17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #19

[Karmady]

Let me show you another reason that I don’t believe George’s version of that night as told by his father and attorney last week on Sean Hannity’s show.

From the interview:

These are the sidewalks being mentioned from the direction and point of view as GZ walked on the “main sidewalk” while Trayvon ran to the right.:

This is the point of view from the sidewalk intersection looking to the right in the direction that Trayvon ran:

Below is from a point of view walking back to his vehicle as he approached the sidewalk intersection:

As he approached this wide open sidewalk intersection, IN FULL KNOWLEDGE of the direction Trayvon Martin ran, read what we’re being asked to believe about what happened next:



REALLY? Take another look down that long sidewalk and explain that one to me. Where was Trayvon supposed to be hiding? Am I supposed to believe that George wasn’t even looking down that sidewalk, knowing that the “up to no good” kid he’d been following, RAN in that direction?

Sure George, sure.

I was born at night, but it wasn’t last night, pal.



Credit for these informative pictures goes to Marinade Dave http://marinadedave.com/

Sean Hannity Interview:
http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...-trayvon-martin-shooting?page=2#ixzz1rTT8s4rF

IMO, MOO, JHMO, etc.

Hello! I'm brand new to this thread and to WS. It took me quite a while to work up to registering and getting my registration approved, and then to get the nerve up to chime in. lol But this seems to be as good a place as any to post for the very first time. I can't quote your quote-within-a quote, but it says, basically, that Trayvon approached George from the left from the sidewalk between the buildings and said "asked him did he have a problem. George said no." Then you say that you don't believe this because there was no place for Trayvon to have been "hiding" and that George would have seen him.

Where does the hiding part come from? Did the interviewee also say that Trayvon had been hiding? To me, from the quoted parts of the interview, it sounds like Trayvon just approached George and said something to which George responded. I don't see from that statement any reason to infer that he didn't see Trayvon coming or that George made, or had any reason to make, an effort to avoid that contact. I think I've seen the word "hiding" mentioned somewhere in all of this, but I don't remember where that term came from.

 

[uvamerica]

Hello! I'm brand new to this thread and to WS. It took me quite a while to work up to registering and getting my registration approved, and then to get the nerve up to chime in. lol But this seems to be as good a place as any to post for the very first time. I can't quote your quote-within-a quote, but it says, basically, that Trayvon approached George from the left from the sidewalk between the buildings and said "asked him did he have a problem. George said no." Then you say that you don't believe this because there was no place for Trayvon to have been "hiding" and that George would have seen him.

Where does the hiding part come from? Did the interviewee also say that Trayvon had been hiding? To me, from the quoted parts of the interview, it sounds like Trayvon just approached George and said something to which George responded. I don't see from that statement any reason to infer that he didn't see Trayvon coming or that George made, or had any reason to make, an effort to avoid that contact. I think I've seen the word "hiding" mentioned somewhere in all of this, but I don't remember where that term came from.

:greetings: :welcome:

 

[jjenny]

Even according to Trayvon's g/f Trayvon was the one to ask the question first "why are you following me?" Why is it so hard to believe Trayvon approached Zimmerman?

 

[vlpate]

You know, Zimmerman Sr. really goes into major details for someone who wasn't even there that night.


~jmo~

Yep, I agree. The only testimony that will matter has already been set in stone - the three video taped interviews of GZ with SPD.

IMO, Mr. Zimmerman is trying his son's side of the case in the court of public opinion. He has a right to defend his son - he's not under oath anymore than Crump, Parks, the other attorneys, the media, or the Martins. None of them are witnesses, nor will they ever be witnesses to what actually happened. IMO.
I just don't watch these interviews if I can help it....confuses the facts and puts my TV in danger.

 

[vlpate]

Even according to Trayvon's g/f Trayvon was the one to ask the question first "why are you following me?" Why is it so hard to believe Trayvon approached Zimmerman?

Why is it so hard to believe he would "hide" or look suspicious when there is proof he's looked suspicious in the past and was actually up to something. :banghead:

"In October, a school police investigator said he saw Trayvon on the school surveillance camera in an unauthorized area "hiding and being suspicious." Then he said he saw Trayvon mark up a door with "W.T.F"Link

 

[Velouria]

This is, understandably, a widely held misconception - that there would be bruising on Trayvon's knuckles. Bruises take a while to appear after blunt trauma and this is because bruising is simply blood being released from broken blood vessels, which takes time. Sometimes it takes hours for a bruise to appear.

Trayvon's blood would have stopped flowing very shortly after his heart ceased to beat and, as we know from tons of these cases, his blood would begin to pool in the areas at the lowest point of his body.

I was pretty amazed, watching the funeral director's interviews, that no one questioned him at all on this. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall if he mentioned anything about broken bones in his hand?

There is still inflamation at the site of antemortem bruising, even if visible pooling or abrasions are absent.

Recent research has focused on improved techniques for distinguishing between an antemortem and a postmortem injury by analyzing damaged tissue. Antemortem injuries show signs of inflammation, while postmortem injuries do not. Chinese scientists have found that tissue from antemortem injuries contains a chemical involved in inflammation leukotriene B4 (LTB4). Postmortem injuries were found to have no LTB4. This could help the pathologist classify injuries more accurately.

http://www.enotes.com/antemortem-injuries-reference/antemortem-injuries

It's possible the funeral director did not note any tell-tale inflammation on Trayvon's hands that would indicate a fight.

However, it goes without saying that the pathologist's report should tell us much more with greater detail regarding the condition of Trayvon's body..

 

[vlpate]

Hello! I'm brand new to this thread and to WS. It took me quite a while to work up to registering and getting my registration approved, and then to get the nerve up to chime in. lol But this seems to be as good a place as any to post for the very first time. I can't quote your quote-within-a quote, but it says, basically, that Trayvon approached George from the left from the sidewalk between the buildings and said "asked him did he have a problem. George said no." Then you say that you don't believe this because there was no place for Trayvon to have been "hiding" and that George would have seen him.

Where does the hiding part come from? Did the interviewee also say that Trayvon had been hiding? To me, from the quoted parts of the interview, it sounds like Trayvon just approached George and said something to which George responded. I don't see from that statement any reason to infer that he didn't see Trayvon coming or that George made, or had any reason to make, an effort to avoid that contact. I think I've seen the word "hiding" mentioned somewhere in all of this, but I don't remember where that term came from.

Hi & :welcome:

I think Poppa was making the point that Trayvon would had to have been hiding in order for GZ not to see him down the length of the sidewalk. IMO

Great first post

 

[vlpate]

There is still inflamation at the site of antemortem bruising, even if visible pooling or abrasions are absent.



http://www.enotes.com/antemortem-injuries-reference/antemortem-injuries

It's possible the funeral director did not note any tell-tale inflammation on Trayvon's hands that would indicate a fight.

However, it goes without saying that the pathologist's report should tell us much more with greater detail regarding the condition of Trayvon's body..

BEM: Exactly!! Thank you

 

[Chris_Texas]

If public opinion is how we run our country we need to start with government.
While we do have legal system, we do not have justice , just look at some cases or at 17,000 inmates released in California 2 years ago.
The fact that I am not in agreement with how LE handled this case, does not mean that it is OK to keep on doing things incorrectly.

NO trial should be held in the media, or public opinion.
You can not get justice that way, you can only stirr the pot that way.

I think I did a poor job communicating my point, so I will be clear:

I do not believe Zimmerman should be tried by the media or in the court of public opinion.

I think it's fine to discuss it, much like we do Casey Anthony, but that's it.

I do, however, believe that the court of public opinion is the ONLY place the police department can be tried. Zimmerman is likely just an over-zealous bully that got away with killing an unarmed kid. I believe that he is unlikely to be convicted of anything. We will likely never have the answers to this shooting, we'll never be able to prove beyond a doubt what happened, but we CAN have answers about this department.

 

[Karmady]

Hi & :welcome:

I think Poppa was making the point that Trayvon would had to have been hiding in order for GZ not to see him down the length of the sidewalk. IMO

Great first post

Thanks for the welcome To clarify, I see that is his point, but my question is where does the notion of hiding come from in the first place? When I read the snippets from the interview, I don't see a suggestion that Trayvon had been hiding or that George didn't see him approach from the left. So why/how does "no place to hide" come into play in the first place? As I read it, George was approached from the left, TM made no effort to hide, and GZ saw him, heard him and responded to him. Who said TM was hiding is my question, I guess. I probably not being very clear :/

eta: okay, I went back and read your post. Am I understanding correctly that the hiding part comes from OP'er?

 

[Nana46]

Hello! I'm brand new to this thread and to WS. It took me quite a while to work up to registering and getting my registration approved, and then to get the nerve up to chime in. lol But this seems to be as good a place as any to post for the very first time. I can't quote your quote-within-a quote, but it says, basically, that Trayvon approached George from the left from the sidewalk between the buildings and said "asked him did he have a problem. George said no." Then you say that you don't believe this because there was no place for Trayvon to have been "hiding" and that George would have seen him.

Where does the hiding part come from? Did the interviewee also say that Trayvon had been hiding? To me, from the quoted parts of the interview, it sounds like Trayvon just approached George and said something to which George responded. I don't see from that statement any reason to infer that he didn't see Trayvon coming or that George made, or had any reason to make, an effort to avoid that contact. I think I've seen the word "hiding" mentioned somewhere in all of this, but I don't remember where that term came from.

WELCOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!:seeya:

 

[LambChop]

I do know for my jewellry there is. All of my jewellry as well had to be appraised and an additional rider is in place. It is only covered on my policy under the rider for insurance purposes but there are various insurance policies.

It depends on what your jewelry is worth. If the value is over a certain amount you have to get a rider because your regular insurance coverage will not cover it. jmo

 

[LambChop]

Thanks for the welcome To clarify, I see that is his point, but my question is where does the notion of hiding come from in the first place? When I read the snippets from the interview, I don't see a suggestion that Trayvon had been hiding or that George didn't see him approach from the left. So why/how does "no place to hide" come into play in the first place? As I read it, George was approached from the left, TM made no effort to hide, and GZ saw him, heard him and responded to him. Who said TM was hiding is my question, I guess. I probably not being very clear :/

It's not clear he was hiding only that TM told his girlfriend that GZ had found him because TM thought he had lost GZ. jmo

 

[Karmady]

It's not clear he was hiding only that TM told his girlfriend that GZ had found him because TM thought he had lost GZ. jmo

Thank you! That's what I was wondering.

 

[Chris_Texas]

IMHO, the only thing they would want to do quietly is not make the arrest. I think they are waiting and waiting for the passions to die down before taking the dangerous step of announcing there will be arrest.

I find it interesting that you find the idea of an arrest dangerous. I am impressed, most would say the only danger was NOT making an arrest. You are clearly paying attention to the racial tensions on the other side of this issue.

 

[lauriej]

There is still inflamation at the site of antemortem bruising, even if visible pooling or abrasions are absent.



http://www.enotes.com/antemortem-injuries-reference/antemortem-injuries

It's possible the funeral director did not note any tell-tale inflammation on Trayvon's hands that would indicate a fight.

However, it goes without saying that the pathologist's report should tell us much more with greater detail regarding the condition of Trayvon's body..

--exactly. a funeral director is most certainly not an M.E. his job, once receiving the body <modsnip> is to prepare the body for burial, not conduct an examination.

 

[Elley Mae]

Yep, I agree. The only testimony that will matter has already been set in stone - the three video taped interviews of GZ with SPD.

IMO, Mr. Zimmerman is trying his son's side of the case in the court of public opinion. He has a right to defend his son - he's not under oath anymore than Crump, Parks, the other attorneys, the media, or the Martins. None of them are witnesses, nor will they ever be witnesses to what actually happened. IMO.
I just don't watch these interviews if I can help it....confuses the facts and puts my TV in danger.

Yes I do the same thing, Some of the "head Lines" tell me straight away there is favoritism to one side of the other I won't even read, I want the facts and not someones opinion of what happened and why I should feel the way they feel. They lost me on this one with the pictures. I pretty much knew then that some deciphering and extra reading would be taking place.
So with that said, Zimmerman told dispatch to have LE come straight in past the pool on the left and then turn left iirc to me he would be telling them to come in where he was/had left his car. He then went to the sidewalk that runs across the width of the property with the townhomes to his right. He would then be able to walk up to the first set of townhomes and us the building as cover to peer around the corner of the building to watch as TM was walking or (whatever) towards the home he is going to. I wonder if at this point/time is some of the lost time. idk

 

[LambChop]

There is still inflamation at the site of antemortem bruising, even if visible pooling or abrasions are absent.



http://www.enotes.com/antemortem-injuries-reference/antemortem-injuries

It's possible the funeral director did not note any tell-tale inflammation on Trayvon's hands that would indicate a fight.

However, it goes without saying that the pathologist's report should tell us much more with greater detail regarding the condition of Trayvon's body..

And I believe the funeral director was also asked if he had observed any scrapes or scratches on TM's knuckles or hands and the director said no because they would have to apply something to wounds on the hands to cover it. If you were banging someone's head, who had no hair to grab onto, on the pavement with your hands how could you do that without being injured yourself? There is nothing but the head to grab???? jmo

 

[Adrienne37]

And I believe the funeral director was also asked if he had observed any scrapes or scratches on TM's knuckles or hands and the director said no because they would have to apply something to wounds on the hands to cover it. If you were banging someone's head, who had no hair to grab onto, on the pavement with your hands how could you do that without being injured yourself? There is nothing but the head to grab???? jmo

His hands should have looked like ground beef if that were the case unless of course he was holding onto Zimmerman's ears and using them to slam his head repeatedly into the concrete. The only logical conclusion is that Trayvon was standing up, holding Zimmerman by his feet/ankles, and slamming his head into the concrete in that manner particularly given that the injury on the "enhanced video" shows a "possible" wound to the crown of his scalp. Dang, for a 140-160 pound stringbean, that's pretty impressive.


~jmo~

 

[LambChop]

--exactly. a funeral director is most certainly not an M.E. his job, once receiving the body ( which arrives freshly washed , as "Joypath" has informed us ) is to prepare the body for burial, not conduct an examination.

I believe it was one of the MODs who worked for a funeral home said ME does not wash the body specifically, just areas needed for their report and when it arrives at the funeral home the body is then washed, dressed and whatever cosmetics needs be applied will be done. Hands, face and hair would be visible and they would pay attention to that. jmo