TexasCHLforum.com

Jusster wrote:.
But I also could see Zimmerman getting the upper hand at some point as well, based on the other 911 caller (a female) who said the guy in the white shirt was on top, and yes Mary Cutcher and her roommates account. They may not have been out their when the shots were fired, but neither was john. John saw some part of the fight, the others saw immediately after the shooting. It makes absolutely no sense to me that he would shoot Martin who was on top of him, THEN immediately climb on top of Martin and sit there for a moment? If it had been me, I'd want to put as much distance as possible between me and him. Also one other important thing to me about John's statement. Zimmerman claims Martin was attempting to take his weapon away from him, but there is no mention of a gun by John who witnessed the fight after it started and minutes before it ended.
...
I do have a question I'd really like to know. What happened to Zimmerman's red jacket during the fight? If John saw him wearing it, but other witnesses only saw him with a white t-shirt, how did he lose it? Or did he take it off? When the police arrived he seemed to be wearing it again. Just seems strange to me....John see's red jacket after the fight started, others see white t-shirt after shots fired, police report says red jacket when they arrived.

Anyway, I do appreciate your post for clarifying some things for me. The details of this case only seem to lead to more questions.


Jusster

You're assuming there was a "white T-shirt". It was dark. A light grey hoodie, in the dark with the hood down (he was fighting) could easily be mistaken for a white T-shirt. Much more likely than mistaking a red jacket, or the "on/off" that you're assuming.

Jusster wrote: My theory may not be true, none of us know the truth right now, but there are way too many unanswered questions to give him a pass.

This has nothing to do with my response but I did find it interesting SPD released all 47 of Zimmermans 911 calls.....if you're ever bored.....really bored someone might find it interesting....

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/ ... istory.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Jusster

That's the bottom line, it's a theory - and whether it's as good as, or even better than, other theories, as long as "it's Zimmerman"s fault" is just a theory, he does get a pass. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
is on the accusers (in a criminal trial). So yes, absent PROOF, he does indeed get a pass.

I think this is probably the best "Here are the facts" account of this incident I've seen so far.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... UK20120403
Earlier, before ever reading this, I made a half-serious comment about Zimmerman needing a publicist. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Martin family's legal team used a publicist.

ScooterSissy wrote:I think this is probably the best "Here are the facts" account of this incident I've seen so far.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... UK20120403
Earlier, before ever reading this, I made a half-serious comment about Zimmerman needing a publicist. I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the Martin family's legal team used a publicist.

This does seem to go into more detail than other articles I have read. It is presented as "here are the facts", however, I really hope this does not come down to Zimmerman's word against a dead person. It would be nice to have some other evidence.

Questions, the article raises.

1. Do police not use a cell phone found on a dead body to find out who it is, if there is no other identification?
2. Was there an autopsy?
3. "Trayvon Martin was black. George Zimmerman is white and Hispanic." Is Obama generally referred to as white and black?
4. If you are carrying skittles and a tea, how do you beat someone up? Do you put them down and then go beat someone up or do they just fall to your side as you begin beating someone? Tuck them in your pants? Where were the skittles and tea found in relationship to the body? Neatly set down thirty feet from the body to me would say something vs, right at the body.

Jusster wrote:

baldeagle wrote:I would agree that there should be plenty of forensic evidence on both Trayvon and Zimmerman. Power burns, stippling, blood spatter, all should tell the story.

Point taken. Have you listened to "Johns" 911 call?

I have listened to all the calls, multiple times.

Jusster wrote:At that point he said there were two guys wrestling outside. You are correct he did say later in an interview the day after the shooting that he saw Martin on top of Zimmerman. He said, "The guy on the bottom who I believe had a red sweater on was yelling to me "help, help". I told him to stop, and I was calling 911." He then proceeded to go into his home, lock the door, and call 911. He didn't see how the fight started, or how it ended until he saw Marin laying on the ground.

That's correct.

Jusster wrote:I do believe that Zimmerman asked this guy for help at some point. I also do believe that as some point Martin had the upper hand on Zimmerman. But I also could see Zimmerman getting the upper hand at some point as well, based on the other 911 caller (a female) who said the guy in the white shirt was on top,

But that was after the shot.

Jusster wrote:and yes Mary Cutcher and her roommates account. They may not have been out their when the shots were fired, but neither was john. John saw some part of the fight, the others saw immediately after the shooting. It makes absolutely no sense to me that he would shoot Martin who was on top of him, THEN immediately climb on top of Martin and sit there for a moment?

No one ever said that. They said he was "standing over him"

Jusster wrote:If it had been me, I'd want to put as much distance as possible between me and him. Also one other important thing to me about John's statement. Zimmerman claims Martin was attempting to take his weapon away from him, but there is no mention of a gun by John who witnessed the fight after it started and minutes before it ended.

I believe that's because the gun was holstered. Remember, Zimmerman has a CHL. He's not going to draw his weapon except if he believes he needs to use deadly force.

Jusster wrote:After reading your transcript of this new witness...I'm not sure what he saw. But your right he didn't see the whole thing. Also, how tall is Martin actually? In the police report it says he is 6' 160. Other's such as yourself say he is 6'2" or 6'3" 170. Maybe they got it from his ID that was a few years old?

I don't know. He's between 6'0" and 6'3", based on which news story/blog you read.

Jusster wrote:I do have a question I'd really like to know. What happened to Zimmerman's red jacket during the fight? If John saw him wearing it, but other witnesses only saw him with a white t-shirt, how did he lose it? Or did he take it off? When the police arrived he seemed to be wearing it again. Just seems strange to me....John see's red jacket after the fight started, others see white t-shirt after shots fired, police report says red jacket when they arrived.

I don't know where the white t-shirt comes from. In the police videos Zimmerman has a grey t-shirt on underneath his red and black jacket. Trayvon had on a grey hoodie.

Jusster wrote:Anyway, I do appreciate your post for clarifying some things for me. The details of this case only seem to lead to more questions.


Jusster

The most interesting part of this "new" witness' account (to me) is that he recounts voices that drew his attention twice - as if there was an argument, a lull, and Zimmerman yelling for help. Not sure what that means. It could corroborate Zimmerman's account - but I'm not sure. I don't know that this will ever be fully resolved. I suspect the criminal burden of proof will mean Zimmerman is found not guilty - if there's a trial.

philip964 wrote: This does seem to go into more detail than other articles I have read. It is presented as "here are the facts", however, I really hope this does not come down to Zimmerman's word against a dead person. It would be nice to have some other evidence.

If it were simply Z word v DeadPerson, I'd say Zimmerman would likely be in trouble. However, he gave information to the police without (I'm assuming this) knowing that there were witnesses, witness that have now given information that jibes with his version of what happened (most notably, that he was being beaten).

If Zimmerman really is guilty of everything he's been accused of, they need to give him life in solitary. For him to have done the things he did, and think far enough ahead to come up with the story he did, and plant the witnesses he did, would require that he be a criminal genius.

philip964 wrote:Questions, the article raises.
1. Do police not use a cell phone found on a dead body to find out who it is, if there is no other identification?

Good question; but I can see lots of scenarios that it wouldn't help much. If someone got my cell phone and tried to access it, they're not getting anything out of it. The might think they are, but what they'll really get is a fake account with no real users, and I get and email with their location and photograph. Maybe it had a lock on it, maybe it broke in the scuffle, maybe they just didn't want to randomly call people and start telling details.

philip964 wrote:2. Was there an autopsy?

I believe officials have decided to stop giving out information at this time. I'm sure there is one, and I'm sure the officials have the information from it, and we'll probably hear about it after either the Special Prosecutor makes her decision, or the grand jury makes theirs.

philip964 wrote:3. "Trayvon Martin was black. George Zimmerman is white and Hispanic." Is Obama generally referred to as white and black?

Of course not. The media wanted him to be black to support their spin. That's me being snarky. To be fair, "black" is a race, "hispanic" isn't. That said, before this story caught fire, I've never read "white hispanic" in the news. I'm skeptical about the media's motives on this one.

philip964 wrote:4. If you are carrying skittles and a tea, how do you beat someone up? Do you put them down and then go beat someone up or do they just fall to your side as you begin beating someone? Tuck them in your pants? Where were the skittles and tea found in relationship to the body? Neatly set down thirty feet from the body to me would say something vs, right at the body.

I think "carrying" is pretty general term, the way it's used here. I "carry" a gun, but it's not typically in my hand when I do so. That said, I'd be interested to hear where they actually ended up. I'll also point out, I don't ever remember a story where a victim's purchases were detailed this way. Of course, seldom have I seen a story where the victim's family hires a publicist, who uses a years old photograph and gets the media to refer to him as "a boy". I'm pretty sure the emphasis on "buying skittles and tea" was a deliberate attempt and the portrayal of him being a "youth". I'm sure that's also very much the reason they didn't include is "@NO_LIMIT_N****" Twitter account information. There was a story to be told here, and it was deliberately being told a certain way (which is why you get a publicist).

ScooterSissy wrote:If it were simply Z word v DeadPerson, I'd say Zimmerman would likely be in trouble. However, he gave information to the police without (I'm assuming this) knowing that there were witnesses, witness that have now given information that jibes with his version of what happened (most notably, that he was being beaten).

That's right, Zommerman's story is consistent with the witness statements and physical evidence we know so far.

On the other hand, we know Martin's parents lied about why he was suspended and didn't come clean until they were faced with evidence proving they lied. Instead of apologizing for the lies, they said the truth is irrelevant. That tells me exactly how much I can trust what they say.

Al Sharpton lied in the Duke Lacrosse case. His lies and media whoring go back at least 25 years when he accused cops of raping a girl in NY. That tells me exactly how much I can trust what he says.

NBC intentionally and knowingly tampered with evidence and presented their fabricated evidence to the public as genuine. That tells me exactly how much I can trust what they say.

I don't know what happened that night, but I do know who hasn't been telling the truth.

To Piers Morgan: You are not living anymore in UK and do NOT lecture us, here is USA, about your gun laws or NO self-defense laws in your UK.

Man, I was just watching this idiot Piers Morgan, who only understands that any use of firearms in self-defense leads to automatic arrest and charges of murder.
He is sorrily missed in UK. GO BACK HOME, Mr. Morgan.

Bring back the "King" from retirement.

Oldgringo wrote:

You've said that already.

A new interview with George Zimmerman's father and his attorneys. http://patdollard.com/2012/04/george-zi ... d-his-son/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; According to one of the attorneys, there is physical evidence that supports Zimmerman's version of what happened that night.

baldeagle wrote:

Jusster wrote:I do believe that Zimmerman asked this guy for help at some point. I also do believe that as some point Martin had the upper hand on Zimmerman. But I also could see Zimmerman getting the upper hand at some point as well, based on the other 911 caller (a female) who said the guy in the white shirt was on top,

But that was after the shot.

I think the depending on how long after this witness claims she saw him on top could raise doubt to a juror. Was it immediately after, or did he have a reasonable amount of time to switch positions.

baldeagle wrote:

Jusster wrote:and yes Mary Cutcher and her roommates account. They may not have been out their when the shots were fired, but neither was john. John saw some part of the fight, the others saw immediately after the shooting. It makes absolutely no sense to me that he would shoot Martin who was on top of him, THEN immediately climb on top of Martin and sit there for a moment?

No one ever said that. They said he was "standing over him"

Actually they did. Interview below:
[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=DZpsCc8IRHY[/youtube]

baldeagle wrote:

Jusster wrote:If it had been me, I'd want to put as much distance as possible between me and him. Also one other important thing to me about John's statement. Zimmerman claims Martin was attempting to take his weapon away from him, but there is no mention of a gun by John who witnessed the fight after it started and minutes before it ended.

I believe that's because the gun was holstered. Remember, Zimmerman has a CHL. He's not going to draw his weapon except if he believes he needs to use deadly force.

Yeah could be, according to his brothers interview (which for the record I believe is way over exaggerated and may hurt Zimmermans case if he tries to make those claims) Martin saw his gun, told him something like you’re going to die tonight and was attempting to disarm him. Maybe that all took place after John saw them....who knows. Timeline will be critical here as well.

baldeagle wrote:

Jusster wrote:Anyway, I do appreciate your post for clarifying some things for me. The details of this case only seem to lead to more questions.


Jusster

The most interesting part of this "new" witness' account (to me) is that he recounts voices that drew his attention twice - as if there was an argument, a lull, and Zimmerman yelling for help. Not sure what that means. It could corroborate Zimmerman's account - but I'm not sure. I don't know that this will ever be fully resolved. I suspect the criminal burden of proof will mean Zimmerman is found not guilty - if there's a trial.

Yeah I'm not so sure about that, it will all come down to the forensics, and timelines matching up to witness statements. If Zimmerman is telling the truth all should fall in his favor, if he is not I could see a jury having reasonable doubt. I agree though....we will probably never know exactly what went down that night. Hopefully the special prosecutor has a lot more facts then we do because it's simply a guessing game right now.


Jusster

ScooterSissy wrote:

Jusster wrote: My theory may not be true, none of us know the truth right now, but there are way too many unanswered questions to give him a pass.

This has nothing to do with my response but I did find it interesting SPD released all 47 of Zimmermans 911 calls.....if you're ever bored.....really bored someone might find it interesting....

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/ ... istory.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Jusster

That's the bottom line, it's a theory - and whether it's as good as, or even better than, other theories, as long as "it's Zimmerman"s fault" is just a theory, he does get a pass. The burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt
is on the accusers (in a criminal trial). So yes, absent PROOF, he does indeed get a pass.

Plain and simple, everything that any of us have read or seen is up for debate. You choose to believe what you want to based on what you read into it, and I do the same. Nobody knows all of the details that will be presented in this case, we are all speculating based on witnesses who haven’t taken the stand under oath, 911 calls, and the shooter version laid out by his family and attorney’s I would assume. Even the police report we have viewed is probably missing 90% of what’s really in it. So yes, based on my theory and what I believe I will just simply agree to disagree.


Jusster

Jusster wrote: So yes, based on my theory and what I believe I will just simply agree to disagree.


Jusster

I think you missed my point. I know we disagree. My point though was that the prosecution (if Zimmerman is tried) will have to prove Zimmerman's guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). Theories won't work, for the prosecution. The will work for the defense though. That's how they introduce reasonable doubt.

ScooterSissy wrote:

Jusster wrote: So yes, based on my theory and what I believe I will just simply agree to disagree.


Jusster

I think you missed my point. I know we disagree. My point though was that the prosecution (if Zimmerman is tried) will have to prove Zimmerman's guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). Theories won't work, for the prosecution. The will work for the defense though. That's how they introduce reasonable doubt.

Oh really? So what do you consider circumstantial evidence to be? It's nothing more than indirect evidence used to prove the prosecutions "theory". People are convicted with it ALL the time. If you think our legal system works on "pure" facts or direct evidence you would be sadly mistaken.


Jusster

Jusster wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

Jusster wrote: So yes, based on my theory and what I believe I will just simply agree to disagree.


Jusster

I think you missed my point. I know we disagree. My point though was that the prosecution (if Zimmerman is tried) will have to prove Zimmerman's guilt (beyond a reasonable doubt). Theories won't work, for the prosecution. The will work for the defense though. That's how they introduce reasonable doubt.

Oh really? So what do you consider circumstantial evidence to be? It's nothing more than indirect evidence used to prove the prosecutions "theory". People are convicted with it ALL the time. If you think our legal system works on "pure" facts or direct evidence you would be sadly mistaken.


Jusster

Yes, I understand what circumstantial evidence is. I don't think you understand what a "theory" is. We've been discussing theories - the theories you've been presenting are not based on evidence. For example:
My theory is that Zimmerman started the fight with Martin
Maybe Martin smarted off to him like a typical 17 year old would do, and Zimmerman wanted to teach him a lesson.
I don't think Zimmerman was just walking back to his truck and got jumped
There's been no evidence (so far) to support those statements (and those are just examples). So your theory is based on assumptions, not evidence. Evidence is required to convict

Again, for clarification, even if you're correct when you say "my theory is just as sound as anybody else’s", don't confuse your theory with "circumstantial evidence". It's not evidence of any kind, it's a theory based on your gut feelings.