Open Thread on Zimmerman Verdict

[styrgwillidar]

However the facts show not all eyewitnesses agreed with Zimmerman’s story. One eyewitness saw Zimmerman on top. Another noted he saw no such pounding on the
concrete of Z’s head. I believe in the end we can see without TM’s testimony we will never have a clear picture of what happened that night.

Again, Zimmerman always stated that after shooting he got on top. No one described him as being on top during the fight.

The closest witness stated unequivocally that it was Zimmerman on the bottom and screaming for help.

That witness was also very careful in describing exactly what he could see. To the extent that even though he saw Martins fists moving in an up and down motion as if raining blows down on Zimmerman- he could not actually see the fists hitting Martin and wouldn’t make the assumption since he couldn’t directly see that point-- i.e. Zimmerman’s face.

I disagree, having reviewed all the evidence and testimony-- all the evidence presented supports Zimmerman’s story, as the Prosecutor’s special investigator said all the way back at the bond hearing, there was no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s story or his claim to self-defense. I was very disappointed that the prosecution went through this with no additional evidence that would have contradicted the story, and in fact with more evidence having come to light that confirmed Zimmerman’s account.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Again, Zimmerman always stated that after shooting he got on top. No one described him as being on top during the fight.
…

CORRECTION: one witness initially stated that Zimmerman must have been on top because of the bigger guy being on top.

But she admitted that estimate was based on the photos released in the media showing Martin at a much younger age.

 

[lcburgundy]

However the facts show not all eyewitnesses agreed with Zimmerman’s story. One eyewitness saw Zimmerman on top. Another noted he saw no such pounding on the
concrete of Z’s head. I believe in the end we can see without TM’s testimony we will never have a clear picture of what happened that night.

TM’s testimony would have just been more eyewitness testimony and honestly I doubt it would have clarified anything. It would be hard for me to imagine him saying anything other than GZ stalked me, jumped me and shot me. (And if he had lived, I sincerely doubt charges would have been brought at all.)

What would actually be useful was multiple camera angles and sound. I record all my driving now, actually. The 100% recorded life will be a reality sooner rather than later. Based on some people’s critical thinking capabilities, I will be in line for it actually.

 

[BroomWagon]

So, if you are proffering evidence that TM didn’t do it, you believe GZ did break his own nose and cut up his own head…? Or is there a third party…or what?

I don’t believe there is key evidence Trayvon Martin started the fight. Yes, we know the two had a fight and that’s about all we know.

Eyewitness testimony is among the least valuable in determining fact. A person who believes there were multiple shots is not a credible eyewitness. The second eyewitness you mentioned only saw what happened after the encounter was over. Both witnesses’ testimony are largely irrelevant to the facts of the encounter. Trayvon very obviously would not have had a boy’s voice, either. More evidence of a non-credible or mistaken witness.

So now we go from

And with every bit of forensic evidence putting GZ on the receiving end of a pummeling

• forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11023530#post11023530

So with the witness testimony, the lack of DNA on Trayvon Martin as well as I believe any of George Zimmerman’s blood on Trayvon Martin, we are going to go from this statement to now saying some witnesses testimony is not credible. Wow.

Not to be unkind but based on fact, we would have to say your prior statement is now false. Yet, you seem to believe you have the total right to discount these other witnesses as lacking credibility.

But what I would say, is that human beings testifying are not perfect persons. This shows they are human.

If we are judging people’s credibility, there are inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s unsworn testimony as well. We might as well say his unsworn versions of the events can be questioned as well.

hlntv.com/article/2013/07/02/george-zimmerman-trial-inconsistencies-zimmerman-story

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/george_zimmerman_changes_story_fox.php

examiner.com/article/prosecutors-allude-to-inconsistencies-george-zimmerman-s-story

Again, I think all this points to a lack of evidence not a confirmation of Zimmerman’s story.

I don’t think we will accomplish much more on this.

 

[MaryT777]

Again, Zimmerman always stated that after shooting he got on top. No one described him as being on top during the fight.

The closest witness stated unequivocally that it was Zimmerman on the bottom and screaming for help.

That witness was also very careful in describing exactly what he could see. To the extent that even though he saw Martins fists moving in an up and down motion as if raining blows down on Zimmerman- he could not actually see the fists hitting Martin and wouldn’t make the assumption since he couldn’t directly see that point-- i.e. Zimmerman’s face.

I disagree, having reviewed all the evidence and testimony-- all the evidence presented supports Zimmerman’s story, as the Prosecutor’s special investigator said all the way back at the bond hearing, there was no evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s story or his claim to self-defense. I was very disappointed that the prosecution went through this with no additional evidence that would have contradicted the story, and in fact with more evidence having come to light that confirmed Zimmerman’s account.

Actually one eyewitness claimed Zimmerman WAS on top before the shooting. It was at the trial not in the police report.

There was more than one eyewitness. That the witness couldn’t see everything speaks
for itself.

I disagree with you as well.
I’m not disappointed however this our judicial system and it’s the best in the world; albeit imperfect.
It’s especially difficult when one witness is dead.

 

[BroomWagon]

Well, Zimmerman didn’t confront Martin. The testimony by the prosecution witnesses confirmed that it was Martin that confronted Zimmerman.

Witness Good does not confirm Martin confronted Zimmerman. I’m interested in knowing who this was.

Given Zimmerman’s penchant for helping others, he undoubtedly still would have done everytihng the same. Still would have gotten out of the truck to get the info the dispatcher was asking for, still stopped following when asked by the dispatcher, still been under the impression that the suspicious person had left the area, still looked around for a better address, and still been confronted, punched and assaulted.

You declare Zimmerman’s penchant for helping others, these stories seem to present a contrary view presented for balance:

nydailynews.com/news/national/george-zimmerman-lost-job-party-security-guard-aggressive-ex-co-worker-article-1.1053223#ixzz2a5Ge1Zrn

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2165784/Trayvon-Martin-case-George-Zimmerman-bullied-colleague-racial-comments.html

The difference would have been Zimmerman would have been injured more severly, probably suffered severe brain damage. (I don’t think Martin would have killed him)

Maybe he could have had bear spray, a taser or remained in his truck if he did not have a gun.

He would have been portrayed in the press as a really, nice sweet guy. Martin would have been initially arrested. Anyones call whether he’d have been charged much less convicted of anything. As a minor, probably would have gotten probation due to those plea deal things even if charged.

See links above.

Eventually though, he would have gotten to combine the skittles and watermelon drink with codeine laced cough syrup and enjoyed his preferred relaxing beverage.

Or is it jolly ranchers and sprite or is it grape soda? Or why can’t they drink the robutussin by itself, all the same, at the moment Trayvon Martin was in Twin Lakes, he was not doing wrong.

 

[MaryT777]

I don’t believe there is key evidence Trayvon Martin started the fight. Yes, we know the two had a fight and that’s about all we know.

So now we go from

So with the witness testimony, the lack of DNA on Trayvon Martin as well as I believe any of George Zimmerman’s blood on Trayvon Martin, we are going to go from this statement to now saying some witnesses testimony is not credible. Wow.

Not to be unkind but based on fact, we would have to say your prior statement is now false. Yet, you seem to believe you have the total right to discount these other witnesses as lacking credibility.

But what I would say, is that human beings testifying are not perfect persons. This shows they are human.

If we are judging people’s credibility, there are inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s unsworn testimony as well. We might as well say his unsworn versions of the events can be questioned as well.

hlntv.com/article/2013/07/02/george-zimmerman-trial-inconsistencies-zimmerman-story

tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/george_zimmerman_changes_story_fox.php

examiner.com/article/prosecutors-allude-to-inconsistencies-george-zimmerman-s-story

Again, I think all this points to a lack of evidence not a confirmation of Zimmerman’s story.

I don’t think we will accomplish much more on this.

George Zimmerman is not credible since day 1 .
He knew exactly what to say to get himself off the charge for he HAD INDEED studied self defense laws albeit he said he knew nothing of them. Couldn’t recall the amount of money in his account at bond time etc. He’s not remotely credible but many people would say anything to save themselves. Knowledge of the law and a Dad Judge
in your back pocket help the cause.
Probably helped to get him off the police assault charge with a slap on the hand
and Alcohol Awareness training. Alcohol and violence are a dangerous combination.
At least he didn’t kill that police officer he assaulted.

Lack of evidence from TM’s testimony is the missing link.

 

[lcburgundy]

I don’t believe there is key evidence Trayvon Martin started the fight. Yes, we know the two had a fight and that’s about all we know.

…and TM was punching or hitting him, right? Right? What evidence was there that GZ was dishing anything back? You are being so evasive about whether TM was assaulting GZ in a very one-sided fight.

So now we go from

So with the witness testimony, the lack of DNA on Trayvon Martin as well as I believe any of George Zimmerman’s blood on Trayvon Martin, we are going to go from this statement to now saying some witnesses testimony is not credible. Wow.

Not to be unkind but based on fact, we would have to say your prior statement is now false. Yet, you seem to believe you have the total right to discount these other witnesses as lacking credibility.

But what I would say, is that human beings testifying are not perfect persons. This shows they are human.

If we are judging people’s credibility, there are inconsistencies in George Zimmerman’s unsworn testimony as well. We might as well say his unsworn versions of the events can be questioned as well.

Again, I think all this points to a lack of evidence not a confirmation of Zimmerman’s story.

I don’t think we will accomplish much more on this.

Not really sure what you’re getting on with here. I haven’t based a lot of what I’ve said on GZ’s statements. They’re not really incompatible with the physical evidence though. TM’s body was also badly preserved. It’s very obvious the state medical examiners were cutting corners and thought this was just another john doe black teen murder so they gave it that treatment. That’s on them, not GZ. Whatever fight was going on, GZ was on bottom and he was losing badly. That’s all that really matters to a self-defense claim.

The police largely confirmed they couldn’t find much in the way in inconsistencies in what GZ said. Police rarely if ever say that by the way, and it was the prosecutors who sought admission of all the statements into evidence anyway then couldn’t impeach them in any meaningful way; the defense would not have been allowed to introduce them. Think about that before you talk to police.

 

[lcburgundy]

Lack of evidence from TM’s testimony is the missing link.

So assume we had testimony from TM saying that he was minding his own business and was jumped and shot by GZ. 100% unprovoked. Does that equal a hard and fast conviction for GZ in your eyes? If so, please recognize you are advocating, not trying facts.

 

[MaryT777]

…and TM was punching or hitting him, right? Right? What evidence was there that GZ was dishing anything back? You are being so evasive about whether TM was assaulting GZ in a very one-sided fight.

Not really sure what you’re getting on with here. I haven’t based a lot of what I’ve said on GZ’s statements. They’re not really incompatible with the physical evidence though. TM’s body was also badly preserved. It’s very obvious the state medical examiners were cutting corners and thought this was just another john doe black teen murder so they gave it that treatment. That’s on them, not GZ. Whatever fight was going on, GZ was on bottom and he was losing badly. That’s all that really matters to a self-defense claim.

The police largely confirmed they couldn’t find much in the way in inconsistencies in what GZ said. Police rarely if ever say that by the way, and it was the prosecutors who sought admission of all the statements into evidence anyway then couldn’t impeach them in any meaningful way; the defense would not have been allowed to introduce them. Think about that before you talk to police.

Not only would I note base “a lot” of what I say on GZ’s testimony I would base nothing on it. He knew the self defense laws albeit the police were told No he was not familiar with it.
They felt it was important.

I’ve watched most or the trial, once again the eyewitness testimonies do not concur.
One at least saw Zimmerman on top; the one that called in initially.

The police do state that they find it odd that Z had no knowledge of the streets.
The police do completely concur he lied about self defense.

It’s probably easy to talk to the police when you intend to lie, know self defense laws and have a judge Dad and had a felony pleaded down.

Now he’ll know Dad can’t take away the sting of poor judgment or get you off every potential trial.

Mary.

 

[MaryT777]

So assume we had testimony from TM saying that he was minding his own business and was jumped and shot by GZ. 100% unprovoked. Does that equal a hard and fast conviction for GZ in your eyes? If so, please recognize you are advocating, not trying facts.

No I AM trying facts not opinions.
TM IS dead and not here.
Zimmerman is not truthful from day 1 with bond hearing; with lying about knowledge of self defense laws etc.
Dad Judge can’t protect him now anymore from trials and charges.

 

[styrgwillidar]

.
I disagree with you as well.
I’m not disappointed however this our judicial system and it’s the best in the world; albeit imperfect.
It’s especially difficult when one witness is dead.

My disappointment is that this was clearly an unwinnable case, as even you stated earlier. All of the facts and evidence supported Zimmerman’s story. The prosecution clearly brought it only for political reasons, not justice. They put both the Martin family and Zimmerman family through private hells based on false expectations. It was an unethical prosecution, including the withholding of evidence and was an abuse of their authority. It also riled up a lot of folks through the misrepresentation of facts and evidence creating deeper divides in our country.

I was appalled that the prosecution went forward knowing full well they had no case. That they actually went forward having uncovered nothing new to support the charges.

Our justice system will not be the best in the world if these kind of sham trials and abuses of the system become commonplace.

Having done investigations, no witness is completely consistent. As Serino indicated, you expect minor inconsistencies as folks rephrase an event, ponder it more. But even he assessed Zimmerman as being truthful on all the major points, and he was the only investigator recommending charges be brought, those of manslaughter.

 

[lcburgundy]

No I AM trying facts not opinions.
TM IS dead and not here.
Zimmerman is not truthful from day 1 with bond hearing; with lying about knowledge of self defense laws etc.
Dad Judge can’t protect him now anymore from trials and charges.

So can you actually answer this hypothetical:

So assume we had testimony from TM saying that he was minding his own business and was jumped and shot by GZ. 100% unprovoked. Does that equal a hard and fast conviction for GZ in your eyes?

Please stop dissembling with your weird obsession with GZ’s father. I realize you really want to see GZ suffer and pay, but wow.

 

[styrgwillidar]

No I AM trying facts not opinions.
TM IS dead and not here.
Zimmerman is not truthful from day 1 with bond hearing; with lying about knowledge of self defense laws etc.
Dad Judge can’t protect him now anymore from trials and charges.

What was his or his wife’s lie at the bond hearing?

legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/next-up-florida-v-shellie-zimmerman/
statelymcdanielmanor.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/the-trayvon-martin-case-update-37-2-perjury-and-malicious-prosecution/

Those charges are about as likely to end in a conviction as the last case.

 

[St_Francis]

No I AM trying facts not opinions.
TM IS dead and not here.
Zimmerman is not truthful from day 1 with bond hearing;

His wife, not Zimmerman, was asked at a bond hearing how much they had to spend for the bond. She told the court she did not know how much was in the fund and suggested they call Zimmerman’s brother, who was handling that. She said it about 3 times. The amount she told the court was how much she and Zimmerman had along with the last amount she’d heard from the fund.

with lying about knowledge of self defense laws etc.

Zimmerman was asked about the “Stand Your Ground” law on Hannity’s program. This is not the actual name of the law, which his prof testified had been studied under its proper name rather than the slang name.

Dad Judge can’t protect him now anymore from trials and charges.

Zimmerman’s father was a magistrate in Virginia, which are called “magistrate judges” but which at the time required only a high school diploma to be hired for. Not the high-flying power-broker on Florida you seem to think he is.

 

[styrgwillidar]

His wife, not Zimmerman, was asked at a bond hearing how much they had to spend for the bond. She told the court she did not know how much was in the fund and suggested they call Zimmerman’s brother, who was handling that. She said it about 3 times. The amount she told the court was how much she and Zimmerman had along with the last amount she’d heard from the fund.

She also offered to get her brother on the phone to accurately answer the question. Both the prosecutor and judge declined. Which is why some legal analysts don’t understand why charges were filed at all.

 

[BroomWagon]

My disappointment is that this was clearly an unwinnable case, as even you stated earlier. All of the facts and evidence supported Zimmerman’s story. The prosecution clearly brought it only for political reasons, not justice. They put both the Martin family and Zimmerman family through private hells based on false expectations. It was an unethical prosecution, including the withholding of evidence and was an abuse of their authority. It also riled up a lot of folks through the misrepresentation of facts and evidence creating deeper divides in our country.

I was appalled that the prosecution went forward knowing full well they had no case. That they actually went forward having uncovered nothing new to support the charges.

Our justice system will not be the best in the world if these kind of sham trials and abuses of the system become commonplace.

Having done investigations, no witness is completely consistent. As Serino indicated, you expect minor inconsistencies as folks rephrase an event, ponder it more. But even he assessed Zimmerman as being truthful on all the major points, and he was the only investigator recommending charges be brought, those of manslaughter.

Zimmerman’s own attorney says this:

O’Mara’s argument continued, providing jurors with an account of events from start to finish–which, oddly, the prosecution had failed to do in its closing argument, preferring to focus on Zimmerman’s credibility.

The defense stressed the important of the “reasonable doubt” standard, noting that even if the jury thought it was “highly unlikely” that Zimmerman acted in self-defense, that was not enough to convict him.

breitbart.com/InstaBlog/2013/07/12/Zimmerman-Trial-The-Sound-of-Silence

I think the correct conclusion is that the Prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree murder and other charges. Not that Zimmerman’s story has been vindicated because all facts and evidence line up.

 

[lcburgundy]

I think the correct conclusion is that the Prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree murder and other charges. Not that Zimmerman’s story has been vindicated because all facts and evidence line up.

The evidence never supported a 2nd degree murder charge under any read of the evidence. They started with zero evidence of that and ended with zero evidence.

It is unethical to pursue charges where you have no reasonable expectation that you can ever get a conviction. We don’t do show trials in this country. At least we didn’t used to.

 

[styrgwillidar]

His wife, not Zimmerman, was asked at a bond hearing how much they had to spend for the bond. She told the court she did not know how much was in the fund and suggested they call Zimmerman’s brother, who was handling that. She said it about 3 times. The amount she told the court was how much she and Zimmerman had along with the last amount she’d heard from the fund.

…

Here’s the conversation in court at the bond hearing that resulted in the charge.

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was —

A: Currently, I do not know.

Q: Who would know that?

A: That would be my brother-in-law.

Q: And is he — I know he’s not in the same room as you, but is he available so we can speak to him, too, or the Court can inquire through the State or the Defense?

A: I’m sure that we could probably get him on the phone.

Q: Okay. So he’s not there now.

A: No, he is not, sir.

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

A: I do not.

Q. Okay. You haven’t talked to your brother-in-law in terms of just bare amount of how much money?

A. No. No, I have not

Q. Okay. And how long has that website been in existence, ma’am?

A. I do not know. I have not been with my husband since he’s been in hiding. I do not know.

Q. Okay. So you mentioned your husband was in hiding. I understand he left the state, is that correct?

A. That’s correct.

Q – Okay. And did you continue to have contact with him while he was out?

A. Yes, every day.

Q. And that was every day?

A. Yes.

Now, here’s what’s in the affidavit. Which is legally required to have all information relevant to the charge, including exculpatory information. Both the affidavit against Zimmerman for the murder charge and the affidavit against his wife left out exculpatory info (for example Zimmermans injuries on the murder affidavit) and an edited version of the conversation above in the charging affidavit:

Q: And you mentioned also, in terms of the ability of your husband to make a bond amount, that you all had no money, is that correct?

A: To my knowledge, that is correct.

Q: Were you aware of the website that Mr. Zimmerman or somebody on his behalf created?

A: I’m aware of that website.

Q: How much money is in that website right now? How much money as a result of that website was—

A: Currently, I do not know.

Q: Do you have any estimate as to how much money has already been obtained or collected?

A: I do not.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Zimmerman’s own attorney says this:

I think the correct conclusion is that the Prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that George Zimmerman was guilty of 2nd degree murder and other charges. Not that Zimmerman’s story has been vindicated because all facts and evidence line up.

Yes, Zimmermans attorney said they relied on the facts and evidence. The prosecution was reduced to yelling, “Look, a squirrel!”

If the facts are against you, argue the law.
If the law is against you, argue the facts.

If the facts and the law are against you. Scream like ****

Which is why the prosecution attorneys couldn’t just play the tape of Zimmerman’s words. They had to yell and scream them to try and put the emotion they wanted the jurors to believe Zimmerman had, not the actual emotion expressed by his own tone