George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #11 Tues. July 9

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Who is this? There is a big white spot on their screen. It's very distracting!
 
Inobu said:
I was going to stay out of this but after seeing the reenactment I could not believe all the inconsistencies. With that I started looking into it and too much of it did not make sense. One loose thread can unravel a whole sweater.

Here is the thread that got me going.

If you listen to the reenactment video at the 2:41 mark of that video

GZ says:

"Like I said, ahh my wife is I left for the grocery store and I felt like something is off..."

He abruptly stops and changes what he was going to say. When someone is narrating they use certain periphrases. Like I or they were "like".

To complete his sentence......Like I said, ahh my wife is like that kid looks suspicious. Note: this is just a guess but more importantly it places his wife with him during the initial sighting. Adding this into the sequence of events it allows everyone to be in position for the chain of events.

If GZ has to take his wife back home this gives TM time to walk to the mailbox shelter to wait out the rain. This allows GZ to return home get the gun and drive back toward the club house.

There is a video that shows the lights from cars passing by the club house. If shows a different chain of events than what GZ said in the reenactment.

Also TM would have mention GZ following him earlier than the mailbox.

With that I mapped out TM movements and placed GZ in locations based on what the non emergency 911 operator asked GZ. Remember the 911 operator asked GZ was TM at the clubhouse and GZ said yes. Then GZ stated that TM was comming toward me. "He is checking me out I don't know what his problem is" soon after says that TM is running.

Meanwhile Rachel is telling TM to run, GZ confirms that TM is running which is what Rachel told TM to do.

Later on GZ in his reenactments makes a hand jester that TM went down the dogwalk but the states that TM came back. The problem is GZ says that TM made a right and he lost sight and exited the truck. When he exited the truck you can hear the wind but it soon stops in the 911 call.
Click to expand...

BBM CBM SBM
Wow, Inobu, your technical skill is amazing..and very much admired and appreciated !!
As many of us already thought, Rachel Jeantel's testimony is quite accurate and fits every aspect of the 911 call. Her IQ has been questioned W R O N G L Y imo....her honesty has been proven right to the second in your analysis!! IMO
I shortened Inobu's revealing post so that it could be taken in in increments, given how complex and detailed it is. IMO
 
Leilei said:
Why wouldn't it be possible? Very confused, as he can absolutely take the stand if he chooses to, legally. I wish that he *would* take the stand, personally, but I highly doubt that he will. IMO.
Click to expand...

I think the response about this not being possible was related to another poster suggesting that GZ could or should be forced to testify. IMO
 
defense will be done tomorrow. then rebuttal and closings, prob going to the jury by friday at the latest. IMO it will be a quick aquittal, and if not, it will be several days and a hung jury, but again thats JMO
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
No. She said he was home at the back of his house. Her words.

HE said " HE WAS AT his Daddy's house in the back"

Well if he was there, And then the phone hangs up. Then when she calls him back, She said he was breathing hard... like he was running.

Then he tells her he sees GZ and TM says to GZ " Why are you following me?"

Those are all actions taken by TM.

IF he sees GZ he could have turned around again and run away and GZ never would have caught him... But he didn't. He confronted GZ. It makes sense with where the fight happened and what GZ says happened.
Click to expand...

TM was in a catch 22. If he ran it would have been admitting to guilt. Look what happened when he ran the first time. GZ told 911 he is getting away.

If TM ran GZ could make up another story of how TM attacked him and shot him in the back. We would be arguing that scenario.

Watch his reenactment video and watch how GZ shows us how he held TM hand (with TM on top) and pulled the gun with the same hand.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
She did say that but I am not sure that was TM. I wonder if that was GZ saying that. Remember the cell phone is now in the grass most likely or at least in his pocket because she said he was talking on his headset. So the phone was in his pocket.

I think :get off get off was GZ. Not TM. I don't believe that TM was afraid of GZ. I think he went after him as her testimony says.

I have to judge her testimony based on What I believe to be true. Just as the jury would. I take some but not all.. Some sounds too much like editorializing and some sounds like narrative to me.. But some sounds completely factual.
Click to expand...

Okay, but if we stick to the facts and for the record, she DID say TM was telling GZ to "Get Off" which would lead the evidence in the direction of GZ assaulting TM first

George Zimmerman trial: Friend testifies Trayvon Martin said "Get off, get off" before deadly altercation

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_...id-get-off-get-off-before-deadly-altercation/
 
Leilei said:
Why wouldn't it be possible? Very confused, as he can absolutely take the stand if he chooses to, legally. I wish that he *would* take the stand, personally, but I highly doubt that he will. IMO.
Click to expand...

...possible to force him on the stand. I believe it's up to him.
 
Well, color me confused. Does anyone understand the purpose of this witness yet?
 
sacrablue said:
There should be. Make up a bunch of stuff and not be questioned for it makes no sense to me. Why have a trial of lies and stories? Waste of everyone's time. IMO
Click to expand...

GZ, or any defendant, can tell the truth or "make up a bunch of stuff", but a trial unravels any stories and seeks the truth through the evidence (testimony and exhibits). The jurors are the finders of fact, and in most cases, they will get it right based on the evidence and the law (instructions) --- but not always.

Our system is not perfect but it is definitely more, more, more perfect than in other certain countries where a person is tried/convicted/executed based on lies and stories. IMO
 
ShadyLady said:
...possible to force him on the stand. I believe it's up to him.
Click to expand...

Thanks, totally misunderstood and didn't see "forced". I need new eyes after this and the Arias trial, my current ones are tired from all the reading :)
 
katiewonders said:
GZ, or any defendant, can tell the truth or "make up a bunch of stuff", but a trial unravels any stories and seeks the truth through the evidence (testimony and exhibits). The jurors are the finders of fact, and in most cases, they will get it right based on the evidence and the law (instructions) --- but not always.

Our system is not perfect but it is definitely more, more, more perfect than in other certain countries where a person is tried/convicted/executed based on lies and stories. IMO
Click to expand...

BBM

ITA. It's also vastly superior to places where justice consists of mob rule. IMO.
 
O/T: Does OMA speak with an accent, his voice is interesting but I can't figure it out.
 
Inobu said:
TM was in a catch 22. If he ran it would have been admitting to guilt. Look what happened when he ran the first time. GZ told 911 he is getting away.

If TM ran GZ could make up another story of how TM attacked him and shot him in the back. We would be arguing that scenario.

Watch his reenactment video and watch how GZ shows us how he held TM hand (with TM on top) and pulled the gun with the same hand.
Click to expand...

Well we know he ran away from GZ already. So why not again. Because at this point, My feeling is he wanted to END it. He confronted GZ.


I don't believe for a moment that GZ meant to do TM any harm. Your statement shows you believe that GZ was out to get TM. I don't think that at all is in evidence. There is nothing in evidence that shows that GZ was violent or had a habit of attacking people in the neighborhood.

I have watched the video and I don't feel that little discrepancies mean anything. I think it goes to the truth of the telling.

The big details all stay the same.
 
The defense is not bringing in the toxicology report according to CNN.
 
Has there been any expert/certified medical examiner that testified that GZ had received or was facing imminent death or great bodily harm? If not, then GZ's account is just his account, i.e. hypothetical claims, conjecture and unsupported by evidence, and should not be accepted as facts or the truth, IMO. The only way to accept GZ's account without matching injuries is if TM were to have carried a lethal weapon on his person and was threatening GZ with it. IMO.

How it appears to anyone isn't a scientific method of determining the degree of his injuries. I have fragile blood vessels and after a couple of hours of skiing, my legs are entirely black and blue from all the bruising, yet I wasn't injured. Ditto with nosebleeds, so "looks" is not a scientific way of determining the degree of physical trauma. IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 177 more.
Total: 1,843 (members: 178, guests: 1,665)

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
1,665
Total visitors
1,843
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,070
Messages
18,103,451
Members
230,985
Latest member
PIBrilliant
Back
Top