George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion Thread #8

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I believe they were childhood friends. When TMs parents divorced, he moved away. They were reacquainted the beginning of Feb. maybe they were just catching up.

Maybe. She doesn't seem very chatty to me. Its hard for me to imagine, if they were catching up, they'd hang up for two minutes and call each other back and talk for another good long while, and hang up again for a couple minutes. I don't know if you watched her testimony about the phone calls, but she was handed a list of calls that occurred starting about an hour or so before Trayvon was shot, and it was about 15 calls. She stared at the list and said there were LOTS more than this! She was then informed this was only that one segment of time, not all day.

I'm just curious.

IMHO
 
TM doesn't need to go inside his house, he has every right to stand outside and talk to his friend on the phone. He may not have felt all that "scared" of GZ but may have been wondering why he was being followed. I would wonder why I was being followed. However, he did run from GZ, he didn't run towards him he ran from him. GZ, however was following him, not the other way around. GZ wasn't fearful of TM, he said in one of his interviews that he was and that was why he rolled up his window, but once TM ran, GZ must have known to not fear anymore, right? When someone runs from you one would think they are not a threat any longer.

IMO there are only two reasons why someone would run from someone in the situation presented -- either they were "scared" (although is has mostly been stated that TM was "in fear for his life", I'll go with "scared" to quote you) or they were up to no good.

Again, JMO.
 
Is it just me or does the prosecution seem to not go into details about the areas they need to? The defense seems to go into more detail and have the witness explain more. Or is that because it's the prosecution witness and they are limited to what they can ask?
 
Wouldn't they have bagged his hands since he was the shooter and done gunshot residue tests? I haven't heard anything about that, but I have not been able to watch as much as others.

I believe hands are only bagged on a deceased person, I think they did a gunshot residue test on gz though, because said he had shot his weapon (i guess to confirm) - in my opinion, based on what i've seen/read.
 
Maybe. She doesn't seem very chatty to me. Its hard for me to imagine, if they were catching up, they'd hang up for two minutes and call each other back and talk for another good long while, and hang up again for a couple minutes. I don't know if you watched her testimony about the phone calls, but she was handed a list of calls that occurred starting about an hour or so before Trayvon was shot, and it was about 15 calls. She stared at the list and said there were LOTS more than this! She was then informed this was only that one segment of time, not all day.

I'm just curious.

IMHO

Do we know for a fact that they were calls that went through?? Or was she calling him over and over and it was going to vm??

Thanks!
 
Can you get dna from tears, as if the person on top was crying there might be dna on the person under them? Or if the person on top was screaming would dna get on the other person from the spit in ones mouth? imo
 
Maybe. She doesn't seem very chatty to me. Its hard for me to imagine, if they were catching up, they'd hang up for two minutes and call each other back and talk for another good long while, and hang up again for a couple minutes. I don't know if you watched her testimony about the phone calls, but she was handed a list of calls that occurred starting about an hour or so before Trayvon was shot, and it was about 15 calls. She stared at the list and said there were LOTS more than this! She was then informed this was only that one segment of time, not all day.

I'm just curious.

IMHO

I don't think you can compare her demeanor while on the phone with a friend to her demeanor on the stand testifying about that friend's death.

The latter has nothing to do with the former. Just MO.
 
Ok, here goes my first GZ post... don't hurt me :)


If he wanted to kill somebody that night, would he really have called the emergency line first? He knew they were on their way. He knew people were watching him - he immediately said that in his statement. If you really want to intentionally kill somebody, surely these are not the best conditions to do it in. And if he is so adequately educated in criminal law as the prosecution is trying to put forth, then even more so he surely would know this is not the best way to commit a crime.

lisa, not meant with any malice, truly, just for a different point of view. . .

GZ did not call the emergency line first. He called the Non-Emergency number. He may not have had an expectation LE would be there immediately. He had called this number some 40+ times previously (I don't have a link, but it was in testimony), so he would have had a fairly good idea of how long it *could* take LE to respond.

I am not trying to say this is evidence of premeditation. I just mean that, to me, this goes against an argument that he went into this having an expectation police would be arriving imminently.

It is my opinion that LE arrived so quickly after the shooting because of all the neighbors calling 911.

:truce:
 
This has been bothering me about GZ response to LE immediately after the shooting:
When you take the CCW class, you are told, that if you do shoot someone, your response to LE should be:
1. "I was in fear for my life".
2. "I am too shook up/traumatized to answer any questions".
3. "I need to contact my attorney".
This is SOP. Why didn't GZ follow this protocol?
This is not my opinion. This was protocol from the CCW course I took at Gunsite Training Center. It was also the same for my BF who got his CCW at High Noon, a gun shop, shooting range, that offered courses. It is also stated in the Arizona CCW Handbook...which I don't have a link for and my copy is at my son's place.
Is Florida's CCW courses of a different mindset? Anyone?
 
Maybe he hit himself in the head with his own gun? One never knows...

This DNA testimony is huge!

I have always thought that the gun's recoil hit GZ in the face/nose, since he was in very close proximity to TM when the gun was fired. It's not like his arms were extended away from his own face.
 
Yes it does, I watch snapped all the time and every single woman who killed her husband in cold blood who claims it was "self defense" nine times out of ten called the police 1st or immediately after. If you are going to use self defense to cover your butt it's common sense you'd call the police.

Just taking a guess here, but were most of those women from Snapped calling from the privacy of their own homes or in a secluded location before they killed their husbands?

The difference here is that George called from a public location... he was surrounded by homes and neighbors. If you have "intent" to kill, which the prosecution needs to prove here, not just theorize about it... does it make sense to do it out in public where people or video cameras are likely watching and recording?
 
I believe hands are only bagged on a deceased person, I think they did a gunshot residue test on gz though, because said he had shot his weapon (i guess to confirm) - in my opinion, based on what i've seen/read.

No, the guy who shot my child, his hands were bagged and tested for gsr (gunshot residue) and btw he claimed self-defense, but was convicted of murder2.
 
I don't think you can compare her demeanor while on the phone with a friend to her demeanor on the stand testifying about that friend's death.

The latter has nothing to do with the former. Just MO.

I don't know. I think she seemed like a strong quiet but animated gal..

OMO
 
Maybe. She doesn't seem very chatty to me. Its hard for me to imagine, if they were catching up, they'd hang up for two minutes and call each other back and talk for another good long while, and hang up again for a couple minutes. I don't know if you watched her testimony about the phone calls, but she was handed a list of calls that occurred starting about an hour or so before Trayvon was shot, and it was about 15 calls. She stared at the list and said there were LOTS more than this! She was then informed this was only that one segment of time, not all day.

I'm just curious.

IMHO

Good question. I have learned to never try to guess what teenagers do on their phones...they are tethered to them all day like a lifeline. How did we survive when we were kids?
 
Do we know for a fact that they were calls that went through?? Or was she calling him over and over and it was going to vm??

Thanks!

They had a phone expert guy on, and he was answered - but in this case, RJ admitted she was talking to him all day and the "connections" were for 20 - 40 minutes each - so not like something that went to quick voicemail. The calls went back and forth - Trayvon calling her, then she'd call him a couple times, vice versa.

I don't know what her personality is usually like, but from what I saw on the witness stand it would be hard to carry on a conversation with her for more than a few minutes unless there was something she was "checking out" or getting input for him about. IMHO. Just a wild thought, something like she was facebooking his girlfriend or something and keeping him informed about that. I just can't see him being so very interested in what she would have to say all day long otherwise. IMHO again. Just musing.
 
So, you are saying Trayvon looked like a robber because he went into the store with his hoodie up? Wow. Even the 7-11 clerk said Trayvon did nothing wrong that and not once did he feel like anything was wrong. Let's not stereotype!

On bad hair days, I wear my hoodie up into stores and other places. I would hope nobody thought I was a robber. That is profiling, stereotyping and simply wrong. JMO I also wear a hat on bad hair days with dark sunglasses...

This is why were are here. GZ profiled, stereotyped a teenager based on his looks and what he was wearing (not saying racially). Thought he was on drugs, up to no good, ^($#*(% punk who was going to get away. In the end, the teenager was doing nothing but going to 7-11 to get a drink and candy.

Brilliant posting !! And WHY may I inquire wouldn't any person wear a hood of any sort In the much talked about rain???? Many people when just going into a convenience store for a couple of minutes wouldn't remove their head covering....I certainly don't even if it's to do a weekly shop at Raley's or elsewhere because I have RA in my elbows and use them as infrequently as possible , whilst other people have all sorts of legitaimate reasons for keeping their hoodies on...we have a family member who is very shy.....simply because he is VERY tall..he wears a hoodie with the hood up almost constantly....last I heard it wasn't a crime in the whole 50 states!!! IMO
 
Is it just me or does the prosecution seem to not go into details about the areas they need to? The defense seems to go into more detail and have the witness explain more. Or is that because it's the prosecution witness and they are limited to what they can ask?

The prosecution can ask what they need to get the answers they are looking for as long as it has not been ruled against by the Judge.. The defense is limited to only talk about things that were brought up in direct..
 
IMO it is a TOTAL IMPOSSIBILITY that the hands that repeatedly"beat and slammed" a bloody head and bloody nose did so without ONE SINGLE SOLITARY splatter of blood on the the hands or wrists or forearms. Equally impossible is rain washing off GZ blood and left TM own blood!!!
<modsnip>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
1,601
Total visitors
1,748

Forum statistics

Threads
606,703
Messages
18,209,055
Members
233,940
Latest member
CarrilinaCali
Back
Top