0:58 Zimmerman: Yeah.  Now he’s comin towards me.

At this point TM is behind GZ's truck heading toward TTL.

1:00 Dispatcher: OK.

1:01 (sound of windshield wipers, door lock and a ding)

1:03 Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband.

1:05 (sound of a ding)

1:06 (sound of window rolling up?)

At this point TM is passing GZ's truck and looking at him.

Zimmerman: And he’s a black male.

1:09 (sound of gear selector)

GZ is backing out of the space at the clubhouse.

1:10 Dispatcher: OK.  How old would you say he

1:11 Zimmerman: He’s got

1:12 Dispatcher: looks?

1:13 Zimmerman: a button on his shirt.  Late teens.

1:14 Dispatcher: Late teens.  OK.

1:16 Zimmerman: Um hum.

1:16 (sound of windshield wipers)

1:17 Zimmerman: Sumpin’s wrong with him.

1:19 (sound of gear selector)

GZ shifts into forward to head toward TTL.

1:21 Zimmerman: Yup.  He’s comin’ to check me out. He’s got sumpin in his hands.  I don’t know what his deal is.

This is contemporaneous speech.  He's adding to the detail of what he's already reported.  It cannot be literally true, because TM has already passed his truck and is disappearing out of site.
That's how I interpret what's going on based on the NEN call, the 3rd Serino tape and the reenactment.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 12:44:53 PM
He also says that he didn't leave the clubhouse until Sean (dispatcher) asked him to get somewhere where he could see Mr. Martin - this did not happen. Could it be that he's listening for that specific piece of conversation before committing to being away from the clubhouse? I had this discussion with WillisNewton, but I'll say it again, his uncertainty makes me believe he's not sure of where he is because that piece of conversation is missing. This was Investigator Singleton's second question to him - but you didn't include it in your bit of transcript that you quoted. Also, I still disagree on the 1:09 "backing out" timing - did you listen to the two cropped audio files I posted? Did you hear the turn signal?
I haven't yet had a chance to.  I'll listen to them tonight.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 12:46:13 PM
Compare the two.

It sounds to me like you are just discovering issues that some of us were wrestling with on the blog (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/6/30/20533/6642/168#168) before this forum opened.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 12:48:41 PM
At this point I think it's clear that I'm more familiar with this material than you are. I've spent a lot of time listening to the recordings, and transcribed much of them myself.
I've listened to that section at least a hundred times.  There's no "at the clubhouse there.  He says,
Quote
0:53 Zimmerman: That’s the, that’s the clubhouse (unintelligible)

0:55 Dispatcher: That’s the clubhouse.

0:56 Zimmerman: (unintelligible)
The dispatcher is talking over him, which is the part I labeled unintelligible.  Your claim means that he would have to be saying, That's the, that's the clubhouse.  I'm at the clubhouse.

You say you can hear it clearly.  If that's what you believe, then nothing I say will change that.  But to claim that it's clear as a bell is stretching the truth.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 12:52:48 PM
I thought it was supposed to be that he was distracted during the direction giving by Martin circling all the way around his truck?

I'm assuming that the truck was not moving when Martin circumnavigated it.
In the reenactment GZ states that TM returned from the T to circle his truck after he parked at the T.  Immediately after that he said "he's running" and he got out of his car.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 10, 2012, 12:54:38 PM
I thought it was supposed to be that he was distracted during the direction giving by Martin circling all the way around his truck?

I'm assuming that the truck was not moving when Martin circumnavigated it.

I am not counting a lot on the "circling" statements.  Do I think he is lying?  IDK, the first time he brings that up is the night of the incident and he had a pretty good beating, IMO.  He got locked into that word as far as I am concerned with those detectives.  They used it afterwards during questionings after the night of the 26th/27th.  They were not his friends.  It was not a chat. 

The next date was the reenactment.  IMO, this is about the time he should have gotten a lawyer.

I still think the NEN is the most accurate.  It is all occurring before the confrontation where other actions can come into play that distort memory.  There is no mention of TM circling the truck in the NEN. 
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 12:56:58 PM
Here's my take on it based on my transcript.  Creating the transcript took several hours and listening to sections of the audio at least 100 times.  My comments will be interspersed in the transcript and highlighted in red.That's how I interpret what's going on based on the NEN call, the 3rd Serino tape and the reenactment.

Quote
0:58 Zimmerman: Yeah.  Now he’s comin towards me.

At this point TM is behind GZ's truck heading toward TTL.

1:00 Dispatcher: OK.

1:01 (sound of windshield wipers, door lock and a ding)

1:03 Zimmerman: He’s got his hand in his waistband.

1:05 (sound of a ding)

1:06 (sound of window rolling up?)

At this point TM is passing GZ's truck and looking at him.

Zimmerman: And he’s a black male.

1:09 (sound of gear selector)

So in 11 seconds Mr. Martin went from east of Mr. Zimmerman's truck at the clubhouse, to out of sight around the corner of the far east building along Twin Trees? Mr. Zimmerman doesn't mention that he's running until later, and 11 seconds is a very short time to get the distance that he had to have in order to be out of Mr. Zimmerman's sight.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 01:01:36 PM
I thought it was supposed to be that he was distracted during the direction giving by Martin circling all the way around his truck?

I'm assuming that the truck was not moving when Martin circumnavigated it.

I agree with this. In my theory, when Mr. Martin is heading away from Mr. Zimmerman's vehicle (but before he starts running) Mr. Zimmerman regains focus on giving an address/directions.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 01:02:36 PM
Not according to the reenactment video.

In the reenactment, Zimmerman said the dispatcher asked him to track Martin. We know that didn't happen, so there's no reason to allow time for it on the police call.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 01:08:17 PM
I am not counting a lot on the "circling" statements.  Do I think he is lying?  IDK, the first time he brings that up is the night of the incident and he had a pretty good beating, IMO.  He got locked into that word as far as I am concerned with those detectives. 

Zimmerman didn't say 'circled' or 'walked around' in the last interview. He used 'walked up to' instead.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 01:10:18 PM
This is the transcript (http://txantimedia.com/2012/08/09/complete-transcript-serino-interview-2292012-tape-3/) of Serino and Singleton questioning Zimmerman while playing the NEN tape.

This is the transcript (http://txantimedia.com/2012/08/07/transcript-of-zimmermans-non-emergency-call-2262012/) of the NEN call.

Compare the two.

Okay, I am comparing.


So the he's coming toward me with his hand in his pants is happening while Zimmerman is parked at the clubhouse?

And the part about the button and having something in his hands and not knowing what his deal is is going on while Martin is leaving the clubhouse area and going east on TTL to the "cut-through" while Zimmerman is driving  to where he winds up parked on TTL?

And just as soon as he gets parked Martin re-appears and circles the truck and then runs?

Apparently I'm going to have to print out all of your timed transcripts (for which you are to be congratulated and thanked), get a stopwatch, and go down the street to the community college's parking lot and lay out a full scale map of The Retreat at Twin Lakes and see what I can or can't make work, 'cause trying to do it in my head seems to leave me with either everything Zimmerman has said post-shooting, or it leaves me with the phone call, but I can't get them all to match up.

Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 01:13:09 PM
But to claim that it's clear as a bell is stretching the truth.

I never claimed that.

It's clear when I tune out the dispatcher's voice and concentrate on listening to Zimmerman. Maybe that's easier for some people to do than for others.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 01:22:52 PM
So in 11 seconds Mr. Martin went from east of Mr. Zimmerman's truck at the clubhouse, to out of sight around the corner of the far east building along Twin Trees? Mr. Zimmerman doesn't mention that he's running until later, and 11 seconds is a very short time to get the distance that he had to have in order to be out of Mr. Zimmerman's sight.
You tell me.  At a normal walking pace of 4 miles an hours, a person would cover 64.5 ft in eleven seconds.

4 miles x 5280 ft per mile = 21120 feet / 60 minutes = 352 ft per minute / 60 seconds = 5.8666 ft per second x 11 seconds = 64.53 ft.

According to the reenactment video, GZ parked in space closest to TTL.  It's less than 50 ft from there to the turn on TTL if Google maps is correct.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 01:32:39 PM
Okay, I am comparing.


So the he's coming toward me with his hand in his pants is happening while Zimmerman is parked at the clubhouse?
I believe so.  In the reenactment he places that at TTL, but I think he's mistaken about it.  Either that or TM has his hand in his waistband both times; the approach and the circling.

Quote from: unitron
And the part about the button and having something in his hands and not knowing what his deal is is going on while Martin is leaving the clubhouse area and going east on TTL to the "cut-through" while Zimmerman is driving  to where he winds up parked on TTL?
I believe so, and I'll tell you why.  All this is happening contemporaneously.  TM is passing GZ's truck while GZ is on the phone.  He's trying to describe what's happening, but the dispatcher keeps talking over him, forcing him to answer the dispatcher's questions while he's trying to describe what's going on.  So his descriptions are stretched out in time due to the phone interaction.

Quote from: unitron
And just as soon as he gets parked Martin re-appears and circles the truck and then runs?
I think that's essentially correct.  Within seconds of parking at TTL, Martin reappears and circles his truck.

Quote from: unitron
Apparently I'm going to have to print out all of your timed transcripts (for which you are to be congratulated and thanked)
Thanks.  I thought the timings were essential to understanding what's going on and fitting it with his many statements.  I think there's no question his interviews reveal some muddled thinking and confusion on his part, but there are certain things that he is quite adamant about; when he was definitely at the clubhouse, that he never pursued TM, that he wasn't running, etc.

Quote from: unitron
get a stopwatch, and go down the street to the community college's parking lot and lay out a full scale map of The Retreat at Twin Lakes and see what I can or can't make work, 'cause trying to do it in my head seems to leave me with either everything Zimmerman has said post-shooting, or it leaves me with the phone call, but I can't get them all to match up.
The problem is exacerbated by the investigators constantly interrupting his narrative to ask questions.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 01:45:29 PM
He got locked into that word as far as I am concerned with those detectives. They used it afterwards during questionings after the night of the 26th/27th. 

I don't think so.

Zimmerman volunteered  'circled' in the reenactment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) (3:46-4:03) and 'walked around' in the interview (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/statements/video_interview_cvsa_0227.asf) preceding the voice stress test (27:31-49, 6:46:08-26).

I don't think he was asked about the circling earlier by either Sgt. Smith or Investigator Erwin. They were following his narrative, not anticipating it.

In the reenactment, Zimmerman was still in the car at the time. Serino hadn't asked him anything yet.

Regarding Investigator Erwin, that is the correct spelling of his name. I regret that in a number of comments I misrecalled it as 'Irwin.'
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 01:46:36 PM
You tell me.  At a normal walking pace of 4 miles an hours, a person would cover 64.5 ft in eleven seconds.

4 miles x 5280 ft per mile = 21120 feet / 60 minutes = 352 ft per minute / 60 seconds = 5.8666 ft per second x 11 seconds = 64.53 ft.

According to the reenactment video, GZ parked in space closest to TTL.  It's less than 50 ft from there to the turn on TTL if Google maps is correct.

From the clubhouse to the "T" is something like 400 feet.  That works out to Martin traveling around 36 feet per second which is around 24.5 miles per hour.

Apparently Martin snuck a ride from the clubhouse to the "T" in the bed of Zimmerman's pickup.

And ridiculously enough, that could actually explain some things.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 01:51:50 PM
Here's my take on it based on my transcript.  Creating the transcript took several hours and listening to sections of the audio at least 100 times.  My comments will be interspersed in the transcript and highlighted in red.That's how I interpret what's going on based on the NEN call, the 3rd Serino tape and the reenactment.


"1:06 (sound of window rolling up?)

At this point TM is passing GZ's truck and looking at him.
...
GZ shifts into forward to head toward TTL.

1:21 Zimmerman: Yup.  He’s comin’ to check me out. He’s got sumpin in his hands.  I don’t know what his deal is."

So Zimmerman is driving toward where Martin had already gone when he says that Martin is coming to check Zimmerman out?

No wonder I'm so confused.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 01:52:17 PM
According to the reenactment video, GZ parked in space closest to TTL. 
He parked one space over. The space you indicate was occupied by a green truck.

Video Still (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7701556584/in/set-72157630878225642)
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 01:54:12 PM
I never claimed that.

It's clear when I tune out the dispatcher's voice and concentrate on listening to Zimmerman. Maybe that's easier for some people to do than for others.
Technically, you're correct.  You said,
Quote
I've done no audio work, and I hear it clearly.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 01:54:18 PM
I am not counting a lot on the "circling" statements.  Do I think he is lying?  IDK, the first time he brings that up is the night of the incident and he had a pretty good beating, IMO.  He got locked into that word as far as I am concerned with those detectives.  They used it afterwards during questionings after the night of the 26th/27th.  They were not his friends.  It was not a chat. 

The next date was the reenactment.  IMO, this is about the time he should have gotten a lawyer.

I still think the NEN is the most accurate.  It is all occurring before the confrontation where other actions can come into play that distort memory.  There is no mention of TM circling the truck in the NEN.

So I'm supposed to believe Zimmerman's post shooting accounts of what happened but discount everything he says in them?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 01:55:50 PM
Apparently Martin snuck a ride from the clubhouse to the "T" in the bed of Zimmerman's pickup.

And ridiculously enough, that could actually explain some things.

Brilliant!
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 10, 2012, 01:58:41 PM
He parked one space over. The space you indicate was occupied by a green truck.

Video Still (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7701556584/in/set-72157630878225642)

In the reenactment video he said he parked as close as he could and that the green SUV (or truck, if you prefer) wasn't there. IIRC of course.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 10, 2012, 02:04:08 PM
In the reenactment video he said he parked as close as he could and that the green SUV (or truck, if you prefer) wasn't there. IIRC of course.

Just off the top of my head it was something like "I pulled in (or up) about where that (green?) truck is".

But I'm not worried about a single parking place to the east or the west enough to go sit through that video again if I don't have to.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: Juan on August 10, 2012, 02:08:04 PM
I've listened to that section at least a hundred times.  There's no "at the clubhouse there.  He says, The dispatcher is talking over him, which is the part I labeled unintelligible.  Your claim means that he would have to be saying, That's the, that's the clubhouse.  I'm at the clubhouse.

You say you can hear it clearly.  If that's what you believe, then nothing I say will change that.  But to claim that it's clear as a bell is stretching the truth.

I'd hardly claim it's as clear as a bell, nonetheless it's there. "That's the ... that's the clubhouse". Then during crosstalk at 55 seconds, "He's at the clubhouse. Now he's". Not just "He's at the clubhouse now".
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 02:09:09 PM
From the clubhouse to the "T" is something like 400 feet.  That works out to Martin traveling around 36 feet per second which is around 24.5 miles per hour.

Apparently Martin snuck a ride from the clubhouse to the "T" in the bed of Zimmerman's pickup.

And ridiculously enough, that could actually explain some things.
Yes, IF he was going from the clubhouse to the T, but that's not what I said.  I said he went from the back of GZ's truck to the turn at TTL, which is about 50 feet.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: tchoupi on August 10, 2012, 02:10:23 PM
Here's my take on it based on my transcript.  Creating the transcript took several hours and listening to sections of the audio at least 100 times.  My comments will be interspersed in the transcript and highlighted in red.That's how I interpret what's going on based on the NEN call, the 3rd Serino tape and the reenactment.

I'm not sure you got the point I was making there.  It must be due to my poor English writing.  I'll try it better bellow.

In an earlier post, you stated that Trayvon past GZ's truck before GZ pulled out of the clubhouse to drive on TTL.  Is that correct?

The point I was making is that, from my understanding of GZ's statements (excluding the 1st interview with Singleton & the written statement on Feb 26th.), The suspect walked past GZ's truck, who then states that he lost visual on him.  So, after dispatcher's request or question, GZ pulled off the clubhouse.  That's my understanding.  Is it yours?

If it is also your understanding then we agree on that before pulling off the clubhouse, two things happened: 1) The suspect walked past GZ & 2) GZ lost visual contact on the suspect.  Therefore, GZ's narrative has to match not is not one but two conditions.

Then I point out the period of the NEN call between 00:48 & 01:25 (after checking the call again I fixed it to 1:25 from 1:20), there are statements made by GZ that suggest that he still has visual in the suspect and that the suspect is actually walking towards him.

So, when did GZ lost visual on the suspect? 
I don't expect GZ to drive to TTL from the clubhouse if he can still see the suspect walking towards him.

What I expect is the suspect passing GZ disappearing, then GZ having a little discussion with Sean about not seeing the suspect anymore,  then GZ pulling out to go on TTL, and only then GZ seeing the suspect again.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 02:12:13 PM
I'd hardly claim it's as clear as a bell, nonetheless it's there. "That's the ... that's the clubhouse". Then during crosstalk at 55 seconds, "He's at the clubhouse. Now he's". Not just "He's at the clubhouse now".
I'll listen to it some more tonight.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 02:14:28 PM

2/27R, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 2:08-16
Quote
Smith: Where'd you park at? )

Zimmerman: Right up here, next to that green- I don't think that truck was there, but I just pulled up, in there.

Smith: OK. So you just pulled in here?

Zimmerman: Yes, sir.

Sgt. Smith parked beside the green truck, and asked Zimmerman if that was where he parked.

Zimmerman had two opportunities to say that he parked in the same space as the truck, where unfortunately Sgt. Smith couldn't park for the reenactment. Twice Zimmerman indicated he parked in the next space over.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 02:19:09 PM
You tell me.  At a normal walking pace of 4 miles an hours, a person would cover 64.5 ft in eleven seconds.

4 miles x 5280 ft per mile = 21120 feet / 60 minutes = 352 ft per minute / 60 seconds = 5.8666 ft per second x 11 seconds = 64.53 ft.

According to the reenactment video, GZ parked in space closest to TTL.  It's less than 50 ft from there to the turn on TTL if Google maps is correct.

I think you're looking at yards.

http://s13.postimage.org/i8qu4xu45/behind.jpg
http://s10.postimage.org/xwfydacnb/infront.jpg

http://s11.postimage.org/4rhqu8dn5/50ft.jpg

50ft is still in sight no matter where he went - unless it was to the mail kiosk area, which the only person to make this claim was Deedee but according to her he stayed there for quite some time (matter of minutes). 64ft wouldn't put him out of sight either. Are you trying to say he lost sight of him due to the hedges? That's not what he stated while drawing the map. Actually, in that interview he says "I lost contact of him AS I was trying to get through [to the non-emergency line]."
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 02:29:13 PM

"1:06 (sound of window rolling up?)

At this point TM is passing GZ's truck and looking at him.
...
GZ shifts into forward to head toward TTL.

1:21 Zimmerman: Yup.  He’s comin’ to check me out. He’s got sumpin in his hands.  I don’t know what his deal is."

So Zimmerman is driving toward where Martin had already gone when he says that Martin is coming to check Zimmerman out?

No wonder I'm so confused.
Read the transcript.  Seriously.  Zimmerman's narrative makes sense if you remove the dispatchers constant interruptions with questions.  It doesn't match the time frame of actual events due to those interruptions.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 02:40:52 PM
<snip>
That's not what he stated while drawing the map.

I keep forgetting which pdf the map is in, then I'm frustrated when I open it up to find that it's rotated, so I've taken the liberty of creating a new pdf of just the map. I've rotated it so that north is up and I've cropped out the section to the east that is off the property. Feel free to do with it as you like: http://www.filedropper.com/map
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 10, 2012, 03:01:07 PM
What I expect is the suspect passing GZ disappearing, then GZ having a little discussion with Sean about not seeing the suspect anymore,  then GZ pulling out to go on TTL, and only then GZ seeing the suspect again.


My comment made no sense. Maybe I'll do a reenactment
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 03:02:11 PM

50ft is still in sight no matter where he went - unless it was to the mail kiosk area,

There's a sidewalk that passes between the clubhouse and the mail shelter, and continues southward. I think the reenactment is most naturally interpreted as having Martin take that sidewalk.

Quote
That's not what he stated while drawing the map.

What Zimmerman said while drawing on the map is completely inconsistent with the reenactment. It has Martin visible to Zimmerman as he walked south on Twin Trees Lane. Then Martin made a sharp left, and disappeared behind the corner of 3251 Retreat View Circle.

I did a blog comment (http://www.talkleft.com/comments/2012/6/26/223357/828/157#157) on this long ago. Updating it for the forum is on my to-do list.

Illustration (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630878225642/)

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 03:40:28 PM
There's a sidewalk that passes between the clubhouse and the mail shelter, and continues southward. I think the reenactment is most naturally interpreted as having Martin take that sidewalk.

That's not what Mr. Zimmerman drew on the map. He draws Mr. Martin continuing East to Twin Trees then south.

Quote
What Zimmerman said while drawing on the map is completely inconsistent with the reenactment.

Mr. Zimmerman states he doesn't move until he loses sight of Mr. Martin in the walk through and was asked to move to be able to view him. The only part of that which is inconsistent is the part about being on the line with Sean and being asked to move. He maintains that he lost contact before moving in both. When drawing the map (on 2/26) he states he lost contact AS he was trying to get through - not after. Which is the inconsistency? I'd wager it's the one we know didn't happen because the call was recorded.

Quote
It has Martin visible to Zimmerman as he walked south on Twin Trees Lane. Then Martin made a sharp left, and disappeared behind the corner of 3251 Retreat View Circle.

This is consistent with the map that Mr. Zimmerman drew - going along the sidewalk as you mentioned previously is not.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 03:51:44 PM
http://s11.postimage.org/4rhqu8dn5/50ft.jpg

50ft is still in sight no matter where he went - unless it was to the mail kiosk area, which the only person to make this claim was Deedee but according to her he stayed there for quite some time (matter of minutes). 64ft wouldn't put him out of sight either. Are you trying to say he lost sight of him due to the hedges? That's not what he stated while drawing the map. Actually, in that interview he says "I lost contact of him AS I was trying to get through [to the non-emergency line]."
The image you linked shows that 50 ft is past the trees.  How do you know GZ could have still seen him there?  And why do you think he moved to TTL if it wasn't to figure out where TM went?

That image thing is cool.  How did you do that?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 03:56:02 PM
The image you linked shows that 50 ft is past the trees.  How do you know GZ could have still seen him there?  And why do you think he moved to TTL if it wasn't to figure out where TM went?

I already addressed this.

"Are you trying to say he lost sight of him due to the hedges? That's not what he stated while drawing the map. Actually, in that interview he says 'I lost contact of him AS I was trying to get through [to the non-emergency line].'"

This implies that he wasn't on the line with Sean at the time that he had lost contact, and certainly wasn't a minute into it.

Quote
That image thing is cool.  How did you do that?

I assume you're talking about the distance? It's Google Earth's ruler.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 04:06:50 PM
There's a sidewalk that passes between the clubhouse and the mail shelter, and continues southward. I think the reenactment is most naturally interpreted as having Martin take that sidewalk.

What Zimmerman said while drawing on the map is completely inconsistent with the reenactment. It has Martin visible to Zimmerman as he walked south on Twin Trees Lane. Then Martin made a sharp left, and disappeared behind the corner of 3251 Retreat View Circle.

To further comment on this, I know that's what he drew on the map. I made that as a representation that it wasn't 50ft away - for that purpose only. Taking the most direct route is still more than 50ft.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 04:17:16 PM
How do you know GZ could have still seen him there? 

Two ways.

In the reenactment you can see that the trees don't block the view at eye level.

In the second part of the Singleton interview, Singleton asked Zimmerman if he could see Martin on the path that Zimmerman drew. His response was affirmative.

Illustrations (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630878225642/)

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 10, 2012, 04:51:26 PM
Two ways.

In the reenactment you can see that the trees don't block the view at eye level.

In the second part of the Singleton interview, Singleton asked Zimmerman if he could see Martin on the path that Zimmerman drew. His response was affirmative.

Illustrations (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/sets/72157630878225642/)

Actually, that image from the reenactment you posted (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7701556672/in/set-72157630878225642/)  shows the street sign with Twin Trees Lane on it.  That may very well be the closest street sign.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 10, 2012, 04:53:45 PM
2/27R, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 2:08-16
Sgt. Smith parked beside the green truck, and asked Zimmerman if that was where he parked.

Zimmerman had two opportunities to say that he parked in the same space as the truck, where unfortunately Sgt. Smith couldn't park for the reenactment. Twice Zimmerman indicated he parked in the next space over.

That's correct.
And I want to add that GZ also indicates with his hands that he actually parked facing the clubhouse which is what was reproduced in the reenactment.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 04:55:32 PM
I already addressed this.

"Are you trying to say he lost sight of him due to the hedges? That's not what he stated while drawing the map. Actually, in that interview he says 'I lost contact of him AS I was trying to get through [to the non-emergency line].'"

This implies that he wasn't on the line with Sean at the time that he had lost contact, and certainly wasn't a minute into it.

I assume you're talking about the distance? It's Google Earth's ruler.
Well, he lost sight of him more than once.  The quote you cite is before the NEN call starts.  The point in time I'm talking about is when GZ lost sight of TM as he headed toward TTL and (eventually) the T.

Two completely different points in time.
Title: Disappearing Left or Right?
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 05:24:27 PM
The only part of that which is inconsistent is the part about being on the line with Sean and being asked to move.

2/26-2, 1:48-2:15
Quote
Singleton: OK. So he continues past you and, you lose sight of him over here?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. So just draw an arrow where he continues to pass you.
Zimmerman: He continues to pass me through here, and then he goes down here. You want me to [crosstalk]?
Singleton: And then he goes somewhere here where you can’t see him?
Zimmerman: Correct.
Singleton: So, just go to about where he, you think he might have been, to where you lose sight of him.
Zimmerman: He started going here, and then behind these houses.
Singleton: OK. And you could see that from here?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: And then when he gets behind the houses you lose sight?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.

Comparing this to the map, Zimmerman seemed to be saying the he could see Martin walk down the middle of Twin Trees Lane, then make a sharp left to pass close behind the corner of 3251 Retreat View Circle.

Zimmerman said Martin disappeared 'behind these houses.' That makes sense as referring to the row of houses between RVC and TTL, not as referring to the clubhouse.

2/27R, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 2:33-45
Quote
Then the dispatcher said, "Where did he go, what direction did he go?" And I said "I don't know," I lost, because he cut down here and made a right, I guess that's Twin Trees Lane, he made a right in there.

The camera panned to show the corner of the clubhouse as Zimmerman gestured to indicate Martin turning right around the corner.

In the reenactment, Zimmerman seemed to indicate that Martin passed from his sight much sooner, when he closely rounded the corner of the clubhouse. He explicitly said that Martin 'made a right' as the cause of him passing out of sight.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 06:04:47 PM
This is a possible path that TM took when passing GZ's truck parked at the clubhouse.  The red line is 67 feet, about the distance he would cover in a normal walk (4 miles per hour) as I discussed in this post (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg100807.html#msg100807).  About that time GZ would lose sight of him due to the trees and his diagonal path to the right.

(http://txantimedia.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/possible-path-for-tm.jpg)

The yellow line goes all the way to the T and then returns to where GZ was parked on TTL.  (The picture is cropped.  If you download it, you can see the whole thing.)  The distance is 603 feet or 184 meters, as I discussed in this post (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg100564.html#msg100564).

Assuming that the eleven second interval begins at 0:58 on the NEN tape ("Now he's coming towards me.") and ends at 1:09 when we hear GZ put the truck in reverse, the remaining time to when GZ says "He's running" (2:08) is 59 seconds.

Subtracting the 67 feet from 603 feet leaves 536 feet that he would have to cover in 59 seconds.  In order to do that, he'd have to be traveling at an average of only 6 mph.  If he ran any part of that distance, he could walk during other parts and still cover that much ground.

So here's what I believe happened.  He walked past GZ's truck and turned the corner on TTL.  As soon as he was out of sight, he ran to the T and hid behind the corner of the first condo, where he watched to see if GZ followed him.  When GZ showed up and parked at the sidewalk leading to the T, he decided to return and circle GZ's truck - sort of a "what's your problem, bro" kind of action.  Then he took off running, intending to make it home before GZ could reach the T.

It's about 100 yards from the T to his condo.  He could easily cover that distance in 20 seconds.

About two minutes later he showed up back at the T and attacked GZ.  Some time during that interval he decided he was going to go back, find the guy that was following him and give him a piece of his mind.  That led to the altercation, that eventually led to his death.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 06:06:07 PM
Actually, that image from the reenactment you posted [image] (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7701556672/in/set-72157630878225642/) shows the street sign with Twin Trees Lane on it.  That may very well be the closest street sign.

This was discussed on another thread, starting here. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2094.msg99942.html#msg99942)

Links can be embedded with HTML, or as described here. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2110.0.html)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 06:11:31 PM
This is a possible path that TM took when passing GZ's truck parked at the clubhouse.  The red line is 67 feet, about the distance he would cover in a normal walk (4 miles per hour) as I discussed in this post (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg100807.html#msg100807).  About that time GZ would lose sight of him due to the trees and his diagonal path to the right.

Where are you getting any idea that Mr. Zimmerman lost Mr. Martin due to trees while sitting at the clubhouse? I'm expecting quotes or drawings from Mr. Zimmerman here. As far as I know there is nothing to back this statement up, only your theory of when Mr. Zimmerman started moving in his vehicle, which causes other accuracy issues that I haven't pointed out but might later if I have the time. Such as, in your Google Earth map, there is no circling so all of your calculations are off. There is also no returning to the "T" area. Also, regarding the map specifically, that's not the path Mr. Zimmerman drew - it's a bit longer than that.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 06:26:34 PM
Well, he lost sight of him more than once.  The quote you cite is before the NEN call starts.  The point in time I'm talking about is when GZ lost sight of TM as he headed toward TTL and (eventually) the T.

Two completely different points in time.

Where do you have any information stating Mr. Zimmerman lost sight of Mr. Martin while sitting at the clubhouse because of trees? That's what we're both talking about. As far as I'm aware, he only mentions losing sight of Mr. Martin once at the clubhouse, and it wasn't due to trees.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 06:55:56 PM
Where do you have any information stating Mr. Zimmerman lost sight of Mr. Martin while sitting at the clubhouse because of trees? That's what we're both talking about. As far as I'm aware, he only mentions losing sight of Mr. Martin once at the clubhouse, and it wasn't due to trees.
The quote you cited was from before the start of the NEN call.
Quote
Zimmerman: No, ma’am. I lost contact of him as I was trying to get through cause you have to…
Singleton: So does he continue past you?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. So he continues past you and you lose sight of him over here.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.

Singleton: OK, so just draw an arrow where he continues to pass you.
Zimmerman: He continues to pass me through here…and then he goes down here. You want me to (unintelligible)…
Singleton: And then he goes somewhere here where you can’t see him.
Zimmerman: Correct.

Singleton: So just go to about where he, where you think he might have been be.., to where you lose sight of him.
Zimmerman: He started going here and then behind these houses.
Singleton: OK. And you could see that from here?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: And then when he gets behind the houses you lose sight.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
As you can see, he lost sight of TM several times.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 07:04:34 PM
The quote you cited was from before the start of the NEN call.

As you can see, he lost sight of TM several times.

Where do you think Martin was when he passed out of sight on the occasion under discussion?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 07:08:50 PM
which causes other accuracy issues that I haven't pointed out but might later if I have the time. Such as, in your Google Earth map, there is no circling so all of your calculations are off. There is also no returning to the "T" area. Also, regarding the map specifically, that's not the path Mr. Zimmerman drew - it's a bit longer than that.
Yes, you're correct.  I neglected to include the time spent circling GZ's car.  I believe I estimated that at about 10 seconds.  But my point is, TM could have easily run to the T when he was out of GZ's sight, then walked back and circled the car in the time allotted.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 07:10:34 PM
Where do you think Martin was when he passed out of sight on the occasion under discussion?
I think he would have been out of GZ's view once he rounded the clubhouse and headed in the direction of the T.  I think that's why GZ left the clubhouse - because he could no longer see where TM was headed.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 10, 2012, 07:16:30 PM
This is a possible path that TM took when passing GZ's truck parked at the clubhouse.  The red line is 67 feet, about the distance he would cover in a normal walk (4 miles per hour) as I discussed in this post (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg100807.html#msg100807).  About that time GZ would lose sight of him due to the trees and his diagonal path to the right.

(http://txantimedia.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/possible-path-for-tm.jpg)

The yellow line goes all the way to the T and then returns to where GZ was parked on TTL.  (The picture is cropped.  If you download it, you can see the whole thing.)  The distance is 603 feet or 184 meters, as I discussed in this post (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2037.msg100564.html#msg100564).

Assuming that the eleven second interval begins at 0:58 on the NEN tape ("Now he's coming towards me.") and ends at 1:09 when we hear GZ put the truck in reverse, the remaining time to when GZ says "He's running" (2:08) is 59 seconds.

Subtracting the 67 feet from 603 feet leaves 536 feet that he would have to cover in 59 seconds.  In order to do that, he'd have to be traveling at an average of only 6 mph.  If he ran any part of that distance, he could walk during other parts and still cover that much ground.

So here's what I believe happened.  He walked past GZ's truck and turned the corner on TTL.  As soon as he was out of sight, he ran to the T and hid behind the corner of the first condo, where he watched to see if GZ followed him.  When GZ showed up and parked at the sidewalk leading to the T, he decided to return and circle GZ's truck - sort of a "what's your problem, bro" kind of action.  Then he took off running, intending to make it home before GZ could reach the T.

It's about 100 yards from the T to his condo.  He could easily cover that distance in 20 seconds.

About two minutes later he showed up back at the T and attacked GZ.  Some time during that interval he decided he was going to go back, find the guy that was following him and give him a piece of his mind.  That led to the altercation, that eventually led to his death.

Your drawing is roughly similar to what GZ drew on Feb 27th:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/7453302730/in/set-72157630287389764

Here are some post processed versions:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/7453304618/in/set-72157630287389764
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/7568665726/in/set-72157630287389764

####
Your drawing extends beyond what GZ drew in the sense that you assume the path TM took too circle the truck.  Actually, if you really want to stick to what GZ said, the best is the reenactment as it is, to my knowledge, the only time GZ describes it.  You'll get somewhat longer distances

####
Watch out, there is no evidence that TM was running or even sprinting.  Sprinting is a conclusion drawn by the necessity of your scenario.  \
On the contrary, there are in GZ's NEN call and statements indications that TM was not running at least when he was in sight of GZ (besides the "sh*t he's running").  For example, in the reenactment, GZ clearly says that TM walked up towards the grass to circle his truck.  I actually can't remember any statement from GZ where he claimed the suspect was running.   

####
Don't rely on googlemap for the trees.  In the reenactment, less than 24hrs after the shooting, you see full grown palm trees with high canopy.  They don't hide much.  You also see hedges that are too low to hide much.  You also have to consider that the reenactment was performed in a sedan rather than a taller truck like GZ's Ridgeline.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 10, 2012, 07:22:28 PM
The quote you cited was from before the start of the NEN call.As you can see, he lost sight of TM several times.

That sounds like just one time to me.  To me, it sounds like Singleton is just trying to understand where and when GZ lost sight of him.  Have a look to his drawing.  It has been made public and it was referenced in prior posts.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 07:26:36 PM
I think he would have been out of GZ's view once he rounded the clubhouse and headed in the direction of the T.  I think that's why GZ left the clubhouse - because he could no longer see where TM was headed.

So you are saying that Martin passed Zimmerman's truck at the clubhouse twice, once before the call began recording, and again over a minute later?

Why didn't Zimmerman follow Martin the first time?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 07:28:43 PM
That sounds like just one time to me.  To me, it sounds like Singleton is just trying to understand where and when GZ lost sight of him.  Have a look to his drawing.  It has been made public and it was referenced in prior posts.

I'm fairly certain it is a single time and even Investigator Singleton took it as a single time because she had him mark the location that he lost sight a single time, not twice. It's also an odd question to ask "did he continue past you?" if she didn't take it as a single time. How often does someone ask "did <person> continue past you, after you lost sight of him?" - very odd. I think she was recalling to the previous interview where he only mentions losing sight once.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 07:33:37 PM
That sounds like just one time to me.  To me, it sounds like Singleton is just trying to understand where and when GZ lost sight of him.  Have a look to his drawing.  It has been made public and it was referenced in prior posts.

If you watch the reenactment video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) from the 2:45 to 2:50 mark, GZ says he lost sight of TM as he rounded the corner headed toward TTL, just as I said.  If you watch the video, you'll see that GZ is pointing to the corner of the clubhouse and there is shrubbery and other obstructions there that obscured his view.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 07:34:56 PM
That sounds like just one time to me. 

Wow.

It didn't occur to me that Txantimedia meant that each bolded passage was a distinct instance.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 07:41:33 PM
I'm fairly certain it is a single time and even Investigator Singleton took it as a single time because she had him mark the location that he lost sight a single time, not twice. It's also an odd question to ask "did he continue past you?" if she didn't take it as a single time. How often does someone ask "did <person> continue past you, after you lost sight of him?" - very odd. I think she was recalling to the previous interview where he only mentions losing sight once.

Or maybe better phrased, Mr. Zimmerman thought she was speaking of a single time because he only marked a single spot - she was the one that kept asking about losing sight of him, he mentions it only a single time.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 07:47:37 PM
Yes, you're correct.  I neglected to include the time spent circling GZ's car.  I believe I estimated that at about 10 seconds.  But my point is, TM could have easily run to the T when he was out of GZ's sight, then walked back and circled the car in the time allotted.

10 seconds wouldn't even be long enough to get him from the corner of the building off of the grass. 4.56*10 = 45.6, the buildings are 30ft wide, just to give you a visual idea without calculating a distance. It's not a very large distance at all. In fact, doing a little (tight) circle around the truck in the Google Earth image at the sidewalk, 10 seconds isn't long enough at all to WALK around the vehicle and come from anywhere off the street. Your theory leaves no wiggle room at all, and that's if it is accept it as a possibility. Based on the discussions we've already had, I don't think it's a possibility at all.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 08:03:43 PM
the buildings are 30ft wide

Correction - 38ft wide, according to the floor plans (19ft "Great Room" + 19ft Garage - Cancun)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 08:13:32 PM
Your drawing is roughly similar to what GZ drew on Feb 27th:  http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/7453302730/in/set-72157630287389764

Here are some post processed versions:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/7453304618/in/set-72157630287389764
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jeandodge/7568665726/in/set-72157630287389764

Yeah, those aren't much help to me at all.


Quote from: tchoupi
Watch out, there is no evidence that TM was running or even sprinting.  Sprinting is a conclusion drawn by the necessity of your scenario.
There's also no evidence he didn't run, and the laws of physics say that he had to have.  There's no way he could have walked that distance in the time needed to fit the NEN call.  Furthermore, GZ said he lost TM when he rounded the corner of the clubhouse and never saw him again until he popped up at the T.

Quote from: tchoupi
Don't rely on googlemap for the trees.  In the reenactment, less than 24hrs after the shooting, you see full grown palm trees with high canopy.  They don't hide much.  You also see hedges that are too low to hide much.  You also have to consider that the reenactment was performed in a sedan rather than a taller truck like GZ's Ridgeline.
You also have to consider that it was nighttime and raining.  Both reduce visibility significantly.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 08:20:57 PM
Or maybe better phrased, Mr. Zimmerman thought she was speaking of a single time because he only marked a single spot - she was the one that kept asking about losing sight of him, he mentions it only a single time.
Yes, I see that now.  One of the things that makes deciphering this case so difficult is the bizarre questioning by the police.  Rather than letting GZ tell his story from beginning to end and then questioning its elements, they keep interrupting him, just like the dispatcher did.  It makes it really hard to follow what's going on.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 08:22:59 PM
10 seconds wouldn't even be long enough to get him from the corner of the building off of the grass. 4.56*10 = 45.6, the buildings are 30ft wide, just to give you a visual idea without calculating a distance. It's not a very large distance at all. In fact, doing a little (tight) circle around the truck in the Google Earth image at the sidewalk, 10 seconds isn't long enough at all to WALK around the vehicle and come from anywhere off the street. Your theory leaves no wiggle room at all, and that's if it is accept it as a possibility. Based on the discussions we've already had, I don't think it's a possibility at all.
The 10 seconds refers to the time to circle the car.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 08:23:25 PM
You also have to consider that it was nighttime and raining.  Both reduce visibility significantly.

They don't make the hedges taller or the canopies of the trees lower.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 08:28:25 PM
They don't make the hedges taller or the canopies of the trees lower.
Is this even worthy of a response?  Are you seriously suggesting that visibility at nighttime in the rain would be the same as the daylight shots in the video?  Do you believe that GZ is lying when he says he lost sight of TM?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 08:39:04 PM
The 10 seconds refers to the time to circle the car.

So what about the time to get to the car? What about the time to get back to the cut through after circling? Going back to my original point, Mr. Zimmerman marked one area where he lost Mr. Martin which was because of houses, not trees or hedges. For Mr. Martin to reach that spot in the 11 seconds that you allot for it, he would have to be running - he doesn't run until much later in the call. How do you explain this? Later in our conversation you mentioned that I was talking about a time where he lost Mr. Martin prior to being on the line with Sean, and my theory was that Mr. Zimmerman lost sight of him due to the houses at that instance. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, either the circling happened at the clubhouse (which is false in all but one statement - where it's Serino and Singleton doing an interrogation style questioning), or Mr. Martin went to the houses then returned the clubhouse so Mr. Zimmerman could lose sight of him again after he was on the line with Sean. Either one of the two didn't happen, or there's a lot going on in your theory that you're not telling us about.
Title: Is sanity immaterial?
Post by: Lousy1 on August 10, 2012, 09:02:28 PM
Does anyone besides me think that this ostensibly  impressive,  intellectual effort is a massive waste of energy?

It seems to consist of painstakingly analyzing details dereived from statements that have no requirement to be either precise or complete
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 09:13:21 PM
So what about the time to get to the car? What about the time to get back to the cut through after circling? Going back to my original point, Mr. Zimmerman marked one area where he lost Mr. Martin which was because of houses, not trees or hedges. For Mr. Martin to reach that spot in the 11 seconds that you allot for it, he would have to be running - he doesn't run until much later in the call. How do you explain this? Later in our conversation you mentioned that I was talking about a time where he lost Mr. Martin prior to being on the line with Sean, and my theory was that Mr. Zimmerman lost sight of him due to the houses at that instance. So, if I'm understanding you correctly, either the circling happened at the clubhouse (which is false in all but one statement - where it's Serino and Singleton doing an interrogation style questioning), or Mr. Martin went to the houses then returned the clubhouse so Mr. Zimmerman could lose sight of him again after he was on the line with Sean. Either one of the two didn't happen, or there's a lot going on in your theory that you're not telling us about.
OK, help me understand.  Where exactly do you think GZ lost sight of TM?

Normal walking pace is 4 miles an hour.  4x5280=21120/60=352 feet per minute.  To cover the 603 ft +40 feet around the truck would take 1 minute 49 seconds.  Working back from "He's running" which occurs at 2:07 on the tape, he would have had to see TM walking past his truck at 0:18 on the tape.  Yet at 0:05 he says "the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle."  And GZ insists in the Serino/Singleton interview that he was at the clubhouse much later than that.

(The time to get back to the cut through (or T) is irrelevant.  It comes after "He's running" and doesn't enter into the calculations at all.)

So your theory has to be that shortly after he makes the NEN call, he's already gone from the clubhouse?  Yet he adamantly states, in tape 3 of the Serino/Singleton interview, that he's still at the clubhouse at the 0:48 minute mark.
Quote
(plays tape 0:39 to 0:48)
Singleton: Can you just pause that for a minute? OK, when you explained it to me, you said you had pulled over initially at the clubhouse, correct?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK, but it seems so fast, and then I thought you told me, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, I thought you said they asked you, can you still see him, and you said, you told them you couldn’t, and you asked, and they said, well get to where you can see where he’s at. And you told me it was at that point you moved.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: Now you’re saying he’s coming up to your car. Does that mean you’ve already, at this point in the tape, you’re already on Twin Tree, the street you didn’t know the name of at the time?
Zimmerman: Um, no, I was on, I called when I was at the clubhouse.
Singleton: OK, but he’s walking up to your car now, right?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton:  On the tape. Cause you’re saying he’s walking up.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: You’re talking about when you’ve already left the clubhouse and now you’re on the corner.
Zimmerman: No, ma’am. I’m at the clubhouse.
Singleton: You’re still at the clubhouse
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: when he does this?
Zimmerman: Mm hmm.
Singleton: OK.
(plays tape 0:49 to 1:03)
Singleton: OK, pause it right there. OK, where’s he, where, where are you at now? Are you still at the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: I think I’m still at the clubhouse, yes.
Singleton: OK.
(plays tape 1:03 to 1:16)
Singleton: Have you moved yet?
Zimmerman: I don’t think so.
Singleton: You’re still in front of the clubhouse?
Zimmerman: I think so.
Singleton: On Retreat View Circle.

Notice how he is completely certain that at 0:48 he was still at the clubhouse?  But at 1:03 he's not so certain, and at 1:16, he's even less certain?

So you don't have a choice.  Either GZ is lying about being at the clubhouse after the time you think he had to have left, or TM ran once he was out of sight of GZ, who was still at the clubhouse.

Since GZ couldn't see TM after he turned the corner onto TTL, there's no evidence to suggest what TM was doing except the times on the tape.  And those times say TM had to have run before he circled back.  The laws of physics demand it.

It would have been nice if the police had thought to ask what GZ meant be walking when he described TM walking back to circle him.  Was he dawdling?  Walking at a normal pace?  Hurrying?  Trotting?  Fast walking?  But the timings on the NEN call demand that TM ran when he was out of sight.  He simply couldn't cover that distance without running and still do what GZ claims he did.

If you think about it, it makes sense.  TM looked at GZ as he passed his car at the clubhouse.  He got suspicious, so when he rounded the corner onto TTL and was out of sight, he had to have taken off running.  When he gets to the back of the first condo, he stands there to see if GZ's truck shows up.  Sure enough, the truck shows up, with its headlights pointing directly at the T.  So TM has a choice.  Run home, or come back and confront his pursuer.  He decides to circle back, but then decides to simply make a menacing move by circling the truck.  Then he takes off running, as if to say, catch me if you can.

Either this scenario is somewhat a plausible explanation of what GZ claims happened or GZ is lying about it.  If he's lying, why?  Why on earth would he make up such a goofy story?
Title: Re: Is sanity immaterial?
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 09:14:27 PM
Does anyone besides me think that this ostensibly  impressive,  intellectual effort is a massive waste of energy?

It seems to consist of painstakingly analyzing details dereived from statements that have no requirement to be either precise or complete
Yes.  And this may surprise you, but I have very little interest in this.  It's irrelevant to the SYG defense.  But, I like a challenge, so.....
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 09:16:05 PM
Do you believe that GZ is lying when he says he lost sight of TM?

I think Zimmerman lost sight of Martin at least once during the incident. That's not what we are talking about.

Do you think Zimmerman was lying when he told Singleton he lost sight of Martin 'behind these houses'?

I think it would be useful if you would list the times you think Zimmerman lost and regained sight of Martin, and where and when they happened.

I recall you once saying that Martin ran all the way from the clubhouse to the "T", and Zimmerman did not see him during that period.

This isn't coming together for me.
Title: Re: Is sanity immaterial?
Post by: Lousy1 on August 10, 2012, 09:25:27 PM
Yes.  And this may surprise you, but I have very little interest in this.  It's irrelevant to the SYG defense.  But, I like a challenge, so.....

Its your life  :) By all means go for it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 09:35:25 PM
I think Zimmerman lost sight of Martin at least once during the incident. That's not what we are talking about.

Do you think Zimmerman was lying when he told Singleton he lost sight of Martin 'behind these houses'?

I think it would be useful if you would list the times you think Zimmerman lost and regained sight of Martin, and where and when they happened.

I recall you once saying that Martin ran all the way from the clubhouse to the "T", and Zimmerman did not see him during that period.

This isn't coming together for me.
Here's what Zimmerman tells Singleton.  I'll highlight the parts I think are important.
Quote
Zimmerman: He continues to pass me through here…and then he goes down here. You want me to (unintelligible)…
Singleton: And then he goes somewhere here where you can’t see him.
Zimmerman: Correct.

Singleton: So just go to about where he, where you think he might have been be.., to where you lose sight of him.
Zimmerman: He started going here and then behind these houses.
Singleton: OK. And you could see that from here?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: And then when he gets behind the houses you lose sight.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. And you said this, this….at some point he comes back and circles your car? Has he already done that?
Zimmerman: He looked into my vehicle…
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: But he didn’t circle it at that point in time.
Singleton: OK, when does he come…you’re still, you’re still in the car talking to 911, right?
Zimmerman: I’m trying to get through, yes ma’am.
Singleton: And at some point you said he comes back?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK, so you lose sight of him back here and then he returns?
Zimmerman: I…no…I drive my car up here.
Singleton: OK, so move your vehicle up to there.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am. Right here.

Singleton: OK, and put “car”. And just draw an arrow from where you were to where you ended up.
Zimmerman: There
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: …to there.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: And that’s where I parked.
Singleton: OK, that’s where you parked. OK. OK. You park here, and then…is that when he comes and circles your car?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK.
Zimmerman: It might’ve been closer in between here…these houses.
Singleton: OK. Well, you can move it.
Zimmerman: OK.
Singleton: Just move it.
Zimmerman: Right, right around there.
Singleton: Right around, around here, OK. I’ll just…that’s OK. We’re just, we’re gonna “x” this one out cause it’s not where you meant. You meant that you came around here and ended up here.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK, you ended up here, and then…is that when he circles your car?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. He comes out from where?
Zimmerman: I don’t know.
Singleton: OK. All of a sudden you just notice he’s circling your car.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. So he’s circling your car…
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
So it seems clear that GZ lost TM when he turned the corner at TTL.  Whether it was immediately or shortly after doesn't matter much to me.  The point is, TM went out of GZ's sight.  We don't know what TM did then until he reappears and circles the car.

The reason I highlighted the last part is because GZ says he doesn't know where TM came from.  He just suddenly appeared circling the car.  That doesn't match the reenactment, but that doesn't bother me much.  GZ's memory seems pretty muddled.  I've considered the fact that TM may never have been at the T when GZ describes him as being there in the reenactment.  It's possible his memory is confused because of the questioning, his poor recollection and the passage of time.

But even considering that, all it would do is make the timing a little less difficult.  It still requires that TM ran at some point.  Unless GZ is completely mistaken in the reenactment and TM was really hiding between the first and second condos on the left side of where GZ parked.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 10, 2012, 09:36:18 PM
I think it won't make a difference.

The question will be whether GZ's believed  he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death after Trayvon hit him  and whether that belief was reasonable.

All this business about who was where at what moment has nothing to do with what happened after TM hit GZ.

Following TM isn't a crime, it doesn't negate GZ's right to be wherever he was when TM hit him. Unless GZ provoked TM's punch, his use of lethal force was justified. Even if the judge or jury decides GZ somehow provoked the punches, the question is only whether GZ's belief he had no lesser means available to stop the attack was a reasonable one. John, W-6, has never wavered from his statement that GZ was struggling to get up from under TM. GZ has the evidence of injuries resulting from being  hit by Trayvon. The injuries don't have to be life-threatening.

GZ's perception of danger doesn't have to be real, he just has to believe it's real, and the belief just has to be one an ordinary person,   if confronted with the circumstances as GZ believed them to be, would find reasonable .

The people continuing to make arguments against GZ based on minute details of location are struggling to come up with an argument for guilt that won't matter a bit in the end, in my opinion.

GZ could take the stand and say yes, he was following Travon the whole time, he knew TM realized it and kept following him, because he thought TM was up to no good and didn't want him to get away, and it wouldn't defeat self-defense. TM still would not be justified in using physical force against GZ, and once he did, GZ had the right to respond -- including with lethal force.

Dee Dee's assumption TM was shoved is inadmissible opinion, she doesn't say Trayvon told her GZ shoved him (had he told her that, his statement  might be a hearsay exception and admissible through her) and no other witness has suggested that GZ used physical force against TM before TM hit GZ.

George's inability to exactly recall the sequence of events during a traumatizing incident in which he was injured is not going to render him incredible on why he shot Trayvon, given his injuries, his contemporaneous statements at the scene that he cried out for help and shot TM in self defense, and the statements of witnesses as to what they saw, heard and didn't see or hear which don't contradict his version.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
Thank you, Jeralyn.  You are, of course, right.

And that brings me to the most profound question I have.  Given the evidence, why did Coury bring the 2nd degree murder charge?  ISTM a manslaughter charge might have been defensible (or perhaps involuntary manslaughter, if FL has that on the books), but the 2nd degree murder charge is just way over the top.

I'll understand if you can't or don't want to answer that for professional reasons.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 10, 2012, 09:54:29 PM
Thank you, Jeralyn.  You are, of course, right.

And that brings me to the most profound question I have.  Given the evidence, why did Coury bring the 2nd degree murder charge?  ISTM a manslaughter charge might have been defensible (or perhaps involuntary manslaughter, if FL has that on the books), but the 2nd degree murder charge is just way over the top.

I'll understand if you can't or don't want to answer that for professional reasons.

Either or both of the following: To up the stakes and make it more likely GZ would plead to a lesser charge, or because she hopes to obscure and diminish the self-defense argument by introducing negative character information about GZ, under the guise  it supports the element of a "depraved mind," hoping it will prejudice the jury against him when it considers self-defense. It's a cheap tactic, but one done all the time.

Florida law is very clear that a spontaneous overreaction to danger during a confrontation is not evidence of a depraved mind sufficient to show second degree murder. And in most cases, as I've outlined before, murder 2 cases involve people who knew each other before the fatal incident. The exceptions are cases like someone randomly mowing down multiple people.

In my opinion, the charge is over the top and should never have been brought, and I have no problem, professionally or otherwise, in so opining.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 10, 2012, 09:59:23 PM
Again, thank you.  I really appreciate receiving a professional opinion about the case from someone who is apparently as unbiased as anyone can be.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 10, 2012, 10:11:22 PM
Again, thank you.  I really appreciate receiving a professional opinion about the case from someone who is apparently as unbiased as anyone can be.

You are welcome, but I am not neutral or unbiased.  I view all cases  through the lens of the defense.  I strive for factual and legal accuracy, but I am not unbiased in how I view the facts and interpret the law.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 10, 2012, 10:51:10 PM
OK, help me understand.  Where exactly do you think GZ lost sight of TM?

Normal walking pace is 4 miles an hour.  4x5280=21120/60=352 feet per minute.  To cover the 603 ft +40 feet around the truck would take 1 minute 49 seconds.  Working back from "He's running" which occurs at 2:07 on the tape, he would have had to see TM walking past his truck at 0:18 on the tape.  Yet at 0:05 he says "the best address I can give you is 111 Retreat View Circle." 

That's true ONLY if everything is recorded. I've pointed out the turn signal a number of times - I assume you still haven't listened to that audio file, that was the 16 second mark which you previously claimed was a sound that is heard at the 11 second mark. Now why would there be a turn signal randomly there? Why would there be the sound of someone changing gears right before that? Simple: Mr. Zimmerman moved to the corner and turned right. The whole 11 second theory of yours doesn't work because in your theory you say that Mr. Zimmerman lost sight of him 50 feet away - which would be a good calculation if it were correct, but it's not. Mr. Zimmerman never marked or stated that the location 50ft was the spot where he lost Mr. Martin. He marked the location across the street, right up against the building as the location where he lost sight of Mr. Martin. That's exactly where my theory says he lost sight of Mr. Martin, right before he was able to get through to Sean - or in Mr. Zimmerman's words AS he was trying to get through. You'll also note in ALL of your gear changing sounds (or all of them that you point out) has the same exact number of clicks each time the gear selector is moved. How do you explain that, given that he went to multiple gears from multiple positions?

Quote
Yet he adamantly states, in tape 3 of the Serino/Singleton interview, that he's still at the clubhouse at the 0:48 minute mark. Notice how he is completely certain that at 0:48 he was still at the clubhouse?  But at 1:03 he's not so certain, and at 1:16, he's even less certain?

See my response to you, or WillisNewton, previously about the questioning from Serino and Singleton.

Quote
Since GZ couldn't see TM after he turned the corner onto TTL, there's no evidence to suggest what TM was doing except the times on the tape.  And those times say TM had to have run before he circled back.  The laws of physics demand it.

He could see him after Mr. Martin had turned the corner onto TTL - as he told Investigator Singleton and DREW for her. Mr. Martin doesn't -have- to run at all, until when Mr. Zimmerman says "he's running" in my theory. The laws of physics are not against my theory either.

Quote
Either this scenario is somewhat a plausible explanation of what GZ claims happened or GZ is lying about it.  If he's lying, why?  Why on earth would he make up such a goofy story?

So, saying Mr. Zimmerman didn't really lose sight of Mr. Martin at the corner of the building, as he stated and drew, isn't calling him a liar? I haven't called him a liar yet, and have no reason to. There is no reason to ignore any of the evidence, whether it's the map that he drew or the multiple times he said he lost sight of Mr. Martin at the corner of the building across the street.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 10, 2012, 11:03:06 PM
If you watch the reenactment video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) from the 2:45 to 2:50 mark, GZ says he lost sight of TM as he rounded the corner headed toward TTL, just as I said.  If you watch the video, you'll see that GZ is pointing to the corner of the clubhouse and there is shrubbery and other obstructions there that obscured his view.

I think I understand what you're saying now.  Yes, I agree.  I thought you were saying that while GZ was at the clubhouse, he lost sight of GZ multiple times.  This is what your post above was suggesting to me.

From my recollection, in every accounts GZ made, there are 2 moments when he lost TM: One around the time of his NEN call and one after the circling.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 10, 2012, 11:15:55 PM
I don't think so.

Zimmerman volunteered  'circled' in the reenactment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) (3:46-4:03) and 'walked around' in the interview (http://184.172.211.159/~gzdocs/documents/statements/video_interview_cvsa_0227.asf) preceding the voice stress test (27:31-49, 6:46:08-26).

I don't think he was asked about the circling earlier by either Sgt. Smith or Investigator Erwin. They were following his narrative, not anticipating it.

In the reenactment, Zimmerman was still in the car at the time. Serino hadn't asked him anything yet.

Regarding Investigator Erwin, that is the correct spelling of his name. I regret that in a number of comments I misrecalled it as 'Irwin.'

From the interview with Singleton Feb 26th, 2012:

BCM
Quote
Zimmerman: Um, I called the non emergency line and I just reported that there was a suspicious person in the neighborhood. Um, the dispatcher, whoever answered the phone asked me where they went and I said I wasn't sure because I lost visual of him when he went in between houses. And, uh, he said well can you tell me what direction he went. I said not really. Um, and then all of a sudden I see him circling my car. And, and then he goes back into the darkness. So...
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: DebFrmHell on August 10, 2012, 11:21:42 PM
So I'm supposed to believe Zimmerman's post shooting accounts of what happened but discount everything he says in them?

I didn't ask you to discount anything.  I said that I discount it.  You can choose to believe whatever you want.

I do believe that he is describing TM passing his truck at the clubhouse however.  And he told Singleton that he "and, um, so I just pulled my car to the side and I called the non emergency line."
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 10, 2012, 11:26:08 PM
From the interview with Singleton Feb 26th, 2012:

I was responding to what you wrote about 'questionings after the night of the 26th/27th.'
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 12:06:33 AM
That's true ONLY if everything is recorded. I've pointed out the turn signal a number of times - I assume you still haven't listened to that audio file, that was the 16 second mark which you previously claimed was a sound that is heard at the 11 second mark.
Your "turn signal" sound is the wiper blades.  If you listen to the recording closely, you will hear that sound (with varying degrees of clarity) at 0:01, 0:16, 0:31, 0:46, 1:01, etc., etc.  It comes every 15 seconds, in a very rhythmic pattern and is very discernible once you know what to listen for.

Furthermore, why would GZ turn his signal on?  He's backing out, according to you.  (And no, I don't hear a gear sound at 0:11).  Your theory makes no sense and doesn't accord with the evidence at all.  If the sound is a turn signal, then why does George turn it on every 15 seconds throughout the entire time that the car is running?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 11, 2012, 12:18:01 AM
I think it won't make a difference.

I think it has already made a difference, in that Zimmerman probably won't testify.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 11, 2012, 12:45:17 AM
How, from the NEN call, do you get the impression GZ is backing out at this time?

I don't.

I was asking Txantimedia about his scenario.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 11, 2012, 12:50:04 AM
Your "turn signal" sound is the wiper blades.  If you listen to the recording closely, you will hear that sound (with varying degrees of clarity) at 0:01, 0:16, 0:31, 0:46, 1:01, etc., etc.  It comes every 15 seconds, in a very rhythmic pattern and is very discernible once you know what to listen for.

There is a wiper at the start, and that wasn't what I was talking about. I've taken another shot at this, and this time I'll show you exactly how it's NOT a wiper blade:

This is the wiper blade in a spectrogram: http://s9.postimage.org/tvdvuqpvh/wiper.jpg
This is the wiper highlighted in the spectrogram of the turn signal: http://s8.postimage.org/pqvgm80w3/signal.jpg

All that extra stuff to the right of the wiper blade in that second image? That's the turn signal. I've gone one step further and made examples for you to listen to, this time properly cropped:

Wiper: http://www.filedropper.com/wiper-31268
Signal: http://www.filedropper.com/signal_1

Based on the images and the audio, it's clearly not a wiper blade.


Quote
Furthermore, why would GZ turn his signal on?  He's backing out, according to you.  (And no, I don't hear a gear sound at 0:11).  Your theory makes no sense and doesn't accord with the evidence at all.  If the sound is a turn signal, then why does George turn it on every 15 seconds throughout the entire time that the car is running?

Some people follow the law and use their turn signals when they turn - just a guess. I'd also like for you to point out a single time that I've ever said he was backing out. I'll save you the trouble - I haven't, because in my theory he backed out before Sean picked up on the line (or was in the process of doing so). As pointed out above, you paid attention to the wrong sound. Other than your misunderstanding of the sound you should've paid attention to, how does my theory not flow with the evidence?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: MJW on August 11, 2012, 02:45:10 AM
Txantimedia, it sounds like you're assuming Martin walks completely to the "T" before returning to circle Zimmerman's car. If you are, I think you're wrong. In the very interview where Zimmerman is drawing on the Google map, as he drawing on the map, he says:
Quote
Singleton: OK, you ended up here, and then…is that when he circles your car?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. He comes out from where?
Zimmerman: I don’t know.
Singleton: OK. All of a sudden you just notice he’s circling your car.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. So he’s circling your car...
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
If Martin disappears behind the houses, then reappears -- from where, Zimmerman doesn't know -- how can you know Martin made it to the "T"?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 11, 2012, 03:35:46 AM
I think it won't make a difference.

The question will be whether GZ's believed  he was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death after Trayvon hit him  and whether that belief was reasonable....

This thread is not entitled "Is Zimmerman guilty or not guilty of that with which he has been charged", it's entitled "George as a Witness".

In other words, out of all that he has said, what, if anything, can we believe?

Or even make sense of.

If he says "A", and "A" just doesn't seem to make sense or fit with other stuff we know, can we say what that means as to whether he's believable when he says "B".

If "A" doesn't fit with other stuff we know, are we "knowing it wrong"?

For example, after the very first time I heard the phone call recording, if someone had told me "That part right after he says the other guy is running?  What you hear after that is actually not the sound of him getting out of the vehicle in a hurry and running after the guy.", I'd still be at the chiropractor as a result of my violent and rapid doubletake.  But that's me. Others seem to hear it as an indication of something else.  Could this be a case of one or the other of us "knowing it wrong"?

If nothing else, we can look at all of the stuff he's said so far and how it fits with itself and with other stuff, and develop opinions about how he'd do if he ever takes the stand, or whether there are any circumstances under which he dares take the risk of taking the stand, or whether the greater risk is in not taking the stand.

And of course me, I wanna figure out just what the h311 actually really happened that night.

If it results in any intellectual discomfort for the insufferably smug on the fringes of both "sides", well, that's just gravy.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 11, 2012, 04:21:06 AM
In the very interview where Zimmerman is drawing on the Google map, as he drawing on the map, he says:
Quote
Singleton: OK, you ended up here, and then…is that when he circles your car?
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. He comes out from where?
Zimmerman: I don’t know.
Singleton: OK. All of a sudden you just notice he’s circling your car.
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.
Singleton: OK. So he’s circling your car...
Zimmerman: Yes, ma’am.

If Martin disappears behind the houses, then reappears -- from where, Zimmerman doesn't know -- how can you know Martin made it to the "T"?

This is one of the points on which Zimmerman's story evolved.

2/27R, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 3:33-42
Quote
And I saw him walking back that way, and then cut through the back of the houses. He looked back, and he noticed me, and he cut back through the houses.

Zimmerman made a rightward hand gesture, which I take to indicate that 'through the houses' meant southward into the 'dogwalk' area between the two rows of houses.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 06:05:14 AM
Jeralyn,

Your previous post left me with the bitter impression that the country leading the free world grew over nearly 250 years a justice system with a toothless prosecution when facing murderers who would have killed following George Zimmerman's "scenario".

So, I want to thanks you for the relief you gave me with your honest reminder quoted below.
You are welcome, but I am not neutral or unbiased.  I view all cases  through the lens of the defense.  I strive for factual and legal accuracy, but I am not unbiased in how I view the facts and interpret the law.

I have been following your posts (not all obviously) for quite a while, and I noticed the standard you demand.  It was also crystal clear that your blog has a GZ leaning gathering which is without doubt related to your admitted defense leaning views.  I'm not asking you to change that.  I have no problem with diversities including diversity of opinion.  And again, I'm looking for that difference when I come to your blog.

Where I'm going is that your admittance shows that you perfectly understand that other people, and that includes some involved in the case like the prosecution, probably have a different view than yours.  This is why the quote below from your post looks quite short sighted to me.   

Quote
Either or both of the following: To up the stakes and make it more likely GZ would plead to a lesser charge, or because she hopes to obscure and diminish the self-defense argument by introducing negative character information about GZ, under the guise it supports the element of a "depraved mind," hoping it will prejudice the jury against him when it considers self-defense. It's a cheap tactic, but one done all the time.

Florida law is very clear that a spontaneous overreaction to danger during a confrontation is not evidence of a depraved mind sufficient to show second degree murder. And in most cases, as I've outlined before, murder 2 cases involve people who knew each other before the fatal incident. The exceptions are cases like someone randomly mowing down multiple people.

The part where you say: "Florida law is very clear that a spontaneous overreaction to danger during a confrontation is not evidence of a depraved mind sufficient to show second degree murder.", you're assuming that the killing was the result of an overreaction implying that Trayvon may have confronted George and George may have used means that are bigger than necessary. 

In the counter part that you brushed aside: "The exceptions are cases like someone randomly mowing down multiple people.", refers to none premeditated homicide resulting from decisions and actions taken with no regard for the life of individuals.  At least that's my reading of it.

I may be naively thinking that the Prosecution has the expertise and smart  to make the right call with the information they have.  Still today, the odds that Trayvon was killed because George misjudged him and took steps that lead to his passing aren't null.  In other words, he may have been the one who was standing his ground, but with no gun.  [I know I'll get some beating here for what I just wrote, but believe me; there are places where it's very popular.]

About the cheap tactic, from my none legal expert opinion, it is going to be used by both parties. Indeed, DeeDee (Wit #8) heard the initial yells at the start of the physical confrontation, and how she says is very different from what George says.  At least one of the two lies and both camps will have to work the Jury's opinion about who's the biggest liar, and at that game, the prosecution seems to have an head start (I'm referring to the motion to revoke GZ's bond and the incarceration of SZ - I'll be guillotined for what I just wrote).    Finally, when it comes to the cheap tactic, I sincerely believe that the best witness for the prosecution will be George Zimmerman himself (I'm referring to statements he made that should even not be wrong as they can easily be checked like in "I thought he was a little younger than me" or in "Serino: Highest education? George: Huu associate."). 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 06:12:38 AM
If Martin disappears behind the houses, then reappears -- from where, Zimmerman doesn't know -- how can you know Martin made it to the "T"?


This is one of the points on which Zimmerman's story evolved.

2/27R, (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qfkRTC5gF4) 3:33-42
Zimmerman made a rightward hand gesture, which I take to indicate that 'through the houses' meant southward into the 'dogwalk' area between the two rows of houses.

It's more than the gesture actually.  George Zimmerman states that as he parked the suspect notices him from the T before disappearing between houses. In my opinion, this is so detailed that it is impossible to dismiss them when evaluating GZ's story versus  timing and map.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 06:19:00 AM
Please see  Lee M's alternate transcript (http://talkleft.com/zimm/alternatetranscript.pdf). He identifies the sounds.  He sent me clips of the segments he identifies.

Play  Ridgelinewiperandturnsignal (http://talkleft.com/Audio/Ridgelinewiperandsignal1.wav)

Play At the Clubhouse (http://talkleft.com/Audio/attheclubhouse.wav)

Play Ridgeline Window Solanoid (http://talkleft.com/Audio/Ridgelinewindowsolenoid.mp3)

Do you also have, by any chance, the noise made by door locks?  Thanks
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 11, 2012, 06:45:36 AM

And of course me, I wanna figure out just what the h311 actually really happened that night.

If it results in any intellectual discomfort for the insufferably smug on the fringes of both "sides", well, that's just gravy.

Without footage from the Snoopy 1 blimp, you're never going to know what "actually really happened". So why make yourself crazy?

Secondly: keep in mind that "smug" is more of a subjective than an objective. If you know...you know... ;)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 11, 2012, 07:10:42 AM
may be naively thinking that the Prosecution has the expertise and smart  to make the right call with the information they have.  Still today, the odds that Trayvon was killed because George misjudged him and took steps that lead to his passing aren't null.  In other words, he may have been the one who was standing his ground, but with no gun.  [I know I'll get some beating here for what I just wrote, but believe me; there are places where it's very popular.]
The prosecution admits it has no evidence that Zimmerman assaulted TM. 

Quote
Indeed, DeeDee (Wit #8) heard the initial yells at the start of the physical confrontation, and how she says is very different from what George says.

Georges statement was given immediately after the fact. He was not aware of what subsequent evidence ( video tapes, recordings or witnesses) would be produced. You contend that by inventing a conversation, he risked much to gain little.  Deedee's recollection of the conversation would not have negated Zimmerman's claim to self defense. Again, why would he risk substituting different words?  His statements were freely given and subject to adversarial questioning.

DeeDee a month latter gave a statement with the Martin family attorney present to a sympathetic and leading, prosecuter. She has yet to be examined by a professional versed in the art of interrogation. Even under these ideal circumstances her story fails to convince many observers.
 I suggest you review the DeeDee thread. Even the most ardent Martin supporters found her positions difficult if not impossible to defend.  She has not yet been examined by the defense. I guess you are assuming that her statements and what little is left of her creditability will survive critical examination?
If this gets to a jury I doubt that she will be regarded as a credible witness. 

Quote
Your previous post left me with the bitter impression that the country leading the free world grew over nearly 250 years a justice system with a toothless prosecution when facing murderers who would have killed following George Zimmerman's "scenario".

The United States has always had a strong tradition of allowing individuals the right of self defense. If you ever find your self attacked ( as George Zimmerman was) for no other reason than walking in your neighborhood you might appreciate your freedom to to avoid being maimed or worse.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 07:18:05 AM
Without footage from the Snoopy 1 blimp, you're never going to know what "actually really happened". So why make yourself crazy?

Secondly: keep in mind that "smug" is more of a subjective than an objective. If you know...you know... ;)

It's generally easier to show what is not than what is.
For example, you can show more easily that those keys aren't in your jacket where they are supposed to be than showing where they actually are.
That's what Unitron and I are working on. To some level, we don't care where they went.  What we are doing is testing the validity of GZ's narrative.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: RickyJim on August 11, 2012, 07:22:36 AM
I think it won't make a difference.

Jeralyn, you omitted the post you were replying to so I have no idea what won't make a difference.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: leftwig on August 11, 2012, 07:29:37 AM
Indeed, DeeDee (Wit #8) heard the initial yells at the start of the physical confrontation, and how she says is very different from what George says.  At least one of the two lies and both camps will have to work the Jury's opinion about who's the biggest liar

FWIW, I don't think differences in recollection of events is proof that one of the two is lying.  Very few of the ear/eye witnesses accounts match in timing and what they heard, but it doesn't mean they are lying.  I do agree the recollection of the words used was very different as well as the tone of the two individuals saying it.  She has GZ yelling at TM with a deep old angry voice.  OF course GZ doesn't have a deep voice, so one might wonder why she'd want to describe it that way.

If the case simply comes down to who is more believable between Dee Dee and GZ, GZ is in fine shape. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 11, 2012, 07:31:12 AM
Jeralyn, you omitted the post you were replying to so I have no idea what won't make a difference.


Seems clear she was talking about the pages of posts before where people are trying to account for every single second of George's evening. At least that's what I took from reading the posts.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 11, 2012, 07:41:11 AM
It's generally easier to show what is not than what is.
For example, you can show more easily that those keys aren't in your jacket where they are supposed to be than showing where they actually are.
That's what Unitron and I are working on. To some level, we don't care where they went.  What we are doing is testing the validity of GZ's narrative.

No, you're really not. You're expecting television script perfection from a real life trauma. George didn't start out that night thinking he was going to get brutally attacked, knocked down, maybe knocked out briefly, then have to shoot someone to keep himself from severe injury or death. You have the luxury of sitting back with your computer and all the transcripts and google maps/earth/measuring and all the rest of it, and if you find that he said it was 50 feet and you measure it on google as being 65, you guys scream that he's lying.

Part of my hope is that all of you that pick apart every word, every syllable and ever step of that night never have to go through something like he did--because it's really kind of a horrible thing.
Another part really wishes all of you could go through something like that so you'd have more appreciation for what it's like.

Having your whole world change--pretty much go nuclear on you in pretty much the blink of an eye--isn't a fun thing to go through. You don't always get every detail perfect. This isn't television. This isn't CSI. This is real life.

He was attacked from the darkness. He had his nose broken and his head slammed against something harder than it (and lest you dismiss that, the internet is full of stories of people becoming vegetables and even dead from less, like that bus driver in NY). He had to shoot someone. He killed someone. He believed in the fairness of the system so he cooperated when he should have gotten a lawyer who'd have made him get medical attention and some rest.

And there you sit, comfy in your chair in your house in front of your computer with the whole thing in front of you picking apart every aspect of that night in perfect 20/20 technicolor hindsight.

Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 07:58:08 AM
I don't.

I was asking Txantimedia about his scenario.
We know he backed out from the reenactment.  So that has to occur at some point in the tape.  The only question, then, is when.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 08:01:50 AM
Txantimedia, it sounds like you're assuming Martin walks completely to the "T" before returning to circle Zimmerman's car. If you are, I think you're wrong. In the very interview where Zimmerman is drawing on the Google map, as he drawing on the map, he says:If Martin disappears behind the houses, then reappears -- from where, Zimmerman doesn't know -- how can you know Martin made it to the "T"?
From the reenactment.  And as I said, he may not have been recalling that but have mixed memories.  TM may have been hiding between the two condos to the left of where GZ parked.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 08:03:35 AM
There is a wiper at the start, and that wasn't what I was talking about. I've taken another shot at this, and this time I'll show you exactly how it's NOT a wiper blade:

This is the wiper blade in a spectrogram: http://s9.postimage.org/tvdvuqpvh/wiper.jpg
This is the wiper highlighted in the spectrogram of the turn signal: http://s8.postimage.org/pqvgm80w3/signal.jpg

All that extra stuff to the right of the wiper blade in that second image? That's the turn signal. I've gone one step further and made examples for you to listen to, this time properly cropped:

Wiper: http://www.filedropper.com/wiper-31268
Signal: http://www.filedropper.com/signal_1
For me to believe this, I'd have to see spectographs of all the other wiper blade sounds.  Or at least a good representative sample of them.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 11, 2012, 08:21:58 AM
No, you're really not. You're expecting television script perfection from a real life trauma. George didn't start out that night thinking he was going to get brutally attacked, knocked down, maybe knocked out briefly, then have to shoot someone to keep himself from severe injury or death. You have the luxury of sitting back with your computer and all the transcripts and google maps/earth/measuring and all the rest of it, and if you find that he said it was 50 feet and you measure it on google as being 65, you guys scream that he's lying.

Part of my hope is that all of you that pick apart every word, every syllable and ever step of that night never have to go through something like he did--because it's really kind of a horrible thing.
Another part really wishes all of you could go through something like that so you'd have more appreciation for what it's like.

Having your whole world change--pretty much go nuclear on you in pretty much the blink of an eye--isn't a fun thing to go through. You don't always get every detail perfect. This isn't television. This isn't CSI. This is real life.

He was attacked from the darkness. He had his nose broken and his head slammed against something harder than it (and lest you dismiss that, the internet is full of stories of people becoming vegetables and even dead from less, like that bus driver in NY). He had to shoot someone. He killed someone. He believed in the fairness of the system so he cooperated when he should have gotten a lawyer who'd have made him get medical attention and some rest.

And there you sit, comfy in your chair in your house in front of your computer with the whole thing in front of you picking apart every aspect of that night in perfect 20/20 technicolor hindsight.

Well said.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 08:25:03 AM
The United States has always had a strong tradition of allowing individuals the right of self defense. If you ever find your self attacked ( as George Zimmerman was) for no other reason than walking in your neighborhood you might appreciate your freedom to to avoid being maimed or worse.

Lousy,

For some reasons, I really have difficulties in passing what I mean to you. 

The key word in the quote below is "murderer".  In that sentence I really assume the hypothetical case of a murderer who would claim self defense in a situation similar to GZ's case.  In other words, I assume someone who committed a murder but apparently nobody knows if he is a murderer, and only a deep dive investigation can possibly help getting that knowledge.
To make sure I'm clear here, I'm not stating that GZ is a murderer.  As of today, he is "just" a killer.  Hopefully, we'll know after trial if he is a murderer.
 
Quote
Your previous post left me with the bitter impression that the country leading the free world grew over nearly 250 years a justice system with a toothless prosecution when facing murderers who would have killed following George Zimmerman's "scenario".


In a different instance of misunderstanding, you were offended by my definition of a gun as a tool to kill
You replied with something along the line that a gun is not a tool of death.
By my definition, a tool is an object created, developed & manufactured to execute or help execute one task or multiple tasks. 
By my definition, killing is the act of putting to death a living being.
However, killing is not equal to death.  The same way killing involves death it may very much involve life.  That's what happen if you kill to survive (feeding yourself, self-defense, ...). 
Therefore, "a tool to kill" looks pretty much proper definition of a gun since men created, developed and manufactured guns to kill.  Since, you can kill with a gun in order to live or help live then they aren't "tools of death".  Again, killing isn't equal to death, it implies death and may very well imply life too.
To end with that philosophical dissertation, I contend that a tool may have many purposes and therefore, you may find applications to your guns other than killing.  I myself sometimes use a table fork to scratch my back and my wife... 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 11, 2012, 08:32:54 AM
In a different instance of misunderstanding, you were offended by my definition of a gun as a tool to kill
You replied with something along the line that a gun is not a tool of death.
By my definition, a tool is an object created, developed & manufactured to execute or help execute one task or multiple tasks. 
By my definition, killing is the act of putting to death a living being.
However, killing is not equal to death.  The same way killing involves death it may very much involve life.  That's what happen if you kill to survive (feeding yourself, self-defense, ...). 
Therefore, "a tool to kill" looks pretty much proper definition of a gun since men created, developed and manufactured guns to kill.  Since, you can kill with a gun in order to live or help live then they aren't "tools of death".  Again, killing isn't equal to death, it implies death and may very well imply life too.
To end with that philosophical dissertation, I contend that a tool may have many purposes and therefore, you may find applications to your guns other than killing.  I myself sometimes use a table fork to scratch my back and my wife...

I think you are mistaking me with someone else.  I don't typically get involved in meaningless semantics.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: leftwig on August 11, 2012, 08:39:44 AM
We know he backed out from the reenactment.  So that has to occur at some point in the tape.  The only question, then, is when.

I don't think we know for certain GZ backed out from the clubhouse during the NEN.  I understand GZ's recollection was that he pulled in as he made the call and believes he connected while sitting there.  I suggest he knows that he called NEN that night that he pulled into the clubhouse and backed out from the clubhouse.  I think his recollection is reliable enough to say those things happened, not sure its reliable enough to determine the actual timing of exactly when the events occurred. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 11, 2012, 08:48:11 AM
Lousy,

For some reasons, I really have difficulties in passing what I mean to you. 

The key word in the quote below is "murderer".  In that sentence I really assume the hypothetical case of a murderer who would claim self defense in a situation similar to GZ's case.  In other words, I assume someone who committed a murder but apparently nobody knows if he is a murderer, and only a deep dive investigation can possibly help getting that knowledge.
To make sure I'm clear here, I'm not stating that GZ is a murderer.  As of today, he is "just" a killer.  Hopefully, we'll know after trial if he is a murderer.

If your plan to kill someone requires that you  take a beating in front of witnesses for over a minute, and relies on a laggardly police response to your NEN call  then you need a better plan.

PS Its lousy1 . I don't think you know me well enough to address me by my first name 8)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: RickyJim on August 11, 2012, 08:54:37 AM

The key word in the quote below is "murderer".  In that sentence I really assume the hypothetical case of a murderer who would claim self defense in a situation similar to GZ's case.  In other words, I assume someone who committed a murder but apparently nobody knows if he is a murderer, and only a deep dive investigation can possibly help getting that knowledge.


I dispute that the huge amount of time and effort that has gone into analyzing Zimmerman's movements in his vehicle can possibly lead to a determination of whether or not Zimmerman is a murderer.  It is apparently a fairly common thing for homicide cases to not have witnesses to the entire incident and no good forensic evidence.  The reasonable doubt criterion enables those who claim self defense to avoid conviction.  In the Orlando Sentinel (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-08-09/news/os-george-zimmerman-stand-your-ground-20120809_1_george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin-mark-o-mara), I read,
Quote
That last point — that no other witness saw the entire encounter — is key, according to experts. An Orlando Sentinel review of Central Florida "stand your ground" cases found that suspects were far more likely to be exonerated if they were the lone surviving witness.
So what we have here is not so unusual as far as a legal matter.  The obsession with trivia, displayed by some obviously very smart people, is interesting.  I just can't understand why.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 08:55:00 AM
Here are some questions I wish the police had asked.

Did TM pass in front of you near 1460 RVC?  Or was he still to your left when you drove around to the clubhouse?

How long after you parked at the clubhouse did you see him approaching your truck?

At what point, after he passed you, did you back out at the clubhouse and head toward TTL?

When Investigator Singleton questioned you the night of the incident, you said you didn't know where TM came from when he circled your truck.  When you first noticed him, was he on the left of your truck?  To the right?  In front of it?

As he approached your truck, did you notice anything in his hands?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 08:59:14 AM
The obsession with trivia, displayed by some obviously very smart people, is interesting.  I just can't understand why.
I think it's because they have a pathological need to either prove GZ is telling the truth or prove he is lying.  As Jeralyn pointed out, under the law it's irrelevant.  The evidence shows that GZ was beaten, that he tried to get assistance for at least 40 seconds and that he tried to escape but failed.  Multiple witnesses testify to each of those elements.  Therefore, he is justified in shooting TM, even if he was the aggressor, for which there is, and the state has so admitted, no evidence.

In a just world, his case would have gone to a grand jury and been no-billed.  But Florida is evidently not a just world.
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 09:09:40 AM
I don't think we know for certain GZ backed out from the clubhouse during the NEN.  I understand GZ's recollection was that he pulled in as he made the call and believes he connected while sitting there.  I suggest he knows that he called NEN that night that he pulled into the clubhouse and backed out from the clubhouse.  I think his recollection is reliable enough to say those things happened, not sure its reliable enough to determine the actual timing of exactly when the events occurred.

So, everything he said is true but... not quite true!

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 09:26:42 AM
Here are some questions I wish the police had asked.

Did TM pass in front of you near 1460 RVC?  Or was he still to your left when you drove around to the clubhouse?

How long after you parked at the clubhouse did you see him approaching your truck?

At what point, after he passed you, did you back out at the clubhouse and head toward TTL?

When Investigator Singleton questioned you the night of the incident, you said you didn't know where TM came from when he circled your truck.  When you first noticed him, was he on the left of your truck?  To the right?  In front of it?

As he approached your truck, did you notice anything in his hands?

I wish that too!
And I wish that he answered something else but a whispered "I don't remember"...
Title: Re: Race You!
Post by: leftwig on August 11, 2012, 10:41:08 AM
So, everything he said is true but... not quite true!

I think GZ believes he is relaying an accurate story.  I think its incredibly presumptuous to assume that he would have perfect recall to the second and that 5-6 statements about a 10 minute incident would be in total agreement with each other and with the exact events that occurred that night. Most of the other witnesses have given one or two statements and have contradictory accounts in those statements.  You try to put all of them together and come up with the best picture you can, but I'd suggest its best to concentrate on what matters in regards to the law on self defense. 

Where or when, or even if TM circled GZ's vehicle is mostly irrelevant.  The case really comes down to what happened when the two met face to face at the 'T' and is it reasonable to believe someone experiencing what GZ experienced that night could fear that they might receive great bodily harm from the attack. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 11, 2012, 01:15:05 PM
Do you also have, by any chance, the noise made by door locks?  Thanks

Here is the you tube video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Edn8VNPn6Yc) with the 2007 Ridgeline and all the sounds. I sent Lee an e-mail to see if he has just the door locks.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on August 11, 2012, 01:27:09 PM
I wish that too!
And I wish that he answered something else but a whispered "I don't remember"...

Well if the investigators didn't all but lie to him to try and trip him up, he probably wouldn't have gotten so muddled to the point of having to answer "I don't remember."
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 11, 2012, 02:02:32 PM
Well if the investigators didn't all but lie to him to try and trip him up, he probably wouldn't have gotten so muddled to the point of having to answer "I don't remember."

Would you specify what statements by the investigators you have in mind?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 02:15:46 PM
I'm listening to the NEN call today, and I have amended my sound identification.  I listened to the Honda Ridgeline video that Jeralyn posted and compared it with the noises on the NEN call.  I believe the sound at 1:01 is not door locks, but the gear selector.  The next gear selector is at 1:09.  I think the first one is going from park to reverse, the second from reverse to drive.  The last one is at 1:40, so I think that's when he parked at TTL.  Total elapsed time to drive, then, would be 39 seconds, just three less than the reenactment and within a reasonable range given variables of speed and movement.  I think the sound at 1:54 is windshield wipers, not the gear selector.  This would be out of sequence with the consistent 15 second interval, but GZ could have increased the speed due to increased rain or he could have manually activated them in an attempt to locate TM.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Kyreth on August 11, 2012, 02:21:21 PM
Would you specify what statements by the investigators you have in mind?

The big one that comes to mind is from Singleton.  I said "all but lie" because technically what she said is partly true, but...well I'll just explain hehe.

When George first tried to explain what happened to Singleton, he did express that he had gotten out of the vehicle to look for an address, forgetting to tell her that he initially got out of the vehicle.  During the reenactment he initially said the same thing but while at the scene it jogged his memory and he did correct himself to point out where the dispatcher asked if he was following, and George said "Yes"; and after that point, he says it again during the CVSA, and Singleton was around to hear him say that.

Then during that part of the interview, Singleton challenges George on that, and accuses George of trying to hide that he was following Martin because he never admitted it, when in fact he had admitted such more than once.  This puts George into trying to defend a stance he was never really trying to take, which led to the "I wasn't following, I was going the same direction" statement, etc.  IMO, with that kind of interrogation it's no wonder George was reduced to "I can't remember."

I know they did it to try and see if they could force George into confessing something; but I think it was unfair of them to do so considering the prosecution is using that against him now.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 11, 2012, 02:57:32 PM
Would you specify what statements by the investigators you have in mind?

They certainly lied when they claimd to have a a video of the incident.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 11, 2012, 04:54:29 PM
They certainly lied when they claimed to have a a video of the incident.

Serino didn't claim to have a video, he said they might, and GZ said he prayed  to G-d they did

Quote
CS:  And one of his hobbies happens to be the videotaping of everything he does. Okay. He has a library, very impressive, going through his phone, we got a little bit, but the battery died. We’re still working on that. There’s a possibility that whatever happened between you and him is caught on videotape. And this is going to be our final interview. I’m not gonna talk to you any more after this. We’re good, you know what I’m saying? That right there, that’s his cell phone. Okay. That’s a camera. Um, there’s a very strong possibility that what’s on there is either gonna help you or, you know, not help you. And that’s why I gotta clarify a few things about what happened out there. Um, how tall are you, how much do you weigh?
GZ: Ah, 5-8, ah, 194.
CS: Okay. Trayvon’s about 6 foot, about 150 pounds. That’s him, that’s the gunshot you put in him, it went right through his heart. Okay, um, a skinny kid. Obviously, like I said, a lot of questions are being brought up, um, he was unarmed. Ah, he… But like I said, because of, I mean, obviously you passed a lie detector test and you’ve done all that, but, like I said, if there’s anything that you haven’t said, that might be in that phone…
GZ: I prayed to God that someone would [can’t understand]....Or the neighborhood had put up a video camera that I didn’t know about or something.
CS: Listen, it’s not a guarantee, but like I said a strong possibility, I’m hoping myself.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: RickyJim on August 11, 2012, 05:33:41 PM
Serino didn't claim to have a video, he said they might, and GZ said he prayed  to G-d they did

 ??? The question is whether or not Serino was lying.  His claims about what was or might be on Martin's phone sound like a really tall story to me.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: TalkLeft on August 11, 2012, 08:59:31 PM
??? The question is whether or not Serino was lying.  His claims about what was or might be on Martin's phone sound like a really tall story to me.

No, the statement by Lousy 1 was "They certainly lied when they claimed to have a a video of the incident."

That's a false statement. He may have lied, he may not have lied. There's no proof he lied. I'm trying to keep disputed facts from being presented as undisputed truths.

Also, cops are allowed to lie when they question suspects.  They can't lie in affidavits or court testimony or police reports.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 11, 2012, 09:25:19 PM
No, the statement by Lousy 1 was "They certainly lied when they claimed to have a a video of the incident."

That's a false statement. He may have lied, he may not have lied. There's no proof he lied. I'm trying to keep disputed facts from being presented as undisputed truths.

Also, cops are allowed to lie when they question suspects.  They can't lie in affidavits or court testimony or police reports.

You are correct. I should have refreshed my recollections and written more concisely
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 09:35:45 PM
He was attacked from the darkness. He had his nose broken and his head slammed against something harder than it (and lest you dismiss that, the internet is full of stories of people becoming vegetables and even dead from less, like that bus driver in NY). He had to shoot someone. He killed someone. He believed in the fairness of the system so he cooperated when he should have gotten a lawyer who'd have made him get medical attention and some rest.

This is GZ's claim.  Go back to the Feb. 29th interview with Serino & Singleton.  There, Serino says "I consulted with a lot of people, it's not consistent with the injuries.".

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 09:48:52 PM
This is GZ's claim.  Go back to the Feb. 29th interview with Serino & Singleton.  There, Serino says "I consulted with a lot of people, it's not consistent with the injuries.".
That's BS.  As he said, the internet is full of stories of people killed with one punch.  Serino was trying to get GZ to admit that he wasn't really being beaten hard enough to justify shooting TM.  The facts say one punch can kill you, and the law says you don't even have to absorb the first blow before you shoot.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Lousy1 on August 11, 2012, 10:06:51 PM
This is GZ's claim.  Go back to the Feb. 29th interview with Serino & Singleton.  There, Serino says "I consulted with a lot of people, it's not consistent with the injuries.".

When did Serino become a forensic expert? Do you have any supporting documentation identifying the 'lots of people' Serino  purported he  had interrogated?
Perhaps he lied.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 11, 2012, 10:07:08 PM
There's no proof he lied.

It seems to me it should be easy to check. Is it or is it not true that Trayvon Martin's hobbies included making video recordings of 'everything he did'? If it were I think we would have heard it from another source by now. Wouldn't Team Crump have released all the recordings that show Martin in a good light?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 10:59:46 PM
When did Serino become a forensic expert? Do you have any supporting documentation identifying the 'lots of people' Serino  purported he  had interrogated?
Perhaps he lied.

Lousy1, there is a clear difference between "consulted" & "interrogated".  I'll let you check the definitions.
in the interview, Serino says that he consulted with lots of people. 
It may just be a guess I'm making here but he probably didn't consult mikey mouse.
I lean towards Serino & Singleton checking with experts.

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 11, 2012, 11:16:13 PM
I'm listening to the NEN call today, and I have amended my sound identification.  I listened to the Honda Ridgeline video that Jeralyn posted and compared it with the noises on the NEN call.  I believe the sound at 1:01 is not door locks, but the gear selector.  The next gear selector is at 1:09.  I think the first one is going from park to reverse, the second from reverse to drive.  The last one is at 1:40, so I think that's when he parked at TTL.  Total elapsed time to drive, then, would be 39 seconds, just three less than the reenactment and within a reasonable range given variables of speed and movement.  I think the sound at 1:54 is windshield wipers, not the gear selector.  This would be out of sequence with the consistent 15 second interval, but GZ could have increased the speed due to increased rain or he could have manually activated them in an attempt to locate TM.

So GZ would have backed out of the clubhouse at about 1:00?

Isn't he supposed to have lost sight on the suspect before backing out?
if yes, what is your interpretation of what GZ says from 00:48 to 01:25. This is the part of his NEN call where he describes the suspect and his acts using present tenses.  In those 37sec he seems to say that he suspect comes toward him
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 11, 2012, 11:51:17 PM
So GZ would have backed out of the clubhouse at about 1:00?

Isn't he supposed to have lost sight on the suspect before backing out?
if yes, what is your interpretation of what GZ says from 00:48 to 01:25. This is the part of his NEN call where he describes the suspect and his acts using present tenses.  In those 37sec he seems to say that he suspect comes toward him
I've answered this before.  Zimmerman thinks in a sort of stream of conciousness.  So, when he's being interrogated, and constantly interrupted, he keeps returning to his narrative whenever he can.  But he forgets parts and then returns to them when they pop in his mind as well as trying to complete thoughts between interruptions.

So, his narrative from 0:48 to 1:25 appears to me to be that sort of thing, with constant interruptions from the dispatcher.  He begins in the present tense and continues in the present tense, but by the time he gets in everything he wants to cover he's describing events that happened moments ago, even though he's describing them in the present tense.

Here's an example.  I'm working on a transcript for the reenactment.
Quote
Investigator: …pick him up at?
Zimmerman: Right here.  Right in front of this house.
Investigator: Right in front of 1460?
Zimmerman: Yes, sir.
Investigator: Alright.  And, what was he walking in between the buildings or…
Zimmerman: He was walking like in the grassy area, like up towards, kinda between these two poles and
Investigator: Um hum.
Zimmerman: like I said it was raining, and he wasn’t, he was just leisurely looking at the house, and, ah, ah, like I said my wife is, I had left for the grocery store and I just felt like something was off about him.
Investigator: Right.
Zimmerman: So I said, and there’s been a history of ah, breakins in that building and I called previously about this house.
Investigator: Right.
Zimmerman: When the police arrived at this house when I called the first time the windows were open and the door was unlocked.  Ah, and the police came and secured it.  So I said, you know what, it’s better to call
In between those two "So I said"s are things he felt were important for the investigator to know so he would understand what "So I said" really means, but he jumps from thought to thought.

As you can see, he's trying to explain why he found TM suspicious, but it's in fits and jerks.  It's like his mind goes, don't forget to mention my wife's fear of breakins, the reason I started the NW program, oh, wait, don't forget the rain, and the previous breakins, etc., etc.

It's really hard to follow until you start to realize his scatterbrained thought processes and what he's trying to say rather than what actually comes out of his mouth.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 12, 2012, 12:24:08 AM
So, his narrative from 0:48 to 1:25 appears to me to be that sort of thing, with constant interruptions from the dispatcher.  He begins in the present tense and continues in the present tense, but by the time he gets in everything he wants to cover he's describing events that happened moments ago, even though he's describing them in the present tense.

So, when GZ says things like "Now, he's coming towards me" or "He's coming to check me out", which are just two examples of statements made in the part of the NEN call I was refering to, GZ would have actually already seen the suspect walking past him and disappear on TTL behind buildings so GZ would have Already lost visual on the suspect.  But GZ would use the present tense to discribe past actions because of dispatcher Sean.  Am I understanding your claim properly?

Is the English language that flexible?  I mean seriously?
To me it sounds like a twist to justify a theory that is based on the idea that the noise heard around 1:00 is GZ switching gears to back out of the clubhouse.


Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 12:56:08 AM
Is the English language that flexible? 

No.

Txantimedia's speculations are preposterous in my opinion. In any case, they depend on Txantimedia's claims to special insight into the thought processes of Zimmerman himself, not on any special characteristics of English as a language.

 

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 02:20:50 AM
Singleton challenges George on that, and accuses George of trying to hide that he was following Martin because he never admitted it, when in fact he had admitted such more than once.

That's 2/29-3, 9:47.

I seem to have misunderstood you. I thought you meant that specific deceptive tactics by the investigators caused Zimmerman to forget when he drove from the clubhouse parking lot to a place on Twin Trees Lane. That discussion was earlier, about 2:13-5:05.

This is a poor example for your point generally. It comes late in the last interview, almost halfway through Part 3.   

Quote
This . . . led to the "I wasn't following, I was going the same direction" statement, etc.

That was also earlier, about 9:00.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 04:00:44 AM
I thought it was supposed to be that he was distracted during the direction giving by Martin circling all the way around his truck?

Whether Martin circled the truck or not, I think he was moving away from it by the time Zimmerman started giving directions. That was after the 'always get away' remark, and Zimmerman's voice was much relaxed from the tension evident during the approach.

The tension in Zimmerman's voice makes nonsense of speculations that he was describing past events.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 04:33:16 AM
If you watch the video, you'll see that GZ is pointing to the corner of the clubhouse and there is shrubbery and other obstructions there that obscured his view.

The corner of the clubhouse isn't in frame in that part (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/7764413728/in/photostream) of the video.

For some reason the video was made using a very narrow frame, and the camera didn't pan far enough to show the corner of the clubhouse when Zimmerman pointed in that direction. Or possibly Sgt. Smith's head blocked the view.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 05:01:31 AM

So you don't have a choice.  Either GZ is lying about being at the clubhouse after the time you think he had to have left, or TM ran once he was out of sight of GZ, who was still at the clubhouse.

The reason I highlighted the last part is because GZ says he doesn't know where TM came from.  He just suddenly appeared circling the car.  That doesn't match the reenactment, but that doesn't bother me much.  GZ's memory seems pretty muddled.  I've considered the fact that TM may never have been at the T when GZ describes him as being there in the reenactment.  It's possible his memory is confused because of the questioning, his poor recollection and the passage of time.

No need for me to comment.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: leftwig on August 12, 2012, 07:37:43 AM
Lousy1, there is a clear difference between "consulted" & "interrogated".  I'll let you check the definitions.
in the interview, Serino says that he consulted with lots of people. 
It may just be a guess I'm making here but he probably didn't consult mikey mouse.
I lean towards Serino & Singleton checking with experts.

Just like the comment about their possibly being a video that captured they event, police say all kinds of things interviews that don't have to be true.  A police report stated that GZ's injuries were marginally consistent with someone fearing for their lives, so I'd say its most likely Serino was fishing with that comment.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Jack203 on August 12, 2012, 08:18:21 AM
Lousy1, there is a clear difference between "consulted" & "interrogated".  I'll let you check the definitions.
in the interview, Serino says that he consulted with lots of people. 
It may just be a guess I'm making here but he probably didn't consult mikey mouse.
I lean towards Serino & Singleton checking with experts.

Give me a break.  Actually, consulting Mickey Mouse would be more plausible than an "expert" surmising the situation before all the evidence was even collected.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  Just because the police say something in the GZ interview.

1) It absolutely does not make it the truth.
2) It doesn't even mean the police believe it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Jack203 on August 12, 2012, 08:21:23 AM
Then during that part of the interview, Singleton challenges George on that, and accuses George of trying to hide that he was following Martin because he never admitted it, when in fact he had admitted such more than once.  This puts George into trying to defend a stance he was never really trying to take, which led to the "I wasn't following, I was going the same direction" statement, etc.  IMO, with that kind of interrogation it's no wonder George was reduced to "I can't remember."

Kyreth, thanks for this post.   Even more exculpatory than I originally thought. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 12, 2012, 08:55:46 AM
Just like the comment about their possibly being a video that captured they event, police say all kinds of things interviews that don't have to be true.  A police report stated that GZ's injuries were marginally consistent with someone fearing for their lives, so I'd say its most likely Serino was fishing with that comment.
That's an interpretation and I can go with it.
However, I have to point to Serino saying more than "I have consulted with...".  He made a list of concerns such as "no broken rib" or "no defense wounds". Could you listen one more time to what Serino said concerning GZ wound vs his self defense claim? I'd like to know what's your take on that.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 09:42:38 AM
That's an interpretation and I can go with it.
However, I have to point to Serino saying more than "I have consulted with...".  He made a list of concerns such as "no broken rib" or "no defense wounds". Could you listen one more time to what Serino said concerning GZ wound vs his self defense claim? I'd like to know what's your take on that.
Here's the section in question.
Quote
Serino: Listen, it’s not a guarantee, but like I said a strong possibility, I’m hoping myself. OK. Another thing too as far as 25 and 30 punches, I’ve consulted with a lot of people, not quite consistent with your injuries. You do have injuries, however. Um, how did he manage to bang your head, and, OK, correct me if I misunderstood what you said here as far as slamming the head into the concrete. Into the cement thing. How’d he do that?
Zimmerman: I was on my back.
Serino: OK.
Zimmerman: when he first punched me. I don’t know if I immediately fell down, he threw me down. I was stumbling, I ended up on my back.
Serino: Um hum.
Zimmerman: And he was on top of me, mounted.
Serino: OK.
Zimmerman: And he kept punching me, and then, when I started yelling for help, that’s when he grabbed my head and started to slam it.
Serino: Grabbed your head by your ears, by…hard to say?
Zimmerman: I don’t remember.
Serino: OK.
Zimmerman: Every time he punched my nose, it just…
Serino: How many times, OK, how many times you get punched in the nose? A couple, few?
Zimmerman: I don’t know, I don’t remember.
Serino: OK, you never got a chance to hit him, you have no defense wounds here, um, any bruising on your body at all?
Zimmerman: Ah, no.
Serino: No broken ribs, no fractured ribs, none of that?
Zimmerman: No.
Serino: Pain? No?
Zimmerman: My doctor said I sprained my SI. Feels like a big bruise, like a deep bruise.
Serino: OK. Is that what he looked like the night this happened?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 09:44:02 AM
So, when GZ says things like "Now, he's coming towards me" or "He's coming to check me out", which are just two examples of statements made in the part of the NEN call I was refering to, GZ would have actually already seen the suspect walking past him and disappear on TTL behind buildings so GZ would have Already lost visual on the suspect.  But GZ would use the present tense to discribe past actions because of dispatcher Sean.  Am I understanding your claim properly?

Is the English language that flexible?  I mean seriously?
To me it sounds like a twist to justify a theory that is based on the idea that the noise heard around 1:00 is GZ switching gears to back out of the clubhouse.
No, the English language isn't that flexible.  The abuse of it is.

I refer you back to what I said about George and his thought patterns.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 01:05:46 PM
No.

Txantimedia's speculations are preposterous in my opinion. In any case, they depend on Txantimedia's claims to special insight into the thought processes of Zimmerman himself, not on any special characteristics of English as a language.
There's something you need to understand about me.  I don't really care if my speculations are preposterous.  In my opinion, the NEN call is the only hard and fast thing about this case.  It is what it is.  What GZ or any other person said is less trustworthy than that call.  I can use the things they say to try and clarify mileposts in the call, but the sounds of his vehicle coupled with his overall narrative determine what actually happened.

There are four fixed things about the call; he first spotted TM near 1460 RVC, he parked at the clubhouse, he left the clubhouse and drove to TTL and parked, and he got out of the car.  Everything else is subject to interpretation.

Given that, GZ says he initiated the NEN call when he got to the clubhouse.  He was either parked or parking when that happened.  There's a sound at 0:11 that I identify as the gear selector.  So it appears that he called the NEN before he put the car in park at the clubhouse.  The next gear selector sound is at 1:01.  What possible meaning could that have other than that's when he puts it in reverse?

Now you can argue that I've misidentified the sounds, and that, of course, throws my entire theory out the window.  But then you must come up with your own.  I can't help you with that.

It's 445 feet from 1460 RVC to where GZ was parked at the clubhouse.  (Graphic here (http://txantimedia.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/initial_path_of_tm.jpg).)  At a "leisurely" walking speed of 3mph, it would take TM over 1.6 minutes to get there.  Meanwhile, at 15mph, GZ would have been parked in about 35 seconds.  So he would have initiated the call about a minute and 6 seconds (give or take a few seconds) before TM passed his car.  And oddly enough I hear a gear selector sound at 1:01, just about the time TM would be passing GZ's car.

This tells me that GZ realized he would quickly lose sight of TM and decided to move to a position where he could continue to track TM's movements - TTL.  But, by the time he put it in forward (gear selector sound at 1:09), he had lost sight of TM and never regained it until the circling incident occurred.

Shoot that down any way you want, but then you have to come up with an alternate explanation that makes sense.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 01:15:49 PM
There's something you need to understand about me.  I don't really care if my speculations are preposterous. 

I don't need to understand anything about you. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about things you've said.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 01:23:16 PM
I don't need to understand anything about you. I wasn't talking about you. I was talking about things you've said.
Interesting that you choose this one thing to respond to.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 12, 2012, 01:23:44 PM
...
This tells me that GZ realized he would quickly lose sight of TM and decided to move to a position where he could continue to track TM's movements - TTL.  But, by the time he put it in forward (gear selector sound at 1:09), he had lost sight of TM and never regained it until the circling incident occurred.

Shoot that down any way you want, but then you have to come up with an alternate explanation that makes sense.

I'm with you until the part about the circling incident.  IMO the "circling" is just an enhanced remembrance of the passing of GZ's truck at the clubhouse.  I don't see how there is enough time between where you say he is putting his truck in gear (1:09) and "he's running" at (2:06).  It also seems unlikely to me that TM, once out of sight of GZ, would undo this accomplishment by coming back out of hiding to circle his car.  IMO, he is merging the unease he felt when TM passed him and observed him with the event of him running through the cut through and disappearing behind the houses.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 01:31:04 PM
There are four fixed things about the call; he first spotted TM near 1460 RVC,

No mention or indication of that in the call.

Quote
he parked at the clubhouse,

No mention or indication of that in the call.

Quote
he left the clubhouse   

No mention or indication in the call that Zimmerman was ever at the clubhouse.

Quote
drove to TTL and parked, and he got out of the car.

Yes. Those three things can be inferred from the call.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 01:36:16 PM
Now you can argue that I've misidentified the sounds, and that, of course, throws my entire theory out the window.  But then you must come up with your own. 

I have no opinions about the meanings of the various non-vocal sounds on the recording. Your assertion that it 'must' be otherwise is ridiculous.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 01:39:12 PM
Shoot that down any way you want, but then you have to come up with an alternate explanation that makes sense.

Your theory holds up or it doesn't. Your challenge is a lame rhetorical trick.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 01:44:37 PM
Interesting that you choose this one thing to respond to.

I didn't.

I responded point by point as I worked my way through your comment. I didn't see this until after I had posted three more responses.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 01:45:11 PM
Your theory holds up or it doesn't. Your challenge is a lame rhetorical trick.
Why do you continue to attack and insult me instead of discussing the evidence?  Are you feeling particularly combative today for some reason?

Let's get back to discussing the evidence, shall we?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 12, 2012, 02:13:07 PM
There are four fixed things about the call; he first spotted TM near 1460 RVC, he parked at the clubhouse, he left the clubhouse and drove to TTL and parked, and he got out of the car.  Everything else is subject to interpretation.

Watch out, these are not facts from the NEN call.  Tehse are claims made by GZ following the killing.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 12, 2012, 02:38:16 PM
It's 445 feet from 1460 RVC to where GZ was parked at the clubhouse.  (Graphic here (http://txantimedia.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/initial_path_of_tm.jpg).)  At a "leisurely" walking speed of 3mph, it would take TM over 1.6 minutes to get there.  Meanwhile, at 15mph, GZ would have been parked in about 35 seconds.  So he would have initiated the call about a minute and 6 seconds (give or take a few seconds) before TM passed his car.  And oddly enough I hear a gear selector sound at 1:01, just about the time TM would be passing GZ's car.

This tells me that GZ realized he would quickly lose sight of TM and decided to move to a position where he could continue to track TM's movements - TTL.  But, by the time he put it in forward (gear selector sound at 1:09), he had lost sight of TM and never regained it until the circling incident occurred.

But again, GZ would have already been past by the suspect and would have already lost visual contact with him while describing, using the present tense, the suspect basically walking towards him and giving the most detailed information about the suspect.  This also is the moment GZ sounds the most scared and
 checks with dispatcher Sean if police is coming.

I know you blame dispatcher Sean for somehow pushing GZ to use the present tense but the NEN call indicates that GZ is the one who volunteered using a present form of English.  Indeed, Sean uses the pas form

Quote
0:30 - Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
0:32 – George: Yeah, mm, a dark hoodie, like a gray hoodie and either jeans or sweat pants and white tennis shoes.
0:42 – George: He’s here now, he’s just staring looking at all the houses
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 02:42:08 PM
Watch out, these are not facts from the NEN call.  Tehse are claims made by GZ following the killing.
Well, if you're going to contend that those for things never happened, then you can make up an alternative scenario you want.  Perhaps GZ was waiting at the T, gun drawn, ready to hunt down the young black man.  At least that would seem to be the theory of TM supporters.

What's your interpretation of the call?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 02:48:52 PM
But again, GZ would have already been past by the suspect and would have already lost visual contact with him while describing, using the present tense, the suspect basically walking towards him and giving the most detailed information about the suspect.  This also is the moment GZ sounds the most scared and  checks with dispatcher Sean if police is coming.

Sure, but he's describing what he has already seen.  You might prefer he did it in the past tense, but that's not how he did it.  He could have said, "I saw a suspicious guy", "He was wearing blah, blah", "I saw him walking about, looking at the houses", but he didn't.  He spoke in the present tense.

Quote from: tchoupi
I know you blame dispatcher Sean for somehow pushing GZ to use the present tense but the NEN call indicates that GZ is the one who volunteered using a present form of English.  Indeed, Sean uses the pas form
I don't blame the dispatcher.  He was just doing his job.  I simply point out that the interruptions caused GZ to get sidetracked, but he kept trying to get back to his narrative, just like he did in every interview.  He clearly wants to tell a story, but the interruptions cause him to sometimes lose his train of thought, sometimes keep swerving back to where he was going before the interruption, sometimes skip to other parts of the narrative in mid-stream.

Nevermind seems to think that makes me clairvoyant, but I think it's self evident if you simply read the transcripts.

Who knows?  Maybe I am clairvoyant, and I just don't know it.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 12, 2012, 02:52:57 PM
Now you can argue that I've misidentified the sounds, and that, of course, throws my entire theory out the window.  But then you must come up with your own.  I can't help you with that.

[...]

Shoot that down any way you want, but then you have to come up with an alternate explanation that makes sense.

What about the NEN call being started from TTL with GZ facing west and the suspect walking east from the clubhouse area, maybe the mailboxes?
This is, after all, close to the first statement he made.  In those 2 statements, there is no mention of parking at the clubhouse and no mention of driving to TTL after dispatcher asked/requested [but not demanded] if he can
Quote
"get to somewhere where he could see him"
.  And after all, we cannot find in the NEN call recording, such question from Dispatcher.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 03:06:47 PM
I think it's self evident if you simply read the transcripts.

It's just too bad you are the only person in the world who has ever read the transcripts or listened to the recordings.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 07:56:35 PM
It's just too bad you are the only person in the world who has ever read the transcripts or listened to the recordings.
Again with the attacks.  It's clear you're not interested in discussing the evidence.  So I will no longer respond to your childish attacks.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: ding7777 on August 12, 2012, 08:07:01 PM
[...]  In those 2 statements, there is no mention of parking at the clubhouse and no mention of driving to TTL after dispatcher asked/requested [but not demanded] if he can . [...].

In GZ's 1st interview (part 2 of the Singleton tape) GZ says he pulled in front of the clubhouse,  GZ also says he drives his car up here (meaning TTL)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 08:12:05 PM
What about the NEN call being started from TTL with GZ facing west and the suspect walking east from the clubhouse area, maybe the mailboxes?
This is, after all, close to the first statement he made.  In those 2 statements, there is no mention of parking at the clubhouse and no mention of driving to TTL after dispatcher asked/requested [but not demanded] if he can .  And after all, we cannot find in the NEN call recording, such question from Dispatcher.
In the first interview after the shooting, GZ says this to Singleton:
Quote
Zimmerman: Um, and this time I was leaving to go to the grocery store and, like I said, I saw him, um, walking in the neighborhood the same, in front of the same house that I had called the police before to come to because this guy leaves his doors unlocked and stuff. And he was walking leisurely and looking at the houses, and, um, so I just pulled my car to the side and I called the non emergency line, um
in response to this:
Quote
Singleton: OK, I’m just gonna keep quiet and you, you tell me the story. You tell me what happened tonight, OK?
I think it would be hard to argue that "so I just pulled my car to the side" means, "so I drove over to TTL and parked facing the T".
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 08:24:00 PM
In GZ's 1st interview (part 2 of the Singleton tape) GZ says he pulled in front of the clubhouse,  GZ also says he drives his car up here (meaning TTL)

Tchoupi said 'first statement'. I think he meant Part 1 of the first interview. In Part 1, Zimmerman narrated his story from start to finish, answered questions about it, and drew a sketch.

In Part 2, Singleton asked Zimmerman to go through the story again while drawing on an overhead photo of the neighborhood. In this retelling Zimmerman made some changes, most notably adding the stop at the clubhouse and the associated early passing of the truck by Martin.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 08:34:49 PM
I think it would be hard to argue that "so I just pulled my car to the side" means, "so I drove over to TTL and parked facing the T".

Zimmerman didn't say how far he drove or how much time passed before 'I just pulled my car to the side.'

In his first narrative, and his written statement, Zimmerman didn't say he moved the truck again before Martin circled it. Zimmerman consistently said that the circling was on TTL, and explicitly denied that it was at the clubhouse.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 08:35:14 PM
Watch out, these are not facts from the NEN call.  Tehse are claims made by GZ following the killing.
After thinking about this, I have to disagree somewhat.  Let's take them one at a time.

1) He first spotted TM at 1460 RVC.
From the first Singleton tape:
Quote
Zimmerman: Um, and this time I was leaving to go to the grocery store and, like I said, I saw him, um, walking in the neighborhood the same, in front of the same house that I had called the police before to come to because this guy leaves his doors unlocked and stuff.
Clearly he's referring to 1460 RVC just hours after the shooting.  No, he didn't mention this part in the NEN call directly.

2) He parked at the clubhouse.
From the NEN call:
Quote
0:57 Dispatcher: Do you know what the…he’s near the clubhouse right now?
0:58 Zimmerman: Yeah.  Now he’s comin towards me.
If TM is near the clubhouse and coming toward GZ, then were is GZ?  Logically, he's at the clubhouse.  The sounds on the tape show he's not driving, he shifted shortly after calling, and there was no further activity except windshield wipers.

3) He drove to TTL.
There are multiple gear sounds beginning at 1:01, indicating that the car is now moving.  The car was located on TTL when the police arrived.  Also, he said he had lost sight of TM after stating that he was coming toward him.  Logically TM passed him before he lost sight of him.  If TM had reversed his direction, there would be no sense in the truck parked on TTL.

4) He got out of his car.
I would think this one is obviousl
Quote
2:08 Dispatcher: He’s running?  Which way is he running?
2:10 (door opens, sound of door alarm)
2:10 Zimmerman: Ah, down towards the, ah, other entrance of the neighborhood.
2:14 (door closes)
2:14 Dispatcher: OK.  Which entrance is that that he’s heading towards?
2:17 Zimmerman; The back entrance.  f*cking punks.
2:20 (wind noise)
2:23 Dispatcher: Are you following him?
2:25 Zimmerman: Yeah.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 08:45:23 PM
The car was located on TTL when the police arrived. 

This is probably true. But your wording might mislead a reader into thinking the police identified the vehicle and noted its location on their arrival. They did not.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Jack203 on August 12, 2012, 09:03:13 PM
I'm with you until the part about the circling incident.  IMO the "circling" is just an enhanced remembrance of the passing of GZ's truck at the clubhouse. 

And this is where GZ says to the NEN that Trayvon is coming towards his car, seems to have something in his pocket and to send the police as soon as possible?  If so, yes, I think it is the most likely scenario when GZ later described as "circling".

txantimedia, do you disgree/ have an issue with this?

If Trayvon supporters think if the above is true it is beneficial to their cause...I can't possibly understand why.  It was an aggressive move by TM on tape well before the assault (IMO), and a foreshadowing of the events to come.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 09:15:53 PM
If Trayvon supporters think if the above is true it is beneficial to their cause...I can't possibly understand why.  It was an aggressive move by TM on tape well before the assault (IMO), and a foreshadowing of the events to come.

2/29-1, 21:45-21:55
Quote
Zimmerman: The other thing was, when he walked up to my car, he reached in his waistband, and held his hand there.

Serino: He was probably holding his, iced tea.

It wasn't an aggressive move if Martin was just walking home from the clubhouse, where Zimmerman said he was.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 09:23:30 PM
And this is where GZ says to the NEN that Trayvon is coming towards his car, seems to have something in his pocket and to send the police as soon as possible?  If so, yes, I think it is the most likely scenario when GZ later described as "circling".

txantimedia, do you disgree/ have an issue with this?
I think GZ's account of what happened is very confusing.  I think that's because GZ is easily confused.  For example, in the reenactment, he says he "thinks" he told the dispatcher that TM had his hand in his waistband.  But he's sitting at TTL when he tells the investigator that.  On the NEN call, it occurs at 1:03, while (I think) he was just beginning to back out from his clubhouse parking spot.

So, I think GZ mixes up events and misremembers thinks quite readily.  It's like all the events are still in his head, but the order is either unimportant or completely jumbled.  On the major issues of his account, his story never varies.  He spotted a suspicious guy.  He reported him to the police and followed him, giving the dispatcher a running account of what was going on.  He got out of his car to get an address and was attacked on the way back to his car.  He fought to escape and failed while continuously yelling for help, and he shot his assailant only after he went for the gun and said, "You're gonna die tonight".

On the details of when and where things happened, it's a complete mess, even on the NEN call.

Where the circling occurred is an open question.  In the reenactment GZ seems quite certain about where it occurred and where TM came from.  In his first interview after the shooting, he describes TM as "suddenly" appearing at his truck without having seen him at the T and then returning.

Quote from: Jack203
If Trayvon supporters think if the above is true it is beneficial to their cause...I can't possibly understand why.  It was an aggressive move by TM on tape well before the assault (IMO), and a foreshadowing of the events to come.
Yes, and I believe O'Mara will use that in the SYG hearing to indicate that GZ's fear was well justified.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 12, 2012, 09:29:28 PM
...

2) He parked at the clubhouse.
From the NEN call:If TM is near the clubhouse and coming toward GZ, then were is GZ?  Logically, he's at the clubhouse.  The sounds on the tape show he's not driving, he shifted shortly after calling, and there was no further activity except windshield wipers.
...

You mean you don't remember the whole "the meaning of 'near' is flexible enough that saying Martin is near the clubhouse means he's over by the 'T' " discussion?


I wish y'all would make up your minds.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: Jack203 on August 12, 2012, 09:39:03 PM
2/29-1, 21:45-21:55
It wasn't an aggressive move if Martin was just walking home from the clubhouse, where Zimmerman said he was.

GZ seemed to think it was aggressive as he certainly sounded nervous.  It's hard to say without knowing exactly what GZ saw.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 09:48:05 PM
The location of the truck was discussed on another thread, starting here. (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2094.msg99272.html#msg99272)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: spectator on August 12, 2012, 10:35:45 PM
I think GZ's account of what happened is very confusing.  I think that's because GZ is easily confused.  For example, in the reenactment, he says he "thinks" he told the dispatcher that TM had his hand in his waistband.  But he's sitting at TTL when he tells the investigator that.  On the NEN call, it occurs at 1:03, while (I think) he was just beginning to back out from his clubhouse parking spot.

It's clear as day to me George was on TTL well before 1:03.

When the call starts TM is already somewhere near the final parking spot(TTL).

I believe GZ waited to call dispatch until TM had already passed behind him at the clubhouse, i'm pretty confident when GZ says "he's here now" TM is somewhere between the final parking spot and the "T", in that general area.

George might have dialed dispatch at the clubhouse but i think at the very least he had already taken it out of reverse and was in the street when he began chatting,  somewhere between him just turning east on TTL and parking is when he spots TM and then says "hes here now".

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 12, 2012, 10:43:46 PM
It's clear as day to me George was on TTL well before 1:03.

When the call starts TM is already somewhere near the final parking spot(TTL).

I believe GZ waited to call dispatch until TM had already passed behind him at the clubhouse, i'm pretty confident when GZ says "he's here now" TM is somewhere between the final parking spot and the "T", in that general area.

George might have dialed dispatch at the clubhouse but i think at the very least he had already taken it out of reverse and was in the street when he began chatting,  somewhere between him just turning east on TTL and parking is when he spots TM and then says "hes here now".
You're not the only person who believes this, but it makes me more than curious.  GZ passed TM near 1460 RVC.  How in the world did he know to drive to the T on TTL before TM had even passed the clubhouse and revealed which direction he was headed?  What if TM had simply turned left and walked out of the neighborhood?  Or gone straight on RVC?  Or doubled back to 1460 after GZ disappeared out of sight?  How could GZ possibly know any of those things?

It just makes no sense.  If TM was walking near 1460 when GZ passed him, it would take him about 1.5 minutes or longer just to get to the clubhouse.  Yet it would only take GZ 35 seconds to get there.  If, as you and other say, he continued on to the T on TTL, it would have been the purest of guesses, an amazing feat of precognition.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 10:47:19 PM
You mean you don't remember the whole "the meaning of 'near' is flexible enough that saying Martin is near the clubhouse means he's over by the 'T' " discussion?

I did a quick search of Txantimedia's comments, and I didn't find him taking that position.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 10:55:10 PM


I believe GZ waited to call dispatch until TM had already passed behind him at the clubhouse

How in the world did he know to drive to the T on TTL before TM had even passed the clubhouse and revealed which direction he was headed?

How's that?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 12, 2012, 11:22:18 PM
If TM was walking near 1460 when GZ passed him, it would take him about 1.5 minutes or longer just to get to the clubhouse. 

It's less than 400 feet, so 80 seconds at an average walk, less if Martin walked faster.

Zimmerman would have been able to see him at about 280 feet or more. That's a problem for the theory that Zimmerman was at the clubhouse at the time of the approach described in the police call.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on August 13, 2012, 03:07:48 AM
If TM was walking near 1460 when GZ passed him, it would take him about 1.5 minutes or longer just to get to the clubhouse.  Yet it would only take GZ 35 seconds to get there.

I don't understand what you make of this statement by Zimmerman to Singleton.
Quote
I lost contact of him as I was trying to get through cause you have to-

Do you think Martin walked past the truck before the recording started, then circled around and walked past it again a minute later? Or do you think the quoted statement refers to Zimmerman losing sight of Martin as he drove around the bend of RVC? Or something else?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 13, 2012, 06:48:21 AM
It's less than 400 feet, so 80 seconds at an average walk, less if Martin walked faster.
I measured it with Google Earth and posted a graphic of the path.  It was 454 ft.  Also, GZ reported that TM was walking at a leisurely pace, so I used 3mph, and it took 1 minute 39 seconds to arrive at the location where GZ's truck was parked.

Quote from: nomatter_nevermind
Zimmerman would have been able to see him at about 280 feet or more. That's a problem for the theory that Zimmerman was at the clubhouse at the time of the approach described in the police call.
280 feet is almost the length of a football field.  It's raining.  It's dark.  GZ is on the phone.  He would have had to look to his right to even see TM.  I think that estimate is off.  I don't know what the right distance would be, but I suspect it's less than that.

I'm not sure what approach you're referring to.  The first one?  Or the circling?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 13, 2012, 06:51:26 AM
I don't understand what you make of this statement by Zimmerman to Singleton.
Quote
I lost contact of him as I was trying to get through cause you have to-
Do you think Martin walked past the truck before the recording started, then circled around and walked past it again a minute later? Or do you think the quoted statement refers to Zimmerman losing sight of Martin as he drove around the bend of RVC? Or something else?
The latter.  GZ spotted TM at 1460, which is in the curve on RVC.  As he drove to the clubhouse, he would have lost sight of TM in the darkness and distance, as he says.  Later he picked him back up as TM continued walking down RVC toward his truck.  He lost sight of him a second time after he passed GZ's truck and turned the corner on TTL and headed toward the T.
Title: Like a bad who's on first routine
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 13, 2012, 07:25:08 AM
George speaks in the present tense and thinks in the present perfect progressive( ???) during the call.
He has TM in sight during the entire call. There's 15 MPH speed limit at the retreat.
There's not much traffic. Would George need to shift? Would he bother signalling turns?
Tex, are you saying now that GZ was parked during the entire call?
Title: Re: Like a bad who's on first routine
Post by: unitron on August 13, 2012, 07:39:44 AM
George speaks in the present tense and thinks in the present perfect progressive( ???) during the call.
He has TM in sight during the entire call. There's 15 MPH speed limit at the retreat.
There's not much traffic. Would George need to shift? Would he bother signalling turns?
Tex, are you saying now that GZ was parked during the entire call?

Imagine if there were no recording and the person to whom George was relaying this information, and upon whose report of and interpretation of the phone call we were having to rely, was the young lady instead of her being on the phone with Trayvon.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JoeMenardo on August 13, 2012, 08:12:07 AM
I think GZ's account of what happened is very confusing.  I think that's because GZ is easily confused.  For example, in the reenactment, he says he "thinks" he told the dispatcher that TM had his hand in his waistband.  But he's sitting at TTL when he tells the investigator that.  On the NEN call, it occurs at 1:03, while (I think) he was just beginning to back out from his clubhouse parking spot.

So, I think GZ mixes up events and misremembers thinks quite readily.  It's like all the events are still in his head, but the order is either unimportant or completely jumbled.  On the major issues of his account, his story never varies.  He spotted a suspicious guy.  He reported him to the police and followed him, giving the dispatcher a running account of what was going on.  He got out of his car to get an address and was attacked on the way back to his car.  He fought to escape and failed while continuously yelling for help, and he shot his assailant only after he went for the gun and said, "You're gonna die tonight".

On the details of when and where things happened, it's a complete mess, even on the NEN call.

Where the circling occurred is an open question.  In the reenactment GZ seems quite certain about where it occurred and where TM came from.  In his first interview after the shooting, he describes TM as "suddenly" appearing at his truck without having seen him at the T and then returning.
Yes, and I believe O'Mara will use that in the SYG hearing to indicate that GZ's fear was well justified.

There are number of reasons why GZ statements are misleading or confusing.  You seem to take the reason most beneficial to GZ.  It could easily also be said he is misstating what happened.  That is why his statements are so confusing. 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 13, 2012, 08:15:37 AM
There are number of reasons why GZ statements are misleading or confusing.  You seem to take the reason most beneficial to GZ.  It could easily also be said he is misstating what happened.  That is why his statements are so confusing.
That's certainly true.  If there wasn't so much corroborating evidence to support his story, I'd be much less sanguine.  In fact, early on I was convinced his was guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.  Over time, as more evidence has come out, my opinion has changed.
Title: Re: Like a bad who's on first routine
Post by: txantimedia on August 13, 2012, 08:16:13 AM
George speaks in the present tense and thinks in the present perfect progressive( ???) during the call.
He has TM in sight during the entire call. There's 15 MPH speed limit at the retreat.
There's not much traffic. Would George need to shift? Would he bother signalling turns?
Tex, are you saying now that GZ was parked during the entire call?
If you've read what I've written, you already know the answer to that is no.
Title: Re: Like a bad who's on first routine
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 13, 2012, 08:25:06 AM
If you've read what I've written, you already know the answer to that is no.

Your opinions seem to be evolving. I was not certain where you stood.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: AJ on August 13, 2012, 08:25:45 AM

2) He parked at the clubhouse.
From the NEN call:If TM is near the clubhouse and coming toward GZ, then were is GZ?  Logically, he's at the clubhouse.  The sounds on the tape show he's not driving, he shifted shortly after calling, and there was no further activity except windshield wipers.

Or more logically, the "he's coming toward me" and "he's running away," along with the shifting in his seat that you can hear, draws a picture of Mr. Martin circling his vehicle - which you do not identify in your theory of events. If you watch the reenactment Mr. Zimmerman says that Mr. Martin had something in his hand when he was coming to circle the vehicle - NOT at the clubhouse when he passed. He also describes in the walk through exactly where Mr. Martin came from to circle his vehicle. Given that information, at the -very least- it would've taken Mr. Martin 25 seconds - that's if he's parked at the same location as the truck in the Google Earth imagery, which we know that he was parked a bit further back so it would've taken longer - by my estimate about a minute based on where he parked in the walk-through and that's if Mr. Martin started running as soon as he reached the sidewalk. How long was it from the "he's coming toward me" to the "he's running away" ? 2:06 - 0:59 = 1:07 .. seems about right to me.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: amateur on August 13, 2012, 09:00:03 AM
And this is where GZ says to the NEN that Trayvon is coming towards his car, seems to have something in his pocket and to send the police as soon as possible?  If so, yes, I think it is the most likely scenario when GZ later described as "circling".

Yes, that's the part I'm talking about.

Quote
txantimedia, do you disgree/ have an issue with this?

If Trayvon supporters think if the above is true it is beneficial to their cause...I can't possibly understand why.  It was an aggressive move by TM on tape well before the assault (IMO), and a foreshadowing of the events to come.

He certainly appears to interpret it as aggressive.  But to get technical, the only thing GZ says TM does is walk past him with his hands in his waistband and something in his hands (not sure how he does both but I assume he is carrying the 7-11 bag and his cell phone). 
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: JoeMenardo on August 13, 2012, 09:14:39 AM
That's certainly true.  If there wasn't so much corroborating evidence to support his story, I'd be much less sanguine.  In fact, early on I was convinced his was guilty of murder or at least manslaughter.  Over time, as more evidence has come out, my opinion has changed.

It sounds like you've reached your determination and are trying to make everything fit with it.  Even with the present/past tense discussion and GZ being confused. I mean we have the NEn call, a couple of statements he gave that night and a reenactement he gave the next day.  You're making an argument that GZ was confused as to the events transpiring in a 24 hour period?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: unitron on August 13, 2012, 09:28:17 AM
It sounds like you've reached your determination and are trying to make everything fit with it.  Even with the present/past tense discussion and GZ being confused. I mean we have the NEn call, a couple of statements he gave that night and a reenactement he gave the next day.  You're making an argument that GZ was confused as to the events transpiring in a 24 hour period?

I'm not absolutely convinced that Zimmerman wasn't confused about events transpiring in the past 28 years.
Title: Re: Like a bad who's on first routine
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 13, 2012, 09:41:36 AM
Your opinions seem to be evolving. I was not certain where you stood.

I would agree with that, Ignats, about TX.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 13, 2012, 09:46:52 AM
It sounds like you've reached your determination and are trying to make everything fit with it.  Even with the present/past tense discussion and GZ being confused. I mean we have the NEn call, a couple of statements he gave that night and a reenactement he gave the next day.  You're making an argument that GZ was confused as to the events transpiring in a 24 hour period?

Didn't he actually say just the reverse?

Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 13, 2012, 09:53:27 AM
This is GZ's claim.  Go back to the Feb. 29th interview with Serino & Singleton.  There, Serino says "I consulted with a lot of people, it's not consistent with the injuries.".

Because he and all those people got their medical degrees from the vending machine in the PD's coffee room, right?

What are you even trying to say? That GZ wasn't injured? We know that's not true. We have photo and doctor evidence that he was.

You are aware that cops are allowed (as Jeralyn has stated here) to lie to "suspects", right?
Title: Re: Like a bad who's on first routine
Post by: txantimedia on August 13, 2012, 09:55:41 AM
Your opinions seem to be evolving. I was not certain where you stood.
Aren't your opinions supposed to evolve with the evidence?  ISTM that someone who never changes their position is more concerned about an agenda than the truth.
Title: Re: Like a bad who's on first routine
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 13, 2012, 10:33:57 AM
Aren't your opinions supposed to evolve with the evidence?  ISTM that someone who never changes their position is more concerned about an agenda than the truth.

I don't think that's what Ignats was saying, I know it's not what I was saying when I agreed with him.

For my part, I just wanted to be able to keep it straight.

 :)
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: ding7777 on August 13, 2012, 11:21:01 AM

In Part 2, Singleton asked Zimmerman to go through the story again while drawing on an overhead photo of the neighborhood. In this retelling Zimmerman made some changes, most notably adding the stop at the clubhouse and the associated early passing of the truck by Martin.

How is GZ adding vs just being more specific re stopping at the clubhouse when he called the NEN?

Singleton part 1:

GZ: ...and um, so I just pulled my car to the side and I called non emergency line

Singleton part 2:

Singleton: OK. And then where do you go from there? This is where you start, when do start calling the police, where are you?

GZ: I pulled in front of the clubhouse
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 13, 2012, 12:28:09 PM
Tchoupi said 'first statement'. I think he meant Part 1 of the first interview. In Part 1, Zimmerman narrated his story from start to finish, answered questions about it, and drew a sketch.

In Part 2, Singleton asked Zimmerman to go through the story again while drawing on an overhead photo of the neighborhood. In this retelling Zimmerman made some changes, most notably adding the stop at the clubhouse and the associated early passing of the truck by Martin.

That's what I meant indeed.  Thanks
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 13, 2012, 12:55:09 PM
Quote
Watch out, these are not facts from the NEN call.  Tehse are claims made by GZ following the killing.

After thinking about this, I have to disagree somewhat.  Let's take them one at a time.

1) He first spotted TM at 1460 RVC.
From the first Singleton tape:Clearly he's referring to 1460 RVC just hours after the shooting.  No, he didn't mention this part in the NEN call directly.

2) He parked at the clubhouse.
From the NEN call:If TM is near the clubhouse and coming toward GZ, then were is GZ?  Logically, he's at the clubhouse.  The sounds on the tape show he's not driving, he shifted shortly after calling, and there was no further activity except windshield wipers.

3) He drove to TTL.
There are multiple gear sounds beginning at 1:01, indicating that the car is now moving.  The car was located on TTL when the police arrived.  Also, he said he had lost sight of TM after stating that he was coming toward him.  Logically TM passed him before he lost sight of him.  If TM had reversed his direction, there would be no sense in the truck parked on TTL.

4) He got out of his car.
I would think this one is obviousl

1) I really don't see how point #1 is an evidence that TM was spotted by 1460 RVC.  I agree that GZ refers to that address but this is his claim.  There is no evidence for or against that claim.  Therefore, I still believe that these are not facts from the NEN call but instead are claims made by the defendant. 

2) Again, I don't see how point #2 shows that the NEN call supports that GZ parked at the clubhouse after spotting TM.  The part of the NEN call your using as evidence is about the suspect, not about GZ or his truck.  That said, I agree that in his NEN call GZ sets the stage near the clubhouse but it could be RVC or TTL like by the mailboxes.  The only times he gives instruction to get to his truck, it happens that it is on TTL.

3) The NEN call has background sounds, but whether these are gear switching or other noise is up for interpretation.  And in particular, the noise at 1:01 could easily be interpreted as a thump generated by a windshield wiper.  And again, the same question to you, it is extremely strange for an individual to use the present tense and specifically the continuous form of it to describe a past event.  So, the most straight forward understanding of what is happening is that, between 0:48 & 1:25, GZ has the suspect in sight and that the suspect is moving towards him.
I think you should entertain the possibility that the 1st time GZ lost sight of the suspect was either before
0:48 or after 1:25.

4) Nothing to say about that.  GZ indeed went out of his vehicle seconds after saying "sh*t!  he's running"....
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: txantimedia on August 13, 2012, 01:10:44 PM

1) I really don't see how point #1 is an evidence that TM was spotted by 1460 RVC.  I agree that GZ refers to that address but this is his claim.  There is no evidence for or against that claim.  Therefore, I still believe that these are not facts from the NEN call but instead are claims made by the defendant.
Let's go at this from a different angle.
Quote
0:05 Zimmerman: Hey, we’ve had some breakins in my neighborhood., and there’s a real suspicious guy, ah, it’s Retreat View Circle,.
To what does he refer?

Quote from: tchoupi
2) Again, I don't see how point #2 shows that the NEN call supports that GZ parked at the clubhouse after spotting TM.  The part of the NEN call your using as evidence is about the suspect, not about GZ or his truck.  That said, I agree that in his NEN call GZ sets the stage near the clubhouse but it could be RVC or TTL like by the mailboxes.  The only times he gives instruction to get to his truck, it happens that it is on TTL.

If he was on TTL, even by the mailboxes, how would he know that TM was coming toward him?

Quote from: tchoupi
3) The NEN call has background sounds, but whether these are gear switching or other noise is up for interpretation.  And in particular, the noise at 1:01 could easily be interpreted as a thump generated by a windshield wiper.  And again, the same question to you, it is extremely strange for an individual to use the present tense and specifically the continuous form of it to describe a past event.  So, the most straight forward understanding of what is happening is that, between 0:48 & 1:25, GZ has the suspect in sight and that the suspect is moving towards him.
I think you should entertain the possibility that the 1st time GZ lost sight of the suspect was either before
0:48 or after 1:25.

I encourage you to listen to the sounds on the tape.  The windshield wipers make a "thump thump" sound every 15 seconds, beginning at 0:01 on the tape.  It's quite distinctive once you recognize it, more so in some places than others.

I'm not looking for straightforward understanding when it comes to the sounds.  I'm merely trying to identify them.  Fitting it in with the narrative isn't the goal.

I agree GZ is a strange guy.  He speaks rather incoherently.  But he is what he is.  My trying to force him to behave like I would defeats the purpose of trying to figure out what he was up to.

Quote from: tchoupi
4) Nothing to say about that.  GZ indeed went out of his vehicle seconds after saying "sh*t!  he's running"....

At least you concede one of the four. :D
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 13, 2012, 01:14:43 PM
I think GZ's account of what happened is very confusing. 

Indeed, ...
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 13, 2012, 02:09:18 PM
What are you even trying to say? That GZ wasn't injured? We know that's not true. We have photo and doctor evidence that he was.

Actually, it is the exact opposite that I said.  GZ was definitely injured.  The question here is how the wounds that he got are consistent it the story he's telling. 

Do you have an insight on that question?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: annoyedbeyond on August 13, 2012, 02:13:47 PM
Actually, it is the exact opposite that I said.  GZ was definitely injured.  The question here is how the wounds that he got are consistent it the story he's telling. 

Do you have an insight on that question?

I ask your indulgence again (I'm not having a great day!): are you saying your question is whether or not GZ was injured by TM and/or if he was injured by TM punching him then slamming his head on concrete (or 'something harder than it')?

Some people have tried to say GZ inflicted the wounds on himself. Is this the direction you're heading?

Further...unless that's what you're saying, what difference does it make? There's still GZ with injuries and Martin still with no injury save a cut on his hand--between the middle and top knuckle, right where a closed fist would land...?
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: IgnatiusJDonnelly on August 13, 2012, 02:19:40 PM
Listen to when the dispatcher starts to say the address of the clubhouse, "1111".
Z cuts him off and says, "that's the clubhouse!" Apparently from the directions Z was giving,
Sean was supposed to be able to, in his mind's eye, visualize Z at the cut through.
I used to think Z was being deceptive in during the NEN call. Now I know that he was being Z.
Title: Re: George as a Witness
Post by: tchoupi on August 13, 2012, 02:32:19 PM
Let's go at this from a different angle.To what does he refer?

I quote the full sentence here. My answer is that he is referring to the clubhouse as being the best address he can give dispatcher to locate what is going on.  Is is not specifically referring to RVC as the street he is himself.  The clubhouse being at the junction of two streets there is nothing in the NEN call that says that GZ was himself on either.  Furthermore, he seems not to remember the name of TTL.  he actually use that memory gap to justify exiting his truck.  So, he couldn't have given TTL as an address as he would have been on it anyhow.   
One interesting element is that when giving the clubhouse address he makes a mistake on that address.  I don't know for the clubhouse, but every picture I have seen of the front of townhouses at the RATL show an address.  My guess is that the clubhouse has his number on display too, and that you would look for it from the front you would probably see it.  Mostly if he was parked next to the front door as he claimed he was.  This is just a guess indeed.

Quote
We’ve had some break-ins in my neighborhood and there’s a real
suspicious guy. It’s Retreat View Circle. The best address I can give
you is 111 Retreat View Circle.