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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Inobu said:
Food for thought.

When someone makes up a story they reenact the true event in their mind and make verbal adjustments. The jesters are often subconscious and contradict the verbal suggestion.
Click to expand...

I so agree. They must think through the real events to make up a story they think fits with what they know occurred. And this is why SCAN statement analysis can be so effective. Because bits of truth will slip out, despite best attempts to keep it surpressed.

I wish the State would have done something like your simulation to show what could have happened and fit their evidence and witness statements.

Next time, could you be so kind as to send to the State attorneys' office before trial.

:seeya:
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
Now I heard him to say.. this is the last witness before they have to have the hearing and be heard on the witnesses that the state has an issue with...
Click to expand...

Oh, I think you're right. They were arguing about the reconstruction, etc. from the expert and the scope of his testimony last evening.
 
deelytful1 said:
Zimmerman Reenactment.mpeg - YouTube
After re-watching the reenactment, I remember my first thought when watching was that the poor kid was lost!! I lived in a huge gated community where every home looked exactly the same and on a dark Florida night.. it would be so hard to discern what street you were even on... MOO..
Click to expand...

Trayvon could have very well been lost, which makes this whole thing so much more tragic.
 
ScarlettScarpetta said:
There has been testimony to his injuries. He did not have to be in imminent death or have severe injuries to have a right to defend his person. Not under Florida Law.

The whole point of self defense is to save you from life threatening injuries and great bodily harm.
Click to expand...

IMO, then I am curious - what is the criteria for legal, reasonable determination that someone killed another in self-defense because he or she was facing imminent death or great bodily harm, according to the self-defense law you cited in a previous post, if there are no eye witnesses or physical signs of great injuries that would suggest such a threat did exist? Is the killer/defense's own account enough? IMO, JMO
 
I have been unable to watch this trial live---Why?? Because we will never know what really happened...Trevon is dead--so we will never hear his side...and even if GZ is telling the truth at times--in cases of extreme stress such as this--events get jumbled/ misinterpreted....The only thing I know for sure is that a 17 yr old teen went out to get Skittles and a drink and ended up dead. What a terrible waste!!! And the victim was unarmed...I don't think GZ intended this to happen but it did...I'm just going to sit back and let the jury decide. I am glad this went before a jury---than both sides can be heard---and let an independent group of peers decide.
 
Chester_from_THM said:
I so agree. They must think through the real events to make up a story they think fits with what they know occurred. And this is why SCAN statement analysis can be so effective. Because bits of truth will slip out, despite best attempts to keep it surpressed.

I wish the State would have done something like your simulation to show what could have happened and fit their evidence and witness statements.

Next time, could you be so kind as to send to the State attorneys' office before trial.

:seeya:
Click to expand...

How many questions are typical when doing a "voice stress test"? I know that during the "voice stress test" that was recorded by LE the day after the shooting that Zimmerman was asked two questions about the shooting and then other questions that had nothing to do with the shooting. Those questions were something to the effect of was Zimmerman in fear of his life and did he act in self defense.
 
qwerty2013 said:
IMO, then I am curious - what is the criteria for legal, reasonable determination that someone killed another in self-defense because he or she was facing imminent death or great bodily harm, if there are no eye witnesses or physical signs of great injuries that would suggest such a threat did exist? Is the killer/defense's own account enough? IMO, JMO
Click to expand...


All he has to do is believe that he could endure great bodily harm or death. It does not have to actually happen. HE does not have to have injuries to be justified with self defense.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
History.—s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

It is not what I think.. It is the law that matters. I am only interested in the law and what the state can prove.
 
Glad to hear MOM's hammering will soon end!! He is questioning the witness as if the tapes had been altered!!!!! Enough of all of his unfounded insinuations and false allegations IMO

I have happily never seen any other lawyers in a court of law get away with the antics of West and O'Mara. In my area they would not get away with a fraction of it.IMO

Oh case ends tomorrow....closing arguments on Thursday? It's a mercy.
 
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...

IMO, GZ may have nailed TM at his dad's door if he chose to try to enter the apartment. IMO TM did not stand a chance either way.
 
Here is the problem. Everyone is basing the account on GZ testimony. You cannot take it for face value. GZ can make anything up as he is the author of events.

Even his 911 call. He could have told 911 that TM was dressed in a military uniform carrying a bomb. 911 would have documented it and recorded it but that does not mean it is the truth.

In this video I took Rachel account and matched it up with 911 and the key comments of GZ and it fills in a lot of gaps.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLfXNuxZIxY
 
Isabelle said:
IMO, GZ may have nailed TM at his dad's door if he chose to try to enter the apartment. IMO TM did not stand a chance either way.
Click to expand...

And Zimmerman would have claimed that Trayvon was breaking and entering, IMO.
 
Isabelle said:
IMO, GZ may have nailed TM at his dad's door if he chose to try to enter the apartment. IMO TM did not stand a chance either way.
Click to expand...

GZ was no where near him as per TM words and Rj testimony.. He said he was there and had lost him.

He was in the clear. AS per testimony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 2,201 (members: 179, guests: 2,022)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
2,022
Total visitors
2,201
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,094
Messages
18,103,620
Members
230,986
Latest member
eluluwho
Back
Top