Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
docyabut2

Zimmerman trial

1,450 posts in this topic

So you find nothing wrong with a juror profiting from her duty as a citzen? What gives you a better profit a guilty on a case or a not guilty verdict on a convertial case?

It would have made a better story had she drug it out for a long time. That didn't happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, heck. Six other people could have come to another decision. :yes:

I want to add that I'm still raising a brow at that prosecution, but I believe Zimmerman still could have been convicted because regardless of the presentation of the evidence, the evidence was still there.

It felt like the prosecution really wanted too loose this case or at least was asked to suck at her job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with most of what you have written but in the phone call the dispatcher does say "What address are you parked in front of?"

The operator didn't ask that until Zimmerman was already out of his vehicle for over a minute.

After the operator had asked Zimmerman if he was following, he then asked him his name, his last name, his phone number, and if he still wanted to meet an officer and where he wanted to meet an officer. It wasn't until then that he asked which address Zimmerman was parked in front of and Zimmerman said he didn't know...that it was a cut through and Zimmerman repeated the directions to where he'd parked. (Btw, as this dialogue is taking place, one can hear Zimmerman continue to tap on his flashlight, trying to get it to work, so he was not walking into a better lighted area, nor did he intend to remain in a lighted area.)

The problem is you can't trust what Zimmerman says mainly due to embellishments and the changes to his story.

:tu: Of course, that tells us that we can't believe anything he says. There's only one reason his story changes; there's only one reason he'd lie about- or embellish- anything.

In his written report the night of the incident he says that Martin came back and circled his truck but during the phone call, when he is telling the dispatcher everything he sees he never indicates anything like that happened.

Yeah, Zimmerman lied about that, too. What he described to the dispatcher had occurred earlier in the call than what Zimmerman later described to Serino.

At that time in the call, Zimmerman had told the dispatcher that Martin was at the clubhouse.

Zimmerman had indicated the location of where he was on a map for Singleton and he placed his location near the mailboxes.

What that shows is that Martin had actually come from the mailboxes; that Zimmerman had pulled around and had been waiting there on Twin Trees before he eventually pulled up to where he finally parked in that last location in front of witness Lauer's house.

(Zimmerman's movements can be discerned in the call...they can be heard and they coincide with the timing.)

Also in the reenactment he indicates that he is moving parallel to the sidewalk in the grass with Martin behind him and he fell or was pushed. If true he would have ended up face first.

That damned Serino should have had Zimmerman demonstrate- that is, truly re-enact- precisely what and how events occurred.

That was not a re-enactment; it was a lame (should be shamefully embarrassing) substitute. :td:

Once on the ground, Zimmerman claimed that they remained perpendicular with the sidewalk....that he could feel the sidewalk across his shoulders through his jacket.

Witness Good completely contradicted that account. Good said that they were first flat on top of each other and perpendicular on the grass, and then they moved onto the sidewalk and were parallel with their heads to the north with the one on top in a straddling position when he went back inside.

So, they moved while they were on the ground, considerably... and there was a reason.

It's evident to me that Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman but Zimmerman was preventing him from doing so and that explains what Zimmerman was doing with his hands.

That also explains why there's no blood and no other foreign DNA on Martin's hands/sleeves, anywhere, and that Martin's hands- most notably his dominate right- showed no evidence what-so-ever of what Zimmerman described.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, heck. Six other people could have come to another decision. :yes:

I'll agree that if people want to blame the Jury for letting GZ go, then they are actually blaming the Prosecusion and the DAs office. They have to approve every juror, just as the defense does.

(Btw, as this dialogue is taking place, one can hear Zimmerman continue to tap on his flashlight, trying to get it to work, so he was not walking into a better lighted area, nor did he intend to remain in a lighted area.)

That he's tapping on the flashlight does not prove anything. It may Suggest something, but proves nothing. Perhaps that is why he stood at Retreat View Circle for several minutes. Trying to fix his flashlight. That theory has just as much chance of being true as yours does.

Of course, that tells us that we can't believe anything he says. There's only one reason his story changes; there's only one reason he'd lie about- or embellish- anything.

Almost every single person who was a witness in this trial had some detail that was wrong or said something that was obviously wrong. The key Prosecution witness, Jeantel, was just as big a liar.

That damned Serino should have had Zimmerman demonstrate- that is, truly re-enact- precisely what and how events occurred.

That was not a re-enactment; it was a lame (should be shamefully embarrassing) substitute.

I'll agree with that, GZ kept remembering details and saying that this happened over there and back there I actually did this and that. They should have done several walk throughs with him and then done a re-enactment with the timeline completely correct.

It's evident to me that Martin was trying to get away from Zimmerman but Zimmerman was preventing him from doing so and that explains what Zimmerman was doing with his hands.

That also explains why there's no blood and no other foreign DNA on Martin's hands/sleeves, anywhere, and that Martin's hands- most notably his dominate right- showed no evidence what-so-ever of what Zimmerman described.

While that may technically be possible, there is little evidence to support that theory. The crime scene was done very badly IMHO, and they should have photographed the grass and the sidewalk immediately, to look for details to see who was telling the truth. GZ is a free man, partly because the police made a crap sandwich of collecting the evidence, and partly because he really just did not do anything illegal.

Didn't TMs body sit out there in the rain for a while. Evidence could have been washed off rather quickly.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder too if what GZ did is try to detain TM so he wouldn't get away before the police arrived. If that's what happened, I can see GZ using his gun to force TM to stay. If GZ was fairly close to TM, I think it's likely that TM knew he couldn't run because GZ could shoot him. But if GZ was close enough to TM, TM may have thought he had a chance to rush GZ to get the gun away from him. If he dived for the gun, it's a good bet a struggle ensued, which would be how they ended up on the ground and how GZ got the injuries to the back of his head. I can see either of them screaming for help in that scenario. In that struggle, GZ could have pulled the trigger at point blank range, killing TM.

I put this scenario out there because of something that happened to me back in Oct. I was in a big park with my dog, working on getting him to stay with me off the leash. To do this, I had to let him off the leash. Maybe not the best idea. He was doing so well with it, I started giving him increasing freedom. It was all fine until, out of no where, he saw a woman jogging by and suddenly the dog went ballistic. He lunged at her, barking ferociously. He didn't bite, but she froze, absolutely terrified. I tried to get him away, but he wouldn't heed me and kept dodging me. At one point when he ran off a little, the jogger grabbed my arm and shouted, "You're staying here!" She had a cell in her hand and was starting to call 911. I pulled back, put my hand near her face and yelled, "Get your hands off me!", at which point, the dog rushed back, more hyped than before, ready to protect me. Wisely, she let go of me and I was able to get the dog to run off. I caught up with him and got the leash back on. Recalling this, I wonder if GZ was doing something similar to the jogger--try to hold TM there at close range gunpoint and TM responded out of pure terror for his life. TM could have complied and stayed still, and maybe he would have been OK. But if he really feared he was about to be shot, I could see him lunging for the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He could have said a lot worse. He at least went on to try to say not to make this political.

I think it is the fact he caved, under pressure from a handful of Loud Activists that is what bothers people?

I don't agree. I think he probably felt morally obliged as the first black president to offer his perspective, to validate the emotions pouring out from the dissenters, put it in context for Americans who aren't of color what the death and the verdict mean to the minority community, while seizing the opportunity to implore the outraged to stay law-abiding. Under the circumstances, I think he did what was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree. I think he probably felt morally obliged as the first black president to offer his perspective, to validate the emotions pouring out from the dissenters, put it in context for Americans who aren't of color what the death and the verdict mean to the minority community, while seizing the opportunity to implore the outraged to stay law-abiding. Under the circumstances, I think he did what was right.

Seriously?

What the heck does Obama know about anything anything what an inner city, poor black kid goes through? He is half white, raised by white grandparents, he went to the best schools, and universities, so what does he know? Neither him, nor his wife, have any idea what it's like to grow up in the ghetto and be on welfare. The only thing Obama has in common with Martin is they both smoked a little dope, and they happen to share the same skin color.

Edited by Kowalski
4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree. I think he probably felt morally obliged as the first black president to offer his perspective, to validate the emotions pouring out from the dissenters, put it in context for Americans who aren't of color what the death and the verdict mean to the minority community, while seizing the opportunity to implore the outraged to stay law-abiding. Under the circumstances, I think he did what was right.

I disagree completely. He should have stayed out of it. He joined (and excelled) the effort to lynch George, an innocent man.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree completely. He should have stayed out of it. He joined (and excelled) the effort to lynch George, an innocent man.

It's always nice to see that the lynch mob mentality, is still alive and well....

That was sarcasm by the way....

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously?

What the heck does Obama know about anything anything what an inner city, poor black kid goes through? He is half white, raised by white grandparents, he went to the best schools, and universities, so what does he know? Neither him, nor his wife, have any idea what it's like to grow up in the ghetto and be on welfare. The only thing Obama has in common with Martin is they both smoked a little dope, and they happen to share the same skin color.

And there are very few men, period, that have never heard a car door lock, because a woman didn't feel safe alone stopped at a traffic light or parking lot when they walk by.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are very few men, period, that have never heard a car door lock, because a woman didn't feel safe alone stopped at a traffic light or parking lot when they walk by.

Very true, and it nothing to do with their skin color, either.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are very few men, period, that have never heard a car door lock, because a woman didn't feel safe alone stopped at a traffic light or parking lot when they walk by.

Totally agree.

I've locked the door on my own car, even when alone, much less with my family, when various men, women and teenagers have paused nearby. It is not always possible to tell what anyone is going to do. Portland Oregon is known for being Weird, and so lots of Weirdos wander the streets constantly. Also Portland is known for being very Homeless Friendly, so we have lots of the Homeless here too. Plus various religious people preaching on the streets. Plus individuals who go around trying to sell various substances... So regardless of sex, clothing, race, or any other variable of appearance, you can't say for sure that anyone really is safe.

I don't agree with the idea that if a woman locks her door when a white male passes by, she is being prudent and practicing personnal safety, but if she locks the door when a black male passes by, she is being a racist.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder too if what GZ did is try to detain TM so he wouldn't get away before the police arrived. If that's what happened, I can see GZ using his gun to force TM to stay. If GZ was fairly close to TM, I think it's likely that TM knew he couldn't run because GZ could shoot him. But if GZ was close enough to TM, TM may have thought he had a chance to rush GZ to get the gun away from him. If he dived for the gun, it's a good bet a struggle ensued, which would be how they ended up on the ground and how GZ got the injuries to the back of his head. I can see either of them screaming for help in that scenario. In that struggle, GZ could have pulled the trigger at point blank range, killing TM.

That is a possible scenario. It fits all the physical evidence at the scene. But one problem that I see is that the various neighbor witnesses all reported hearing the yelling and looking out and then calling 911. And almost all of them seem to leave only enough time, from when the fight starts, to allow for only some quick rolling around on the ground and then a gunshot. I don't think there was enough time for all the actions you have in your hypothetical fight.

I think it is possible that GZ pulled his gun ahead of time, to try to capture TM, but there is no actual evidence of that. The girl on the phone who was talking with TM to right when they started fighting did not say anything about a gun, or GZ threatening TM.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is possible that GZ pulled his gun ahead of time, to try to capture TM, but there is no actual evidence of that. The girl on the phone who was talking with TM to right when they started fighting did not say anything about a gun, or GZ threatening TM.

As much as the prosecution wanted her to back their scenario, she was their worst witness. How people can disregard her statements, while on the phone with Martin, at the time of the incident, is beyond me.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a possible scenario. It fits all the physical evidence at the scene. But one problem that I see is that the various neighbor witnesses all reported hearing the yelling and looking out and then calling 911. And almost all of them seem to leave only enough time, from when the fight starts, to allow for only some quick rolling around on the ground and then a gunshot. I don't think there was enough time for all the actions you have in your hypothetical fight.

I think it is possible that GZ pulled his gun ahead of time, to try to capture TM, but there is no actual evidence of that. The girl on the phone who was talking with TM to right when they started fighting did not say anything about a gun, or GZ threatening TM.

I disagree the fight was too long for a struggle for a gun. I could see a fight like that taking 3 or 4 min., if the fighters were equally matched. All sorts of things could happen. The gun might have fallen on the ground once or twice, with both guys grabbing for it. They could have been locked in power struggle, with GZ gripping the gun and TM with his hands over GZ's trying to keep it pointed away from him. This could go on for a while.

The woman on the 911 call with the operator with calls for help heard in the background didn't see the two men at all. She very clearly states that she can't see them, she doesn't want to go out to look, she doesn't know who they are, nor has she any idea what the fight is about. So it seems to me nothing in that call negated the scenario I presented. I could see it happening that way, but it's only one theory. I could never say I believe that's what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So had I been on the jury, I would have had no choice but to acquit as well...but it would make me completely sick to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And there are very few men, period, that have never heard a car door lock, because a woman didn't feel safe alone stopped at a traffic light or parking lot when they walk by.

I've heard that click a few times. It came with the territory of being male. I never blamed girls and women for it. We've always been more likely to be violent.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree the fight was too long for a struggle for a gun. I could see a fight like that taking 3 or 4 min., if the fighters were equally matched. All sorts of things could happen. The gun might have fallen on the ground once or twice, with both guys grabbing for it. They could have been locked in power struggle, with GZ gripping the gun and TM with his hands over GZ's trying to keep it pointed away from him. This could go on for a while.

The woman on the 911 call with the operator with calls for help heard in the background didn't see the two men at all. She very clearly states that she can't see them, she doesn't want to go out to look, she doesn't know who they are, nor has she any idea what the fight is about. So it seems to me nothing in that call negated the scenario I presented. I could see it happening that way, but it's only one theory. I could never say I believe that's what happened beyond a reasonable doubt. So had I been on the jury, I would have had no choice but to acquit as well...but it would make me completely sick to do it.

Yeah, but all of them seem to suggest that the fight started and ended pretty quickly, like around 1 minute. if the fight was 4 minutes long it would have started when GZ hung up on 911 and like 2 minutes Before TMs phone hung up on Jeantel.

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

7:13:41 — The end of Zimmerman's call to Sanford police.[14]

7:16:00 – 7:16:59 — Martin's call from the girl goes dead during this minute.[14][15]

7:16:11 — First 911 call from witness about a fight, calls for help heard.[16]

7:16:55 — Gunshot heard on 911 call.[17]

According to this timeline, there was less then a minute between when TMs phone went dead (when Jeantel said she heard someone just starting to fight), and when TM got shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My bad, I just googled it and got wrong info.

I didn't see B37 as being very effective at swaying others at all. I think all 6 seen the evidence presented and voted accordingly.

No problem. I just wanted to be accurate. I'm not saying B37 swayed other jurors. I was only responding to a comment you made that you doubted 1 juror could influence other jurors. My point is I think it's possible one person can be enormously influential in persuading others to come around to his way of thinking. I don't know that's what happened--obviously I wasn't there. In her interview, B37 did say there was one holdout. She was the one who wanted more information about the manslaughter charge. Putting it altogether, I suspect the "holdout" was leaning toward a guilty verdict to manslaughter. A lot of people speculate the one holdout was the Hispanic juror. I think it must happen sometimes that a single dissenting juror changes his vote on the basis of being the "odd man out" and wanting to conform--or possibly to get things over with so they can all go home. That's not how it should be, but I'm a realist; these are people and they can't leave their human nature outside the deliberation room like muddy shoes.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, and it nothing to do with their skin color, either.

What I found funny, is when I was hitchhiking. The older lady doing 40mph rolling their windows up. Guess they thought I was able to hit a moving target.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but all of them seem to suggest that the fight started and ended pretty quickly, like around 1 minute. if the fight was 4 minutes long it would have started when GZ hung up on 911 and like 2 minutes Before TMs phone hung up on Jeantel.

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

According to this timeline, there was less then a minute between when TMs phone went dead (when Jeantel said she heard someone just starting to fight), and when TM got shot.

OK, I can buy that. But that only makes my suggested theory all the more possible, not less likely. If Zimmerman got close to TM and held his gun on TM, ordering him to stop right there, and TM chooses instead to lunge for the gun, A struggle between the two to get control of the gun could happen in a minute or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if Z had his gun out, he would have fired at TM`s frist punch,not waited to be jumped on and beaten all most into unconscious,Even Jantel believes TM threw the frist punch

In an interview with HuffPost Live’s Marc Lamont Hill this week, Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon Martin’s friend and “star witness” in the George Zimmerman trial, said she believes Martin threw the first punch in the altercation that resulted in his death last year.

“I believe Trayvon hit first,” she said.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/17/rachel-jeantel-i-believe-trayvon-hit-first/

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if Z had his gun out, he would have fired at TM`s frist punch,not waited to be jumped on and beaten all most into unconscious,Even Jantel believes TM threw the frist punch

In an interview with HuffPost Live’s Marc Lamont Hill this week, Rachel Jeantel, Trayvon Martin’s friend and “star witness” in the George Zimmerman trial, said she believes Martin threw the first punch in the altercation that resulted in his death last year.

“I believe Trayvon hit first,” she said.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/07/17/rachel-jeantel-i-believe-trayvon-hit-first/

I belive Trayvon punched first, after Zimmerman grabbed Trayvon", she said. I read the whole thing in context, I don't pick and choice what to read too fit my world view. I love facts not out of context blurbs of a interview from someone.

However if Zimmerman had the gun out beforehand, which is more likely than him getting out with in his hostiler looking for an adress. Thus the point Regi was making that he lied about how the the incident went down in the frist place.

My dad has CC license but doesn't feel the need too carry a gun everywhere, he goes to, if zimmerman feels he must carry everywere he goes he's either paronid or needs too move to a diffrent neghiborhood.

In fact most of the witness testimonty, contracts Zimmerman's stories of events. I still cannot see how the jury came to the conlusion he was not guilty. One of the jurors known as B37 even admited in her interview thier was false truths in Zimmerman story of events. She even went so far as too say she put in too much on what the dectetive said of Zimmermans story.( The jury was told to ingore that part of testimonay).

She also still said she thought "his heart was in the right place, and he learned a good leson about not going too far". Yes she did say that in her interview with Anderson Cooper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll agree that if people want to blame the Jury for letting GZ go, then they are actually blaming the Prosecusion and the DAs office. They have to approve every juror, just as the defense does.

A poster was assessing the jurors and I commented that six others could have come to another decision.

If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but you seemed to turn what I said into something it wasn't.

That he's tapping on the flashlight does not prove anything. It may Suggest something, but proves nothing. Perhaps that is why he stood at Retreat View Circle for several minutes. Trying to fix his flashlight. That theory has just as much chance of being true as yours does.

I don't pick apart evidence and circumstances and offer some other alternative explanation.

I take the facts and circumstances and apply common sense and I take a lot of time, thought and consideration as I do so, and every opinion I form or conclusion I arrive at is based on fact, circumstance, and common sense.

Almost every single person who was a witness in this trial had some detail that was wrong or said something that was obviously wrong. The key Prosecution witness, Jeantel, was just as big a liar.

I wasn't talking about "every single person"...I was talking about the man who was on trial for shooting and killing an unarmed teen and who was claiming self defense.

If Zimmerman lied and/or emvbellished any event of that evening, then he shouldn't be believed about any events of that evening, period.

Once someone's been shown to lie and or embellish, then in weighing credibility, one has to look to how that lie/embellishment benefits that person.

Observation: You believed Jeantel when she said that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a creepy ass cracker, but you chose not to believe her re: the dialogue of the confrontation.

I'll agree with that, GZ kept remembering details and saying that this happened over there and back there I actually did this and that. They should have done several walk throughs with him and then done a re-enactment with the timeline completely correct.

That re-enactment was unacceptable.

It's inadequate as a re-enactment, regardless, but once correlated with the police call, the statements to Singleton and the written statement, then it should have been glaringly apparent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Die checker, you choice to belive that Trayvon said this creppy ass cracker, which most teens say all the time in innner city schools. The word cacker is another form of Redneck. Its iiii

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A poster was assessing the jurors and I commented that six others could have come to another decision.

If you don't agree with that, that's fine, but you seemed to turn what I said into something it wasn't.

Huh? Who was chosen for the Jury or not (As in "6 others") was directly done by the Prosecution. They are directly related.

If your point is simply that 6 other people might have decided differently, then that still falls on the Prosecution, as they picked these people, and likely would chose people with similar attitudes and ethos.

I don't pick apart evidence and circumstances and offer some other alternative explanation.

I take the facts and circumstances and apply common sense and I take a lot of time, thought and consideration as I do so, and every opinion I form or conclusion I arrive at is based on fact, circumstance, and common sense.

That is exactly what you are doing.... Cherry picking tiny bits of evidence and weaving a story out of it and calling it Proof.

My alternative explaination fits the same evidence. What is common sense to you may not be so for everyone else.

I wasn't talking about "every single person"...I was talking about the man who was on trial for shooting and killing an unarmed teen and who was claiming self defense.

So you're going to cherry pick who you chose to believe? You're going to throw out evidence because one person is a liar and then hold tight to other evidence presented from another liar? That is call hypocracy, I believe.

If Zimmerman lied and/or emvbellished any event of that evening, then he shouldn't be believed about any events of that evening, period.

Once someone's been shown to lie and or embellish, then in weighing credibility, one has to look to how that lie/embellishment benefits that person.

This goes directly to what I posted earlier. Almost every witness "remembered" details later, or embellished their account. Should all those people's testemony be tossed out? It is a simple Yes or No, thank you.

Observation: You believed Jeantel when she said that Martin referred to Zimmerman as a creepy ass cracker, but you chose not to believe her re: the dialogue of the confrontation.

I've used the term in sarcastic remarks, but I've never based a single bit of my opinion on any of the racist remarks Miss Jeantel said. Other posters have pushed this angle, that Jeantel was a racist and TM also, but I've not waded into that.

That re-enactment was unacceptable.

It's inadequate as a re-enactment, regardless, but once correlated with the police call, the statements to Singleton and the written statement, then it should have been glaringly apparent.

I agree. It is bad enough that I think we shouldn't even be talking about what happened in that re-enactment, because it was done so badly.

And yet 90% of Anti-GZ remarks are that his Testemony did not match the Re-enactment, which did not match his police statement. The large events were roughly the same, but details changed.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.