Victim of Perceived Thug Still Sitting in Jail

[Farm Boy]

So where are the riots? I was promised riots!

It's 2013 not 1992. Skirting the line of double jeopardy through federal action is more likely, though not guaranteed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I'm just pointing out that we know that Pat knows that GZ shot Trayvon but for some reason JR felt the need to point this out to him as if he didn't.

I agree that Pat should be more nuanced and accurate when posting.

Question remains, how does Pat know that: " Zimmerman did nothing more than follow a guy he thought was suspicious at a distance and call the police" (and then obviously shot him ... 'duh' and such) as opposed to the prosecution not being able to prove Zimmerman did nothing more than follow a guy he thought was suspicious at a distance and call the police?

If I may hazard a guess: "Of course Pat realises this ... duh!" ?

 

[timtofly]

He did explain it - you need to present evidence contradicting him.

And he didn't walk a few dozen yards, he walked thru the T eastward so far that M lost sight of him, M was at the T the whole time. Thats when the dispatcher told Z not to pursue M and Z returned thru the T a 2nd time on his way back to his truck. We know from the GF that M saw him a 2nd time - that creepy ass cracker was back and M let him walk by again and then ambushed him.

How else do you explain Z walking around the T for 2 minutes without seeing M?

He didn't walk around the T, he walked thru it - thats why M lost sight of him for 1-2 minutes.

And he was hiding from Z's sight, maybe that wasn't his intent, but Z walked right thru the T twice and never saw M. But M was watching him and he ambushed Z

Do you think that the GF was lying? Would she not have told the police that Z had been walking back and forth? It would fit into the story that M was being stalked.

The conversation was that M had lost sight of Z not that they were watching him trying to find M. M allegedly approached Z and asked why he was being followed. If M was hiding why would he just suddenly approach Z?

My theory was Z waited at his truck and got impatient and started to look again for M's whereabouts. Z did not need to find a street sign, he told the police to go past the clubhouse and turn left. He did not know the address, but he really had no reason to go looking for one. He told them his truck was parked near the cutout.

Even according to both M and Z, M was in no hurry to return home. He had been on a phone call with his friend for 18 minutes, and then another 4 minutes while he was meandering around instead of going straight home. It is plausible that he wanted to give his alleged stalker a run for his money, since the friend advised him to "run" home, which he obviously ignored.

No where did Z use as his defense that he was walking around looking for an address. He claimed he was looking for a street sign, but that does not make sense, as he already told them where his truck was. He did want to follow M, because he asked permission to meet in a different location than he already was. Meeting at the mailboxes was the opposite direction from where he wanted to be, but looking for a street sign was probably the furthest thing from his mind.

It would make more sense that he waited at his truck or at least tried to. I am sure he was afraid that M would no longer be around when the police showed up. That is taking into consideration the events that led up to that night. Not the fact that Z was a neighborhood watch person who claims to be clueless about his own neighborhood out looking for street signs.

He told the police he was looking for a sign for the dispatch. That search was not for the police when they arrived. It sounds more like an excuse to cover his tracks. Any running around only makes sense as one looking for M. He did find M, but not after walking past him, it was after waiting for the police.

 

[Berzerker]

Do you think that the GF was lying? Would she not have told the police that Z had been walking back and forth? It would fit into the story that M was being stalked.

M wasn't giving her a detailed description, he just said Z was following him, disappeared, and returned. The only way I can see that happening is if Z walked by him at the T and disappeared to the east and came back. That matches what Z said...

The conversation was that M had lost sight of Z not that they were watching him trying to find M. M allegedly approached Z and asked why he was being followed. If M was hiding why would he just suddenly approach Z?

Because he didn't like the creepy ass cracker following him.

My theory was Z waited at his truck and got impatient and started to look again for M's whereabouts. Z did not need to find a street sign, he told the police to go past the clubhouse and turn left. He did not know the address, but he really had no reason to go looking for one. He told them his truck was parked near the cutout.

But M entered the T and disappeared from sight. So Z followed thinking M either headed south at the T or thru it. Arriving at the T affords a view to the south so that leaves 2 options - M was still near the T or he kept running/walking east toward the next street. That would explain why Z wanted an address from that street for the cops.

Even according to both M and Z, M was in no hurry to return home. He had been on a phone call with his friend for 18 minutes, and then another 4 minutes while he was meandering around instead of going straight home. It is plausible that he wanted to give his alleged stalker a run for his money, since the friend advised him to "run" home, which he obviously ignored.

Z saw him running and that was the last he saw of him until M approached him from behind at the T.

No where did Z use as his defense that he was walking around looking for an address. He claimed he was looking for a street sign, but that does not make sense, as he already told them where his truck was. He did want to follow M, because he asked permission to meet in a different location than he already was. Meeting at the mailboxes was the opposite direction from where he wanted to be, but looking for a street sign was probably the furthest thing from his mind.

Z said he went east of the T to get an address on the next street over because thats where he thought M was headed. He was wrong, M was standing near the T the whole time and he watched Z walk by and return a minute or two later.

Not the fact that Z was a neighborhood watch person who claims to be clueless about his own neighborhood out looking for street signs.

He doesn't live on that side of the neighborhood and in the heat of the moment may have forgotten a street name and then remembered. But he wanted an address for the cops, naming a street aint very specific. Z was trying to give the cops M's location based on where he thought M had headed after the T.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You sound very sure of all this. You even have an uncanny knowledge of what both Z and M were thinking at the time.

 

[JollyRoger]

Z told us what M was thinking. Duh.

 

[timtofly]

M wasn't giving her a detailed description, he just said Z was following him, disappeared, and returned. The only way I can see that happening is if Z walked by him at the T and disappeared to the east and came back. That matches what Z said....

Disappeared does not = he walked past me and returned.

Martin told his friend at one point that he had lost the man but the man suddenly appeared again.

Nothing about walking past me. Loosing someone usually means outpacing them.

Because he didn't like the creepy ass cracker following him.

If M was sitting there waiting for Z, then he did not surprise Z. If a person concludes the only thing Z was doing at the moment was looking for a street sign, then Z would have been surprised that the person he forgot about in his quest for street signs actually presented himself.

But M entered the T and disappeared from sight. So Z followed thinking M either headed south at the T or thru it. Arriving at the T affords a view to the south so that leaves 2 options - M was still near the T or he kept running/walking east toward the next street. That would explain why Z wanted an address from that street for the cops.

I thought Z was looking for street signs? Z wanted the cops to go to the next street over instead of where his truck was parked? Or perhaps he wanted the police to call so he could meet them back at his truck?

Z did not want an address for the cops. He allegedly wanted a street sign for the dispatch. That conversation was already concluded. He pointed out that his truck was at the cutout (west side of the T). I assume what Z refers to as the cutout is the same thing we are calling the T. As a neighborhood watch person, he just wanted the cops to call him so he could tell them where he was. He did not have to go around looking for street signs whatsoever. He did not ask the dispatch to wait for him to find a street sign, nor did he say to the dispatch that he would be looking for street signs so that when the police arrived, he could tell them where he was. Both he and the dispatch seemed pretty definite that Z knew where he was and where he would be.

Z saw him running and that was the last he saw of him until M approached him from behind at the T.

There is no logical or physical way, any confrontation took place at the T.

Z said he went east of the T to get an address on the next street over because thats where he thought M was headed. He was wrong, M was standing near the T the whole time and he watched Z walk by and return a minute or two later.

Please explain from evidence where Z said he went past the T looking for a street sign. Fabricated excuse, and flies in the face of the logic that no confrontation took place at the T. He claims he needed to find a sign for the dispatch, but that goes against the actual conversation that took place with the dispatch.

He doesn't live on that side of the neighborhood and in the heat of the moment may have forgotten a street name and then remembered. But he wanted an address for the cops, naming a street aint very specific. Z was trying to give the cops M's location based on where he thought M had headed after the T.

He did not want an address for the cops. The dispatch was told that his truck was straight past the clubhouse to the left at the cutout (T). He could not see a number. Going to look for a street sign would not produce a number and he was not even on the street that he allegedly went to. He agreed to meet the cops at the mailboxes. Then he asked for the cops to call him. There was no heat of the moment. That happened 2 minutes before when he got out of his truck and was running. The dispatch stopped him, that is why M lost him. Z went back to his truck and then calmly explained to dispatch where his truck was. There was no need to go looking for an address. The reason why he wanted the police to call him was to keep looking for M. That was the main thing on his mind, the reason for even calling dispatch. Why would he be concerned about street signs and addresses? He had just agreed to meet at the mailboxes. Changing his mind to have the police call him, was not a reason to go look for an address.

If we go with the Street Sign quest excuse, then we may as well surmise that Z knew where M lived and even walked there to have the address ready for the police. He would have had enough time to make it there and back to the T.

BTW, I never said that M was innocent, and may have even got the best of Z for a few seconds. That still does not give Z an excuse to walk around looking for trouble or street signs if one is so set in their belief that such a thing exists.

 

[Goodfella]

She wasn't his GF.

 

[JollyRoger]

Theory from elsewhere:

http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=7429&start=1775

I wouldn't call it a "sucker-punch" -- I think I know what happened, and the defense told us, but it wasn't in front of the jury.

It was in the animation that the defense tried to put into evidence, but was rejected by the court because it didn't match the testimony. So the judge was right to exclude the animation as evidence -- but I think that had it come in, it could have worked to the prosecution advantage if they could have managed a competent cross-examination of the person who created the animation.

One problem -- which the prosecution raised in their objection -- is that the defense animation showed the Trayvon figure walking up to the Zimmerman figure and punching Zimmerman in the face with his left hand.

O'Mara in argument to the judge (outside the presence of the jury) said that the left-hand punch was consistent with the injuries to Zimmerman's face. So I'm thinking Zimmerman either told his lawyer that the punch was delivered with the assailant's left hand, or that a medical or forensic expert told him that -- so that was incorporated in the instructions they gave the animator.

But Trayvon was right handed, according to his mom.

So why would a right-handed man punch a stranger with his left?

Only one reason that I can think of: because his right hand was not available to him.

I figure that Zimmerman pursued Martin and grabbed his right arm to attempt to restrain him. Martin fought like hell to get away -- hence the punch with his left fist.

Also, I don't think that happened at the T. I think it is more likely that it happened at the site where Martin's cell phone was later found, a few feet south of where the body was found.

And as long as we are dealing with what I think.... I am thinking that even though Martin hit Zimmerman as hard as he could with his left fist, it wasn't hard enough to cause Zimmerman to release his grasp on Martin's right arm. (I'm guessing that Zimmerman was trying unsuccessfully to get Martin into a wrist lock, because I think that somewhere along the line Zimmerman used the phrase "wrist lock" in his statements to the police.)

However, I think that Martin's punch was hard enough to cause Zimmerman to lose his balance and fall back, but because he was holding Martin's hand, and because Zimmerman was significantly heavier than Martin, he pulled the struggling teenager right down on top of him. Zimmerman probably hit the back of his head when he fell, and Martin was probably continuing to try to hit Zimmerman to force him to release his hold.

I think that Zimmerman had started with both hands Martin's right arm or wrist, after they were both on the ground, Zimmerman let go with his right hand, continuing to grasp with is own left hand, while also twisting around enough so that he could retrieve his gun with his own right hand. I think he then pushed up enough (aided by the fact that Martin was also trying to get up) that he could put the gun to Martin's chest -- but of course first he had to make sure to manipulate the gun around his own left hand tightly grasping Martin's right wrist (another factual tidbit from Zimmerman's own verbal statement and accompanying gestures). Then he aimed, and shot.

I think Martin was shouting because he couldn't get Zimmerman to let go of his arm, and Martin saw the gun come out and being drawn to his chest, and that's when he let out that last wailing scream -- the one that ended with the shot. During the scream there was just enough time for Zimmerman to push up to a standing or partially standing position, so Zimmerman was able to back away as soon as the shot was fired, allowing Martin to fall forward without landing on Zimmerman.

Zimmerman also let go of Martin's wrist as soon as he shot, but in Zimmerman's mind he thought he needed to work something about the way he had been holding Martin's right arm into the story-- hence the whole b.s. account he gave about standing over the body to pull out Martin's arms.

Can I prove this all beyond a reasonable doubt? No.

But that's the best explanation I can come up with for the left-handed punch, the location where the cell phone was found, the location of the body, and Zimmerman's explanation as to what he was doing when observed standing and bending over the dead body.

And yeah, I think that if those facts could be proven, it would potentially support a first degree murder charge.

 

[MobBoss]

But Trayvon was right handed, according to his mom.

So why would a right-handed man punch a stranger with his left?

Maybe he was carrying his cell phone in his right hand?

 

[Patroklos]

So our favorite court room commentator decided to make the news today.

Nancy Grace Says “[redacted] Coons” Live on Air While Blasting Zimmerman’s Hatred For Trayvon

Read the comments for some laughs. We of course all know this did not happen and it's an example of a major media figure blatantly lying regarding this case for effect. Weall expect this from Nancy Grace of course though I am disappointed in Martin's lawyer for not correcting her.

Here is a break down of what was said by CNN (second video link):

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-co...ays-fking-coon-live-on-hln-video-2680900.html

And the raw audio:

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/raw-911-call-zimmerman-made-to-sanford-police/vGZq9/

Do any of you agree with Ms Grace? How do you feel about such blatant lying if you do not?

 

[Ajidica]

Whatever my opinion of her comments, they are overshadowed by my intense dislike of Nancy Disgrace.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You sound very sure of all this. You even have an uncanny knowledge of what both Z and M were thinking at the time.

I don't know why they even had a trial. They should have just hired Berzerker to tell them what everybody did, regardless that it doesn't actually fit any of the facts.

 

[timtofly]

Maybe he was carrying his cell phone in his right hand?

Maybe he dropped it, when Z grabbed him? A pushing sound was heard, not someone being punched in the face.

Someone who is grabbed could still yell out, "Why are you following me?"

JollyRoger's account seems reasonable. That Z lost his balance allowing M to be on top would fit what was seen by witnesses.

There does not seem to be a huge verbal altercation, nor even a long physical one.

 

[Patroklos]

So is Z an MMA master or not? Make up your mind.

 

[JollyRoger]

Do any of you agree with Ms Grace?

Not if I can avoid it.

 

[timtofly]

So is Z an MMA master or not? Make up your mind.

Is that part of Z's testimony?

 

[Formaldehyde]

So is Z an MMA master or not? Make up your mind.

You don't have to be a "MMA master" to dance around with someone who weighs 40 pounds less than you do until the police arrive. They grappled for over 40 seconds and Zimmerman was apparently hit once in the face. He also had extremely minor cuts to his bald head which could have easily been sustained by pulling Zimmerman on top of him or losing his balance.

Not to mention Zimmerman's incessant lies show his version of what occurred certainly cannot be trusted.

 

[Berzerker]

Wow, M's "GF" said "cracka" was a reference to "the man", a cop or security guard on patrol, not a white person.

or a stalker

You sound very sure of all this. You even have an uncanny knowledge of what both Z and M were thinking at the time.

Where'd I say what they were thinking? I'm going on what they said and did. But would you like me to say "this is what I think happened" before everything I say? These threads are full of claims made by all sorts of people, your selectivity belies a double standard. Which brings us to...

Z told us what M was thinking. Duh.

a mirror... You of all people to complain about mind reading (well, nobody can compete with Form on that but you're a distant 2nd).

Theory from elsewhere:

The left hand is closer and therefore quicker for a right hander. Ever heard of a jab? Its better for delivering a sucker punch and allows for a right hand follow up or counter if needed. I've been in fights where I led with a left and was targeted by a lead left, nothing unusual about it.

Disappeared does not = he walked past me and returned. Nothing about walking past me. Loosing someone usually means outpacing them.

Z either walked past him or turned around and went back to his truck...and then came back to the T a 2nd time and would have had Z facing M as he came out of hiding. Much more likely Z had to pass thru the T a 2nd time because he was east of it and that gave M the option of approaching him from behind.

If M was sitting there waiting for Z, then he did not surprise Z. If a person concludes the only thing Z was doing at the moment was looking for a street sign, then Z would have been surprised that the person he forgot about in his quest for street signs actually presented himself.

The street sign he originally looked for was the one his truck was parked on, he entered the T and headed for the next street over for an address but talking with dispatch led to a change in plans.

Z did not want an address for the cops. He allegedly wanted a street sign for the dispatch. That conversation was already concluded. He pointed out that his truck was at the cutout (west side of the T). I assume what Z refers to as the cutout is the same thing we are calling the T. As a neighborhood watch person, he just wanted the cops to call him so he could tell them where he was. He did not have to go around looking for street signs whatsoever.

He forgot the name of the street his truck was on, how is that relevant? He lied about not knowing the name of the street? Why? He originally planned on meeting the cops (so he says) on the street east of the T because thats where he ended up. The dispatch asked if he would meet the cops at the mailboxes and he agreed, then told dispatch to have them call instead as he headed back to his truck.

There is no logical or physical way, any confrontation took place at the T.

Near the T

Please explain from evidence where Z said he went past the T looking for a street sign.

He didn't say that, he knew the street to the east but wanted an address.

That happened 2 minutes before when he got out of his truck and was running. The dispatch stopped him, that is why M lost him.

M turned the corner down the south stem of the T before Z got out of his truck to follow. He entered the T and thats when dispatch told him not to pursue. Thats when Z continued past the T to get an address from the next street east of the T because that led to a back entrance parallel to the stem of the T.

Why would he be concerned about street signs and addresses? He had just agreed to meet at the mailboxes. Changing his mind to have the police call him, was not a reason to go look for an address.

The mailboxes were in the other direction

 

[timtofly]

Z either walked past him or turned around and went back to his truck...and then came back to the T a 2nd time and would have had Z facing M as he came out of hiding. Much more likely Z had to pass thru the T a 2nd time because he was east of it and that gave M the option of approaching him from behind.

The street sign he originally looked for was the one his truck was parked on, he entered the T and headed for the next street over for an address but talking with dispatch led to a change in plans.

He forgot the name of the street his truck was on, how is that relevant? He lied about not knowing the name of the street? Why? He originally planned on meeting the cops (so he says) on the street east of the T because thats where he ended up. The dispatch asked if he would meet the cops at the mailboxes and he agreed, then told dispatch to have them call instead as he headed back to his truck.

Near the T

He didn't say that, he knew the street to the east but wanted an address.

M turned the corner down the south stem of the T before Z got out of his truck to follow. He entered the T and thats when dispatch told him not to pursue. Thats when Z continued past the T to get an address from the next street east of the T because that led to a back entrance parallel to the stem of the T.

The mailboxes were in the other direction

None of the above resembles the phone call except for the fact that Z knew M turned south at the T and headed out of sight into the dark. Dispatch told him to stop running within seconds after hearing the wind and asking Z if he was following M.

The phone call was 4:07 minutes. Around the two minute mark, one can hear Z close his door and declare that M was running. Z started to "run" after M, but only got about 20 seconds of "running" in before Z came to a full stop. It sounds from the call that the dispatcher was unsure as to whether Z lived there, not the location of his truck. They were about to settle the trucks position when Z opened his door and got out of his vehicle. When Zimmerman stopped running they had to again finish that task. By that time, Z was no longer in front of the building but at the T. He said I do not know, nor could he see it. He just said at the cut through. He had no reason whatsoever to keep going and look at anything on the next street. He already said M went south at the T. The dispatch never asked for the address of where Z thought M was heading. He was trying to determine where Z's truck was. Where he was to meet the cops, at which Z agreed to do at the mailboxes, until he asked if the police would call him when they arrived and he would tell them where he was.