Posted on 03/31/2012 4:44:41 PM PDT by Krankor
This poster is willfully misrepresenting witness statements in order to advance an agenda.
The autopsy revealed that the bullet entered the back of the head and exited through the forehead.
You'll understand if, at this point, we don't believe anything you post.
Nothing like a little selective editing, eh? Did you miss this part?
“After the larger man got off and then there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down.”
ROFL. It’s not even a matter of determining exit and entry wounds. Only one wound was reported. A chest wound.
Good grief, the MSM thinks we will not remember that weeks ago kid’s dad told the press/cops that the screams were NOT his son.
Sigh.
“And at that point, not looking out the window, I heard the yell for help, one yell for help, and then I heard another, as I described this, excruciating type of yell. It didn’t even almost sound like a “Help.” It just sounded so painful. But I wasn’t watching out the window during that. And the next time I looked out the window there, the same thing: two men on the grass, one on top of each other. I kind of thought like they—I couldn’t see a lot of movement, because it was very dark, but I felt like they were scuffling. And then I heard the gunshot, which, to me, were more like pops than they were like a bang.”
Where in that statement do you get that Martin was the one screaming? What I see is “..wasn’t watching during that..” “..two men on top of each other...” “...very dark..” “gunshot...more like pops...” (I’ll give the witness a gimme on that, probably meant “like a pop”.
Mary Cutcher and her roommate saw Zimmerman straddling the body, basically a foot on both sides of Trayvon’s body, and his hands pressed on his back.
Sounds like he was getting up from the ground, doesn’t it? Hands pressed against Trayvon’s back (because he was face down) for leverage as he was rising to his feet. The two women were there within a few seconds. Did you notice that there was no mention of Zimmerman squirming to get out from under Trayvon’s body or pushing Trayvon’s body off him?
Are you insinuating the guy is lying in his interview?
Has the ME determined if the ‘chest wound’ was the entry wound or the exit wound yet?
I think you are a little confused. Rather had no experts, he had a story that some people believed because it fitted their preconceptions.
Back then it was the Freepers who looked at and analysed the evidence. Today they mostly are acting like people with BDS did then.
Should I post the autospy report?
“Mary Cutcher and her roommate saw Zimmerman straddling the body, basically a foot on both sides of Trayvon’s body, and his hands pressed on his back.”
In an earlier post you flat out stated that these witnesses were saying that Zimmerman was standing over Martin BEFORE he was shot (Zimmerman was on top and shot Martin in the back). That is false. What they say they saw occurred AFTER the gunshot. Odd that these witnesses had 30 days to concoct stories, and they still couldn’t come up with anything relevant.
“Has the ME determined if the ‘chest wound’ was the entry wound or the exit wound yet?”
Are you mentally challenged? How can there be entry and exit wounds when only one wound was reported?
That simply has to be a lie. If he was even charged with that he would have to have been found not guilty to even purchase a gun much less pass muster for a concealed permit.
She claimed he was stalking her, he said she was making it up because he refused to have sex with her. "He said, she said. You two stay away from each other, right."
Maybe the former altar boy really didn't want the sex. But it fist the pattern of his other brushes with the law. Something happens. Zimmerman confronts/follows/chases - when the cops get involved he says "It was the other guy who started it"
I’m sorry, wouldn’t it be fairly easy for LE to determine if someone was shot in the back while lying face down on the ground?
I never said Zimmerman was standing over Martin. I believe they were both on the ground in close physical contact. Probably rolling around a bit, which would explain why some witnesses saw Zimmerman on the botton and some saw Martin on the bottom.
Have you ever read an autopsy report? The bullet goes in (entry wound), the bullet goes out (exit wound). If there was only one wound then the bullet is still rattling around inside the corspe.
I got the back of my head smacked a few times with a baseball bat one night. When the police arrived, I realized my scalp was bleeding. Since I was ambulatory, I went to the ER on my own—walking steadily, have you. By the time the nurse checked me out, (about an hour after the altercation) the bleeding had essentially stopped on its own & I had dried dark red blood falling off my brown hair. A little brushing with my hand & a lot of it came off.
A half hour or so after she finished, the doctor came in, unsuccessfully tried to tie some hair together (I’d requested no stitches) & sent my on my way with but a bandage that would not adhere. Why? The laceration had closed on its own. Some scalp wounds bleed like everything & have to be medically treated. Some close up & nothing is required except cleaning & observing for infection.
“Should I post the autospy report?”
Yes.
I thought the autopsy report was sealed pending completion of investigation?
Whatever floats your boat, but your posts have no credibility with me.
The medical examiner, not law enforcement, is trained and will determine where the bullet entered and exited.
Again you are obfuscating and willfully misrepresenting.
Your post #163:
“At least three witnesses have reported that Martin was on the bottom, under Zimmerman, face down when he was shot.”
IN FACT the witnesses you are talking about claim they saw Zimmerman standing over Martin AFTER the shooting.
YOU ARE A LIAR.
If you have an autopsy report please post it.
Crickets.
I love the two female roommates. Their story seems to change and grow as time goes on. The blonde appears to be a venomous little harpy who insist Zimmerman is guilty- because she just believes he is. And her Hispanic buddy’s malapropisms reminds me of Ricky Ricardo. I keep expecting her to say, “Lucy, I’m home”.
Don’t you know the difference between straddling and standing?
And the fellow in the audio claimed Zimmerman was lying on top of Martin when the gun was fired.
Is he a liar too?
If I have time, I’ll scan and post it tomorrow. You do realize that it is not the Martin autopsy, right?
I’m going to bed now.
Toodles
“Don’t you know the difference between straddling and standing?”
Still obfuscating. The fact is you tried to claim the witnesses (Cutcher and her roommate) said that Zimmerman was on top of a face down Martin AT THE TIME OF THE SHOOTING when in fact that what they say they saw took place AFTER THE SHOOTING. You were basically saying that these witnesses saw Zimmerman shoot Martin in the back (post #163). YOU LIED. GOT CAUGHT. AND WON’T ADMIT IT.
I’m done with you. You have no credibility.
This is all they do, introduce completely irrelevant information to obfuscate the pertinent information.
I wish there was an "ignore" feature.
She should be zotted. I reported her post 163 which is a complete lie.
Is Zimmerman indefensible? What if, after sustaining the smae injuries, he fought back with his hands, and Martin died as a result, would that also be manslaughter?
maybe the troll believes that Zimmerman shoved the gun down his attacker’s throat while he was being beaten and then shot him. ;-)
It’s so frustrating. You catch them outright lying, and they just move on to the next lie.
The word "off" doesn't appear in the article you linked. Perhaps you can link to a different one for that proposition.
Assuming that phrase is printed somewhere, which of the two is larger? How would the eyewitness know one was a "boy?" The statement is ambiguous. Needs more context from the eyewitness.
Anyway, I can read for myself, have done so. I have reached the conclusion that you are an odious person.
"Tracy" is the father. One of the FoxNews35 articles (I think), an early one, has an associated video. In the video, they have Tracy Martin - he's obviously a male, they talk with him. The article refers to Tracy as the mother. Pretty funny - it's not like the news folks can claim confusion for this error.
Sounds like you have a good tutor. There is hope for you yet.
You were a waste of taxpayer money.
Assuming they were there, and from the content of their stories, I think they were, they are quite likely to have been interviewed by police at the scene. The only thing "new" is that they spoke with NBC. I wonder if they were paid for appearing? Not saying they changed their testimony, BTW. Just wonder if they were paid by NBC.
Cutcher and her roommate, Selma Lamilla.
Cutcher says Zimmerman told her and her roommate to call the police.That's a reliable sign of guilt. Heh.
"He started walking back and forth like three times with his hand on the head and kind of, he was walking like kind of confused," [Lamilla] said.Well, her testimony reduces the chance that Piers Morgan's speculation, that Zimmerman injured himself after shooting Martin, is feasible.Lamilla said he was touching his head like "he was in shock."
Looked for Dateline NBC Transcript, with that dunce, Lester Holt, and this is the best I found: Witnesses describe Trayvon Martin's final moments; Parents say 'He was headed on the right path' - Jessica Hopper, Dateline NBC.
Well, that's your problem. There's no need to correct all errors, lies and etc. on the forum - people will generally figure out the details that matter, even faced with posts that misrepresent the source material.
By now, on this issue, the forum is pretty well in tune with the dozen or so who have comprehension problems, or who are taking the opportunity to entertain themselves.
Web Results 1 - 1 of about 1 for "After the larger man got off and then there was a boy".
(0.13 seconds)Trayvon Martin shooting: It's not George Zimmerman crying for help ...
5 hours ago ... After the larger man got off and then there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down. 303 posted on 03/31/2012 10:32:35 ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2866509/posts?page=311
The medics glued my recent pacemaker replacement incision. Never had a bandage on it. Zimmerman apparently has a head of hair. The area would have to be shaved to apply any kind of bandage. I doubt that would happen in the back seat of a police vehicle in the dark. Any treatment would likely have been a little bit of a cleanup.
I don't know if was an echo but it definitely made more than one pop ... After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down...New Witness Confirms Martin was the VictimIt was dark. I can't say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer. It was a Hispanic man. He didn't appear hurt or anything else. He just kind of seemed very worried with his hand up to his forehead.
"Anderson Cooper: What did you observe after the shot?"Eyewitness: As I said it was dark, but after the shot, obviously someone, one man got up and it was kind of like that period of him - I can't say I actually watched him get up - but maybe it was only in a couple seconds or so that he was walking towards where I was watching. And I could see him a little bit clearer, and see that he was a Hispanic man and he was, you know, he didn't appear hurt or anything else, he just kind of seemed very, worried or whatever, walked on the sidewalk at that point, with his hand up to his forehead and then another man came out with a flashlight.
"Anderson Cooper: Were you able to observe who was on top, who was on bottom, were you able to see faces, or any details of the people scuffling?
"Eyewitness: No, just that it was... that it was that it was dark. I mean, the only reason I could say that if I was to have to say who do you think it was, I would have to say only the larger man, because after the larger man got off, then there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground, facing down."
Nice try. Nice try.
You are a liar and you have no evidence. You just make stuff and. Fortunately the majority of Freepers have you figured out. You’re only harming your own reputation, if you ever had one. We would be better off if you went back to Wonderland.
I salute you for doing that.
I stopped a long time ago.
I am fortunate to know many members of the DC chapter of Free Republic who are very politically active and dedicated, and found that in my personal encounters with protesting liberals, it was generally fruitless and anger inducing to engage in discourse with 99% of them. (In my three categories below, most liberal protesters fall into category 2, with a smattering of category 1 liberals in there. The category 3 liberals disguise themselves as mostly category 1 and 2. They cannot afford to take their mask off.
I joke that discerning conservatives should be grateful to liberals, because they make their point within the first few words or the first sentence of whatever it is they are trying to say.
I do an exercise with friends that makes them laugh. When they discuss an article they have read, I ask them to read the first sentence to me. I then go on to list all the points the author is going to make and how they make them.
I did an estimate once and figured out how much time liberals have made available to me (extrapolating out to an average lifespan) by being so transparent and predictable that I don’t even have to take the time to listen to them make their whole argument to get their point. The time savings were significant, on the order of years...
I have no respect for liberalism or the viewpoints that go along with it.
I use the rule of threes to classify liberals.
In the first class of liberals are, for lack of a better term, bleeding heart liberals. They’re not bad people, they’re not evil people… they simply arrive at conclusions based on their emotions. These are the kind of people we can talk to, the kind of people you will sometimes hear say things like: “why can’t the government make some money available to people who are down on their luck?” I view them as being basically good people, but either misinformed or mal-informed. (I respect many of these people, even admire them, and can consort with them. If asked, I will tell them my viewpoints, but don’t badger them. It can take years, but some of these people turn around.
The second class of liberals are the moonbats. I don’t view these people as being either very intelligent or very thoughtful. They’re the people who imbibed the Kool-Aid, and can recite talking points with fevered faces and bulging eyes. I find these people are impossible to talk to because they’re impervious to logic and reason. They believe what they want to believe, and they believe in it passionately, deeply, and with no element of self introspection involved. These are people who fit the bill of the description “Useful Idiots”. They are the ones who will scream the loudest in protest when the Marxists and the true believers take over and push the moonbats into the reeducation camps with all the rest of us. “But I agree with you! I’m not like the rest of these people! Why are you doing this?” I don’t deal with these people. I don’t respect them, and I don’t like them. I don’t waste my breath speaking with them.
The third class of liberals are the true, hard-core believers. They not only know the writings of Saul Alinsky, but understand what his tactics mean and how they are used. They don’t believe in the garbage that the moonbats subscribe to. These people believe in raw, unadulterated possession of power. There is no compromise and no negotiation with these people that will be fruitful. These people are true enemies of the American way of life. Most of these people (if not all) hate this country and all it stands for, and wish to see it transformed into their vision under their control. I despise these people.
I keep seeing people say “Why are Freepers supporting a douchebag like George Zimmerman?”
I would answer that we are less supporting Zimmerman than we are reflexively resisting leftist mob rule.
As for his being prosecuted, I am not an automatic supporter of police. There are good cops, bad cops, and the majority, middle of the road cops. But most cops have a BS meter that becomes developed after a while. They have to develop one to survive.
They often arrive on a scene, and have to make judgments about a situation. You ever see two cops arrive on a scene, take people off to the side to question them, then go over and speak with each other? They can tell pretty early on and with a degree of reliability what has gone down. I have seen this time and time again.
In other words, most of them develop a nose for authenticity and truth. It isn’t infallible, but most have it. I think that is what happened here. The cops arrived on the scene, questioned Zimmerman, questioned the people who saw or heard things, spoke with the dispatcher, and didn’t charge him because everything pointed towards an obvious truth in their minds.
I can easily imagine the cops standing off to the side, blue cruiser lights reflecting off of the surrounding houses, Martin laying on the ground and Zimmerman being attended by EMTs, and saying to each other “Hey. This is all lining up the same way after talking to everyone. It sounds like this kid attacked him, there was a struggle and he ended up shooting him...”
Sometimes they carried factual evidence. Their interpretations were nutty, but the evidence is what it is.
My "anti-Libby" position was that he got caught in deliberately misleading investigators. I found that Libby knew that Plame worked at the CIA, but told investigators he didn't know that. That was a political calculus on is part, avoiding trouble pointing to the WH/VP Office.
Most liberals say that Libby outed a covert agent, but that isn't so. "Outing" her was no crime, and Libby would have skated if he had told investigators that yes, he knew she worked for the CIA, and yes, he told reporters. So what?
-- The category 3 liberals disguise themselves as mostly category 1 and 2. They cannot afford to take their mask off. --
Good categories. Sometimes they are open to persuasion. I spend a few hours advising a group of them to shift their argument in waterboarding from "torture" to "inhuman treatment." The legal distinction is significant, and the pro-waterboarding forces have easy "not torture" arguments. But, the liberals like the incendiary rhetoric, to the exclusion of having an accurate and good faith debate. No skin off my butt.
Your previous words belie your assertion. You're basing a conclusion upon witness statements.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.