George Zimmerman's Injuries #1

[Concerned Papa]

With all due respect to Concerned Papa and his thought provoing map, we do not know for a fact where GZ's truck was parked. The SFD audio did not reveal where GZ's truck was parked. The police have never released the exact location of where either GZ's truck or TM's body were found that night. Hopefully we will be availed of those facts SOON!!

JMO

V, let me ask you to take a look at my reasoning, because I think George, himself, did a thorough job during the 911 call, of telling us where his truck was parked. Check the recording if you’d like, but remember, George told the 911 dispatcher the following, immediately BEFORE getting out of his truck:

Zimmerman: He’s running. [2:08]

911 dispatcher: He’s running? Which way is he running?

Zimmerman: Down toward the other entrance of the neighborhood. [2:14]

So from wherever his truck was parked, he was able to see TM start running towards the back entrance.

Later, he says the following:

911 dispatcher: Alright, where are you going to meet with them at?

Zimmerman: Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]


911 dispatcher: Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

Zimmerman: Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]

Other that the location I have shown, where in this entire development could George's truck have been parked AND:

George be able to see TM start running "down towards the back entrance" while inside,

PLUS

Be in full view of responding LE officers after going past the mail boxes,

PLUS

Be parked at a "cut through"?

As for the body, during the Bond Hearing, did you catch what George’s own attorney volunteered, and the SA’s Investigator readily acknowledged, as to where the evidence indicated it’s location being?

From the Bond Hearing recording at the [1:19:55] mark:

GILBREATH: Because the location he was found in….is probably….and I don’t have the exact measurements….it’s in the path to the back door of the house where he was staying.

O’MARA: I think the evidence suggested it was 70 yards away, right?

http://www.wral.com/news/video/11004815/#/vid11004815

Notice the attachments below. I realize you and I both would prefer GPS coordinates signed in blood by the Chief of Police, but considering the sources I used are George Zimmerman, himself, his own attorney, and a SA Investigator, it's a pretty strong indication of where the truck and body were located.

 

[AJ Noiter]

So now we have who was cornering who...there is the aggressor. Ding, ding.

I believe that would be thrown out as hearsay. The girlfriend can testify as to what Martin said, but not the events that took place. "The man appeared again" is her interpretation of what happened as she's not quoting anyone. She could have gathered that he just "appeared" because Martin asked "Why are you following me?"

 

[sleonardelli]

As far as I'm aware of, RZ Jr. (brother) is the only one who had ever said anything like this.

I believe they're being snarky here, based on RZ's embellished depiction.

 

[LambChop]

I didn't say he wouldn't have a story. I'm sure Zimmerman's words in the police reports, etc, will be used as that story. I simply stated that ALL the defense has to do is cast doubt on the idea that the only way it could have happened with this outcome is if Zimmerman confronted Martin. That's not a very big jump to make at all.

As for Martin's possible motives to attack Zimmerman, no matter what is said it would be speculation. Just like no matter what is said about the idea of Zimmerman confronting Martin, it's speculation. We don't have the facts. The only way to get the absolute fact of this specifically is if we could conclude that the only person who knows exactly what happened is telling the truth, otherwise it's conjecture no matter who tells the story.

GZ said he was attacked at the cut through but the body was found further down the path only 70 yards from TM's condo. It certainly does not match up with what GZ was saying. What it does match up to is that a woman saw two figures running which would more than likely be the reason TM ended up where he did. GZ, however, never mentioned running in the direction of where the body was found. jmo

 

[Donjeta]

I didn't say he wouldn't have a story. I'm sure Zimmerman's words in the police reports, etc, will be used as that story. I simply stated that ALL the defense has to do is cast doubt on the idea that the only way it could have happened with this outcome is if Zimmerman confronted Martin. That's not a very big jump to make at all.

As for Martin's possible motives to attack Zimmerman, no matter what is said it would be speculation. Just like no matter what is said about the idea of Zimmerman confronting Martin, it's speculation. We don't have the facts. The only way to get the absolute fact of this specifically is if we could conclude that the only person who knows exactly what happened is telling the truth, otherwise it's conjecture no matter who tells the story.

IMO very few people would ever get convicted if the burden of proof was that the state has to show that there is only one way the crime could have happened. They have to show enough evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. If we weren't there it's always possible that some alternative story can explain some of the evidence but if it doesn't make sense to the jurors they won't see it as reasonable. .

 

[LambChop]

I believe they're being snarky here, based on RZ's embellished depiction.

You mean like:

1. Need a headshot picture of my bleeding wounds.
2. Need some better statement material. Old ones might now fly.
3. Need a medical report to prove I was inches from death.
4. Need new attorneys. The present ones don't like my advice.
5. Need to set up a paypal and website to get my "constituents" on board.
6. Send Frank a thank you note. jmo

 

[Phoenixfla]

With no blood on his clothing, his shirt tucked in neatly, no sign of distress or pain evidenced in his cool, calm manner of walking.

Cleaned up is correct, the injuries were reportedly so minor that they were treated in the back of the police car.

His father has said that when he went to the doctor the next day the doctor had said that he should have had stitches, but that it had started to heal, and they would have to recut it. I would not take this as gospel until I see the doctors report, but I expect that will be produced as evidence at the trial.

 

[ILikeToBendPages]

If I were a juror, I would give less credibility to the g/f's testimony because she was asked to recall a 4 minute phone call that occurred 3 weeks prior to Crump's initial questioning. Zimmerman was there that night, eyewitnesses were asked immediately for statements - statements that are consistent with GZ's initial statement. He could not have known what the witnesses were telling LE at the same time he was being questioned at the station.

The g/f's statement does corroborate what is in the 911 call, which Crump received a copy of two days before her story broke. In fact, corroborates with the 911 call to the exact minute GZ lost sight of TM.

LE hasn't determined anything in regards to the phone call between TM and his alleged girlfriend. The investigators for the SP conducted a phone conversation and obtained her written statement, but no conclusions that I am aware of have been made by LE, her statement has simply been added to the prosecutors side of the case.

JMO

If I was a juror,I would feel for the young woman knowing she would remember every word said in the last conversation she had with her boyfriend, and he was alarmed by a strange man following him and then learned he had been killed by that same man, for the rest of her life.

 

[LambChop]

I believe that would be thrown out as hearsay. The girlfriend can testify as to what Martin said, but not the events that took place. "The man appeared again" is her interpretation of what happened as she's not quoting anyone. She could have gathered that he just "appeared" because Martin asked "Why are you following me?"

What she can testify to is what she heard, which does not go along with what GZ claims happened. Neither one knew about the other. The gf had nothing to lose by telling the truth because it still does not tell us what happened. What it does tell us is what did not happen in GZ's story. Her testimony plus evidence that proves GZ was lying will be part of the state's case. The states whole case does not depend on her statement but the evidence they will present will show it did not happen the way GZ claims it did by the evidence they have gathered. jmo

 

[LambChop]

If I was a juror,I would feel for the young woman knowing she would remember every word said in the last conversation she had with her boyfriend, and he was alarmed by a strange man following him and then learned he had been killed by that same man, for the rest of her life.

And she will. We see how the death of a person close to you still impacts you years later by looking and listening to Nancy Grace. It still affects her today. jmo

 

[wishuwerehere]

I didn't say he wouldn't have a story. I'm sure Zimmerman's words in the police reports, etc, will be used as that story. I simply stated that ALL the defense has to do is cast doubt on the idea that the only way it could have happened with this outcome is if Zimmerman confronted Martin. That's not a very big jump to make at all.

As for Martin's possible motives to attack Zimmerman, no matter what is said it would be speculation. Just like no matter what is said about the idea of Zimmerman confronting Martin, it's speculation. We don't have the facts. The only way to get the absolute fact of this specifically is if we could conclude that the only person who knows exactly what happened is telling the truth, otherwise it's conjecture no matter who tells the story.

Zimmerman's own words will be used against him. The 911 call will certainly be played in court. Zimmerman is asked by the 911 operator if he is following. Zimmerman responds "yes". "We don't need you to do that," says the 911 operator. "Okay," says Zimmerman. Zimmerman does not do what he says. "Okay" means "I agree, I understand, I concur, this is reaonsonable, yes." Zimmeran gets out of his vehicle anyway. His credibility is now -1 in court.

jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

IMO very few people would ever get convicted if the burden of proof was that the state has to show that there is only one way the crime could have happened. They have to show enough evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt. If we weren't there it's always possible that some alternative story can explain some of the evidence but if it doesn't make sense to the jurors they won't see it as reasonable. .

If doubt does affect a "reasonable person's" belief that the defendant is guilty, the jury is not satisfied beyond "reasonable doubt" - Wikipedia

Again, you don't even need a story for this. You just need to "poke holes" in the opposing side's story. A *huge* hole in the "fact" that Zimmerman confronted Martin is that there's no proof, that we've seen, that it absolutely had to happen this way. To combine that with Detective Gilbreath stating, on the stand (bail hearing), that he has no evidence to say that Zimmerman confronted or attacked Martin, is huge. How do you come to a conclusion with no evidence to support it? How can you ask a jury to accept a conclusion based on no evidence?

 

[AJ Noiter]

Zimmerman's own words will be used against him. The 911 call will certainly be played in court. Zimmerman is asked by the 911 operator if he is following. Zimmerman responds "yes". "We don't need you to do that," says the 911 operator. "Okay," says Zimmeran. Zimmerman does not do what he says. "Okay" means "I agree, I understand, I concur, this is reaonsonable, yes." Zimmeran gets out of his vehicle anyway. His credibility is now -1 in court.

jmo

Following was not illegal the last I checked. Also there's a period of time after that where Zimmerman states, and is corroborated by the girlfriend's story, that he lost track of Martin. Zimmerman was already out of the vehicle at that point in time - you can hear him close his SUV's door on the 911 tape. Finally, to state that because he followed Martin 3-4 minutes before Martin was shot he must have attacked him is a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo prompter hoc." They are not related in any way.

 

[LambChop]

Again, you don't even need a story for this. You just need to "poke holes" in the opposing side's story. A *huge* hole in the "fact" that Zimmerman confronted Martin is that there's no proof, that we've seen, that it absolutely had to happen this way. To combine that with Detective Gilbreath stating, on the stand (bail hearing), that he has no evidence to say that Zimmerman confronted or attacked Martin, is huge. How do you come to a conclusion with no evidence to support it? How can you ask a jury to accept a conclusion based on no evidence?

You use his own statements against him. If GZ's statements do not match up with what evidence they have gathered then he was lying. Then it goes to motivation. Who was the one more likely to get into a confrontation? The person just walking home....or the person pursuing with total disregard for the safety of others because he had a gun and did not want this one to get away? jmo

 

[wishuwerehere]

Following was not illegal the last I checked. Also there's a period of time after that where Zimmerman states, and is corroborated by the girlfriend's story, that he lost track of Martin. Zimmerman was already out of the vehicle at that point in time - you can hear him close his SUV's door on the 911 tape. Finally, to state that because he followed Martin 3-4 minutes before Martin was shot he must have attacked him is a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo prompter hoc." They are not related in any way.

My point has to do with credibility, not legality. At this trial, IMO, it will come down to Zimmerman's credibility. "He doesn't want to follow the rules," says the prosecutor (in the future).

I don't speak Latin, but are you trying to say Zimmerman was prompted after the initial 911 call or he appointed himself as judge, jury, and executioner?

jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

You use his own statements against him. If GZ's statements do not match up with what evidence they have gathered then he was lying. Then it goes to motivation. Who was the one more likely to get into a confrontation? The person just walking home....or the person pursuing with total disregard for the safety of others because he had a gun and did not want this one to get away? jmo

Typically the person who calls 911 is the guy who holds the highest regard for fellow humans, just because someone has a gun doesn't mean they're out to kill. I carry a gun on a daily basis and have been for the last 12 years. 10 years of that it was as an armed member of the military - does that make me a bad guy?

I did not use anyone's words in my previous statement other than the detective's that I'm aware of. I haven't seen the official police reports I'm unaware of any inconsistencies in Zimmerman's story, this case has shown me how much the media can be trusted so I have not even watched the local news stories, and will not until this whole thing is done.

 

[LambChop]

Following was not illegal the last I checked. Also there's a period of time after that where Zimmerman states, and is corroborated by the girlfriend's story, that he lost track of Martin. Zimmerman was already out of the vehicle at that point in time - you can hear him close his SUV's door on the 911 tape. Finally, to state that because he followed Martin 3-4 minutes before Martin was shot he must have attacked him is a logical fallacy known as "post hoc ergo prompter hoc." They are not related in any way.

The big issue here is if he was following to keep TM in sight because he called it in under the NWP he knew he was not suppose to leave the car and he knew he was not to have the gun. And most of all he knew why. Following someone is not against the law. Putting someone in fear for their life is harassment. It's obvious from TM phone call he was afraid.

It must be hard for the Martins to think that the last 5 minutes of their son's life he experienced terror. But we are way off topic here. jmo

 

[AJ Noiter]

My point has to do with credibility, not legality. At this trial, IMO, it will come down to Zimmerman's credibility. "He doesn't want to follow the rules," says the prosecutor (in the future).

I don't speak Latin, but are you trying to say Zimmerman was prompted after the initial 911 call or he appointed himself as judge, jury, and executioner?

jmo

"post hoc ergo prompter hoc" translates to "before this, because of this." You can read more about it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

 

[Donjeta]

Again, you don't even need a story for this. You just need to "poke holes" in the opposing side's story. A *huge* hole in the "fact" that Zimmerman confronted Martin is that there's no proof, that we've seen, that it absolutely had to happen this way. To combine that with Detective Gilbreath stating, on the stand (bail hearing), that he has no evidence to say that Zimmerman confronted or attacked Martin, is huge. How do you come to a conclusion with no evidence to support it? How can you ask a jury to accept a conclusion based on no evidence?

They have GZ's story from the statements he gave.
If they can show that GZ's story does not fit the evidence it will not be a very effective hole-poker. IMO.

 

[AJ Noiter]

The big issue here is if he was following to keep TM in sight because he called it in under the NWP he knew he was not suppose to leave the car and he knew he was not to have the gun. And most of all he knew why. Following someone is not against the law. Putting someone in fear for their life is harassment. It's obvious from TM phone call he was afraid.

It must be hard for the Martins to think that the last 5 minutes of their son's life he experienced terror. jmo

He was not on patrol that night, so the NWP "rules" (which are more guidelines than law) are irrelevant. Being followed is not a reason to be fearing for your life unless you're aware of a credible threat, which I have not heard of a report saying there was a threat other than the people who believe Zimmerman should fry without a trial. Being afraid because someone is watching you alone is a bit paranoid if you ask me. If he were afraid why didn't he run when his girlfriend told him to? Why did he simply put up his hoodie and "walk fast?" It's my opinion that he wasn't afraid, his girlfriend was.