Skip to comments.George Zimmerman Returns to Sanford, FL [In Police Custody]
Posted on 06/03/2012 12:13:43 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
click here to read article
They had a good example of it it in late Senator KKK-Byrd!!!
Yep. DeeDee is necessary to introduce evidence that Zimmerman was in hot pursuit of Martin, essentially that Zimmerman was the one who chose to close the distance, and was able to do so. DeeDee is also the only source for the contention that Zimmerman initiated physical action. There are many problems with her as a witness, and it's obvious she is either speculating or lying as to who shoved who, if she heard anything at all at that moment.
Sybrina's testimony is used (and Tracy Martin will do the same, although he's gone both ways on the point) to establish that the persistent screams for help come from Martin. Her testimony is directly contradicted at least by eyewitness John, and may be contradicted by the difference in voice quality between Zimmerman and Martin. The way I see it, take Sybrina and Tracy on one side, and Zimmerman's friends and relatives on the other, and they balance each other out. So, eyewitness John, plus the circumstances of Zimmerman being on the bottom, Zimmerman saying he yelled for help and nobody came to his aid, a one minute+ fight, 14 screams for help ... pretty easy to conclude that Zimmerman is the one yelling, beyond a reasonable doubt.
The state's case is pathetic, and as far as I am concerned, was brought unethically.
I was foreperson in a jury where the accused claimed his car had been stolen, and it was not he who fled the scene of the accident. During deliberation, two jurors were reluctant to say he was guilty. So, I asked them a simple question, "Do you think he did it, or did you believe his testimony on the stand?" During the course of the trial, defendant had taken the stand in his own defense, and one or two of his friends testified, too. It was pretty easy to conclude that defendant was lying.
Anyway, the two reluctant jurors were of a mind that the state had not proved its case. So, back to my question to them, "Do you think he did it?" They said, oh yes, they thought he did it. Then I asked the follow-up, "Do you have any doubts about your conclusion?" They did not! They thought defendant was lying , they didn't have any trouble concluding he'd done it, they just didn't think the standard of proof had been met.
So, I told them that there wouldn't have been a trial, if the state had a movie. That our function, as a jury, was to reason through the evidence and reach a conclusion. That it was okay to doubt, but our doubt had to be based on a reason ... on evidence. That if any of us as a juror though defendant was guilty, and didn't have any reasonable doubt on that point, that it was our duty to just say so.
The jury was unanimous for conviction. And, there was no "proof" of the type that wtc911 seems to think is necessary in order to reach a conclusion.
After more and more information is coming out it looks like they are holding on to the last straw of NOT getting eggs on their faces???
BTW are there two Trayvon Martins -- one with the gold teeth and the real one without.
When any group blindly engages in the same unsupported speculation we call it a circle jerk.
If you want to talk about zimmerman's past conduct then let's include the time he bounced his girlfriend around and the time he tussled with a cop doing his job.
We can also talk about the things we do know from zimmerman's own mouth...he was pro-actively trying to close the gap between himself and martin (following)...martin was pro-actively trying to avoid confrontation (running).
The whole 'martin attacked zimmerman' scenario requires that in the space of less than two minutes martin completely reversed his action of avoidance to one of confrontation and that zimmerman did the same in reverse. There is nothing to suggest this let alone prove it.
In my book zimmerman is no hero, he's a dope who got in over his head and had to shoot his way out of the situation he initiated. I don't think he will be convicted or should be based on the evidence. His life is permanently effed either way but, the other guy is dead.
Martin may not have been anybody's idea of an angel but there's no indication that he was any worse than millions of American teenagers these days of all colors and economic background.
I live in one of the top ten wealthiest zip codes where I raised three daughters (now grown). I've seen more than a couple of 'good' families turn out kids a lot worse than what we know about martin. And, I personally know people who started off with far less of everything than martin had (except trouble). They took really scary detours before getting straight. One in particular is a First Sgt. with the 101st.
All that though is utterly meaningless vis a vis what happened that night. What does have meaning though, is the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that martin was doing anything that night except walking back to the place where he was staying...that zimmerman followed him by car and then on foot..and that martin took steps to avoid confrontation with the stranger who was following him --- he ran.
I forget that Twinkies is food. . junk food, I guess.
I’m not going to discuss the evidence with you right now. I find you to be an unreasonable crank. We come to opposite conclusions on the same evidence. Obviously, there is something different between how the two of us get from evidence to conclusion, but I really don’t care what you think; and I assume you don’t care what I think. IOW, neither one of us will be persuaded by the other.
That is exactly what happened according to DeeDee, Trayvon's girlfriend's own words given to the media about her cell call with Trayvon that night. I'm sure that the prosecution and the defense have a copy of this initial interview of hers before she started changing her story and dancing away from it.
btw, I have not come to any conclusion. I offered an alternative theory based on the same facts. I asked you to support your conclusion with facts and you have acknowledged that you can't.
I was only about 25 at the time on mine. While I wasn’t the elected foreman, I became the de facto one during deliberations.
We had at least one person on the jury (might have been two) that thought that the main defendant might really have been using that triple beam balance chemistry lab type scale (this was before electronic scales became common) for weighing lock parts, as the defense claimed. Did I mention the trial was for for a guy who was accused of buying and selling cocaine at kilogram levels, who was unemployed, living a very high on the hog upper middle class lifestyle, whose only previous occupation was locksmith?
Yeah. Weighing lock parts. Right. Huge credibility killer there. We got a good laugh out of that.
Be careful lending credence to the GF’s statement. If you want to accept it then you have to deal with all of it...which means that zimmerman did not return to his car but kept following martin.
It should be clear by now that this poster taunting anyone is not a serious seeker of truth but an agitprop who will post subtle lies to continue the game. If one went to the usual leftist sites, it is probably posting selections from responses to its tauntings. Don’t feed nasty taunting trolls. Traytable is dead because he tried to commit assault and battery on an armed citizen. The taunting is designed to change the perception of the reality.
Not name calling, I was honestly describing how I view you, as an unreasonable crank. We've had sufficient exchanges for me to base my opinion, and I can read your posts to others, as well as the quality of reasoning you demonstrate in general.
-- I asked you to support your conclusion with facts and you have acknowledged that you can't. --
That's because you pick and choose which "facts" you will admit into argument. You discard or ignore substantial amounts of evidence.
I've supported my conclusions with evidence, you've simply whisked the evidence away in order to leave the parts that suit whatever scenario you are peddling.
Only two people were at the fight when it started, and one of them is dead. The story given by the other lines up with the physical evidence, and as a result, is believed by sane people.
Bottom line however, is that it doesn't make a difference. It's almost like you are arguing whether Treyvon was wearing his Sponge Bob or Power Ranger boxers. Irrelevent to the matter at hand. Even if Zimmerman threw the first punch, it doen't not give Treyvon the right to kill him. Once Zimmerman was on his back screaming for help while Treyvon was bashing his head against the concrete, Martin become the attacker and Zimmerman, fearful for his life, has a right to defend himself.
You are correct in that there is no evidence as to who initiated physical contact. It doesn't matter. You're entire argument is based on this one tidbit but your anal-retentavity does not permit you to understand that it's irrelevant.
If someone pushes me I can't beat them to death with a crowbar. If they punch me, I can't shoot them. If they knock me to the ground and keep coming at me the situation changes. When they are on top of me bashing my head against the concrete, or standing over me kicking my head, they have escalated beyond reasonable force and have to bear the consequences, like being shot dead.
I doubt the New York Times is capable of shame - they're probably responding to a desire NOT to be seen as a laughing stock...
There is no eyewitness other than Zimmerman, but there is evidence on the point. One or the other in fact threw the first punch, or made the first move that is credibly taken by a reasonable person as an attempt to make unwelcome contact.
I agree with your legal analysis, but the case also involves Zimmerman's credibility, because nobody saw the details in the 5 seconds leading up to and including the gunshot. So, we are stuck probing Zimmerman's credibility in light of his account of events. Zimmerman says (according to his brother and father) that he was coldcocked without provocation*, and at physical disadvantage from that point until more than a minute later when he discharged his gun.
If you find Zimmerman to be a liar about being coldcocked without provocation, it'll diminish your willingness to believe him when he claims he had no choice but to shoot, for whatever specific reason (choked out, Martin saw the gun and moved to take it, etc.), a minute after being put at physical disadvantage and seconds after having the presence of mind to scoot his body so his head wouldn't hit pavement again.
The only person who will tell the details of the end of the fight is Zimmerman, and you'll either believe him, or not. The forensic evidence does not contradict his account, it supports it. But the forensic evidence does not foreclose all possible scenarios.
* Provocation as a legal term means at least an assault (talking and/or moving in such a way that a reasonable person would think the use of physical force was imminent), or a battery. Following, trash talking, asking questions, begging for money, and otherwise being a nuisance are not "provocation" in the legal sense.
Zimmerman was fine until Crump and associates started theri publicity campaign. This was an outrageous media manipulation incident.
Yep — and their star witness DeeDee may just be a ghost. She was never named in the indictment and the only thing we know about her is what Crump has told us, and much of that has been a lie:
“Perhaps one of the reasons, maybe the primary reason, the special prosecutor Angela Corey didnt go to the Grand Jury was because she would have either had to introduce DeeDees testimony, or avoid it completely. The probable cause affidavit does not outline anything that Benjamin Crump sold to the media during his March 20 press conference. Nothing.
“In addition, the lead prosecution investigator Dale Gilbreath testified under oath during the bond hearing they had found no evidence to dispute George Zimmermans account of how the confrontation with Trayvon Martin started.”
DeeDee may just be the biggest No-Show in legal history — and this prosecution team had the audacity to try to build its legal case on this mythical creation.