Z Never Had A Broken Nose

What is your evidence T attacked him first? The ONLY source for that claim is a guy who has proven to be a liar and killed an unarmed 17 year old. Nice selection on credibility.

 

The fact remains there is no objective evidence his nose was broken and people have been repeatedly claiming that is an indisputable fact. Since you haven't researched this enough to know what the EMTs Report stated why are you commenting out of ignorance? The EMT's report does not support Z's claim and they were the first medical personnel to examine him ten minutes after the shooting.

I'm also not changing the subject regarding the funeral director. It's a great example of hypocrisy from Z supporters and since he looks at dead bodies for a living I would say his opinion is expert. More importantly, the autopsy report proves his claim correct.

 

Martin did run away from Z. You guys keep conveniently ignoring that indisputable fact.

 

At least one if not two of the resident witnesses knew Z. Show us where you have said their testimony is questionable. Everything in her testimony is in harmony with the other facts/witnesses.

 

I'm not saying the doctor is lying. However, we know Z, his wife, his dad, and his lawyer are all proven liars so why would his doctor be any different? I'm pointing out the fact his nose was never broken. If it was, given us more than speculation by Z and his doctor.

My beef is this: anytime an expert makes a statement that hurts Z then those experts are dismissed and their testimonies are irrelevant. But if an expert gives an opinion the helps Z, your camp treats him like God.

 

It was so FREAKING DUMB it refuted itself. We all agree the call was cut off 6-10 seconds after their initial encounter. Nobody disputes that so we all expect Dee would not have heard the screams or the gunshot.

 

So what? Are you actually trying to blame the murder on T for not going home? Do you realize he was trying to lose the stranger following him so the stranger wouldn't see where he was staying? Wouldn't it make sense to not go into his father's house until he knew he wasn't being followed????

 

The first medical personnel to examine Z never said anything about a broken nose or even possible broken nose. So we have two medical reports and they are not consistent with each other.

 

One interesting aspect is Z supporters are not complaining about the doctor citing Z as a "White Male." Why is that????

 

I'm sure the neighbors may have met or seen Zimmerman because they lived in the same neighborhood but so did Trayvon's Dad. They probably had the same type relationship with both, neighbors. Dee went to school with Trayvon from kindergarden up and is known as his girlfriend. Big difference there and reason to consider Dee's testimony biased.

 

If Zimmerman is to blame for getting out of his SUV then Martin is to blame for not going home. He had the opportunity to get out of the situation and didn't. I actually blame both for this happening. They both did stupid things.

I haven't seen where this has come up or been proven. If you have proof I would like to see it.

Not really. If some "creepy" guy was following me and I lost him I would keep going until I was safe and sound in my own house. I don't think hanging around in the dark would be a smart thing to do.

That is like saying Zimmerman got out of his SUV because he was highly visible and didn't know if Martin had a gun. That would make Zimmerman a sitting duck. I wouldn't buy that and I don't buy what you are saying either.

 

I don't know how these people are all "proven liars" but they are all biased by their relationship to Z. Just like Dee is biased for T. That is to be expected but I don't think many doctors would put their reputation on the line for a patient.

But anyway, the extent of Zimmerman's wounds are pretty much irrelevant. He did have injuries to his head which courts consider to be serious. It shows whoever inflicted these injuries did so without regard of causing serious injury. Trayvon had intentions of hurting Zimmerman. I would consider this a fact. Trayvon also had Zimmerman pinned down while doing so. Zimmerman could not retreat.

I really don't find it too important whether Zimmerman's nose was broken or not. As I mentioned before the injuries show Trayvon's intent of doing injury. Now, why Trayvon did this could be debated. It could be argued he thought he was defending himself but that doesn't hold water for me. Since when has anyone ever pinned someone down in self defense. Trayvon meant to do bodily harm without regard to how serious it could have been.

As far as the voice analysis of the cries for help it just seems to be inconclusive.

 

That was pretty murky so here it is point blank:

Are testimonies by those who knew Z biased? Yes or No please.

 

You are falsely assuming T caused all of the injuries and you are definitely falsely accusing him of trying to seriously hurt Z. None of Z's injuries were serious in any way as documented by the EMTs report. Considering the fact we know Z had a motive in detaining T, and his love of authority, it makes perfect sense he tried to grab T and when T resisted they began to fight. T has no history of violence and it is a proven fact he was scared because he ran away from Z. We also know Z has a history of being violent and unpredictable outbursts. They fought for almost 50 seconds so for Z to have nothing but two scrapes on his head and a tender nose, there is no way in hell you can claim T was trying to hurt Z.

It also makes perfect sense T was pinning Z down because he was defending himself from the stranger that was stalking him for no reason. (I really don't care if punks want to whine and say it wasn't stalking. Common freaking sense shows it was)

Once again, the voice analysis comparison is highlighted to show the hypocrisy. Two experts stated it was definitely not Z screaming and his supporters ignored their testimony but hang on for dear life to the speculation of Z's doctor whose report is contradicted by the EMTs report.


If you don't know how all those people I mentioned are proven liars, that shows how little you know about the case.

 

I didn't blame Z for getting out of his vehicle so once again, what does T not running straight home have to do with anything? There is absolutely nothing T did to earn the death penalty.

There was none of Z's DNA under T fingernails, no prints of T on the gun, and no marks on T's hands showing he was beating on someone. These are simply raw facts and each one undermines Z's claims.

The prosecution will leave it up to the jury who made the first physical move but will also point out even if T made the first move it was Z who did the confronting and initiated contact without legitimate cause.

 

If you are talking his family I would say yes it is biased. If you are talking neighbors only I would say no. Now if you know of any of the witnesses Zimmerman knew since grade school that would be different.

 

An eyewitness testified to seeing Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him. That is what I am going by. I don't know but I guess Zimmerman could have gotten beat up some other time, or something but that hasn't been proven.

Again, the seriousness of his injuries are irrelevant. The fact that he emerged from the fight with them shows Martin's intention.

That isn't a fact. Or at least there is nothing that proves Zimmerman's motives. His actions could have other reasons. Personally, I don't think either Zimmerman or Martin are completely innocent when it comes to causing the confrontation. As far as I am concerned they are equally at fault. The main thing is an eyewitness saw Martin on top of Zimmerman punching him right before the gun shot.

No history of violence? How do you know? I think there should be a thorough check on Zimmerman and Martin's backgrounds. I would like to know more about the bus driver Martin "swung on" and his involvement with street fighting. I read the many Tweets of Martin's before it was revealed he had drugs in his system. It was no surprise to me. I would like to know more about Zimmerman's background as well.

Well, he wasn't giving Zimmerman dance lessons either. Like I said courts view head injuries as a serious matter. It show intent of the one that inflicted them.

Again, no proof Martin was defending himself. It is very difficult to say a person pinning another and punching himself is in a defensive position.

BTW, stalking has to be done more than one time to be considered stalking legally. Now, following Martin is possible but no credible evidence shows this happened either, beyond the 911 call. There is still more evidence that hasn't been seen. I wonder if the security cameras from the club house caught anything. It is possible. That would be credible evidence.

I don't think anyone said it definitely wasn't him. I did wonder why that seemed to be overlooked until the FBI said there wasn't enough recording to tell and what they had was too poor of quality. Are you saying the FBI wouldn't have the same type technology?

No, I just choose to look at this objectively. I am skeptical of both sides so the concrete evidence is what I am interested in. I just see more crap coming from the Martin side of this thing. The media has been irresponsible in reporting it.

 

I think blame lies equally here. The policeman who stated it wouldn't have happened if Zimmerman hadn't got out of his vehicle is wrong to state that. There are many "what ifs" here that are legally irrelevant.

No, you are wrong. Autopsy of Martin shows an injury to his knuckle. So what if there was no DNA under Martin's fingernails. That doesn't always happen.

That is still to be decided but it will all boil down to Martin pinning Zimmerman down and punching him. The evidence shows this was the case. If so then what choice did Zimmerman have? I don't care what either side claims Martin or Zimmerman had the opportunity to retreat and neither did. They are both responsible for the confrontation. Even if Dee's testimony is true Martin, instead of out running Zimmerman again, chose to stay and ask "why you following me for?". In the end they confronted each other.

 

http://gma.yahoo.com/cops-witnesses...on-martin-203258749--abc-news-topstories.html
"Two police reports written the night that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin said that Zimmerman had a bloody face and nose, according to police reports made public today".

This specific kind. You say "common sense" leads you to believe that the voice on the tape being verified that it was not GZ, but can't be positively ID as TM, must mean it is TM. But when shown that GZ had bloody nose, black eyes, and a doctor saying it is most likely broken, with TM having bruises on his knuckles, you try to say his nose was never broken.

But the experts can't positively say it was TM. Doesnt matter anyways, he could still be calling for help while beating the living (*)(*)(*)(*) out of GZ.
One more time, do you accept the two experts stating it was not Z screaming?[/QUOTE]

 

Your dishonesty is appalling. You claimed police reports said he had a broken nose. Where are those reports?????

The autopsy DID NOT say T had bruises on his knuckles. It said he had one small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle.

The experts did not have a recording of T's voice to compare to the 911 call. They did have a recording of Z's voice and both said it was definitely not Z screaming on the tape. So common sense says if it wasn't Z then it must have been T. Also, the EMT's report does not say Z had a broken nose.

Your false claims have shown how ridiculous you have to be to try and defend Z.

 

You are so far off base on the known facts it is not worth the time to respond to this dribble. When you show a sincere effort to debate the issue by showing you have learned the facts, let us know. The only bright side is you guys cannot defend Z and be honest about the known facts at the same time.

 

Your bias has been shown again. Here is the problem. At least one knew Z pretty well but had no idea who was fighting until after the gunshot. No worries......I doubt you can see the significance.

Also, the latest witness reports say nobody saw T punching Z at any time.

 

Ok buddy, it is obvious you are a brick wall. You ask for the police reports, and I gave them to you. You speculate about not having an x ray to confirm a broken nose but let it slide that the experts couldn't say it was TM on the recording.

I would like the link for the claim of the bruised knuckle you say. I can't seem to find a liberal site out there with that information or anything that is refuting the other pages and stories about bruiding or bloodied knuckles. If you can provide that, then I will respond, other than that, I am tired of trying to water the concrete.

 

You said there were two police reports saying Z had a broken nose. For the third time, where are those reports?

I didn't let anything slide about the voice analysis. Two experts said it was definitely not Z screaming. There are only two possibilities so if it wasn't Z screaming....what does common freaking sense say?????

I've already posted the link to the direct autopsy report and am not doing it again. I actually started a thread with it but staff whacked the thread and I have no idea where that post is now.

You call me a brick wall but at least I have backed up what I said. You haven't supported any of your BS claims.

 

I gave you the link that said it was bloody nose. Sorry, with the recent jumping of posts, I think I left out with the reports of the bloody nose, combined with his doctor saying it was probably broken, "Common freaking sense" would tell you it is broken.

Yet you refuse to say he had a broken nose by the common sense theory? I also told you that someone screaming for help doesn't mean they are the ones being beaten.

Good story bro. Now find the link.

No you haven't. Where is the proof his nose wasn't broken?