4 Witnesses Have Changed Their Stories in the Zimmerman Case.

The physical evidence does not prove T was punching on Z and the autopsy on T and ems report on Z show there was no major fist fight. Z had three distinct injuries: his bloody nose, and two cuts on the back of his head. This means at most T made contact three times. T was right handed but his right hand was completely free of marks the next morning. They did the autopsy on T even before Z went to see his doctor. There was also no DNA of Z's under T's fingernails.

That witness called the cops 70 seconds after the gun was fired and he was the first direct eyewitness to both of them. The next witness who saw anything before the gunshot was the 13 yo Austin Brown. He saw only one person on the ground after that witness said he was going to call the cops and before the gun was fired. This tells me T got off of Z when the witness said he was calling 911 because T thought help was on the way. Keep in mind, T still had no idea what Z's motivations were.

Brown seeing one person before the shot proves T was not on top of Z when the gun was fired and this is why I suspect T had his hands up when the gun was fired. If they were wrestling face to face T would have been close enough to grab the gun but his fingerprints weren't on the gun at all.

 

No, that is not how I see it happening. My previous post should help clarify what I and saying. I don't think Z had his gun pointed at T for forty seconds. It is possible but not very probable. I do think T was yelling for help while pinning down the stranger that was following him for no apparent reason. I think he got up when the witness said he was calling 911. If T was really overpowering Z as Z claimed, there is no way the witness Brown would have seen only one person moments before the gun was fired.

 

The absence of any marks on Z's hands or injury to T shows Z didn't do much to fight back. Z weighed more than T and T was only two inches taller.

Since witnesses saw Z on top of T seconds after the gun was fired this helps prove T was not on top because there was not enough time for Z to shoot T, get out from under T, then stand up himself and straddle T. Since the witness Brown saw one person on the ground moments before the shot, it looks like Z stood up and shot T while they were both standing. At the bail hearing Z said he didn't know of T was armed or not. That was a major self defeating blow because if T was truly beating Z it wouldn't matter if Z thought he was armed or not.

 

Thank you for taking the time to explain your thoughts on this. Interesting take.

I would say that is a reasonable way of looking at it. But there is more to this equation. Looking at it through T's eyes is only half. Looking at it through Z's eyes as well completes the picture more clearly. Z was in his own neighborhood that had recently had several burglaries committes by young black males, which T fit the description. It was cold, rainy and dark out. Who goes out walking in these conditions? Z sees T and calls 911 to report him as being suspicious. Don't know when Z first started to follow him. Something to consider though, I agree.

T sees Z and runs. We don't know that he was scared really but that seems to be a possibility. Z was on the phone with 911 who was asking for description and location of T. When T runs it is completely reasonable to say Z followed him to keep sight of him. No one can say Z condemned T as a criminal but running away doesn't make T look any less suspicious. Z didn't know why T was running away. He said he thought T was "up to no good". As far as we know neither let the other know who they were or what they were doing. Mistake on both parties.

I don't think T was scared. I think he was angry. Here is a teen whos has been in trouble at school three times. He was suspended for ten days and staying with his Dad. Within a few months he had gotten in trouble for spray painting graffiti, attendance and being caught with a bag with marijuana residue and a pipe for smoking pot. I'd say he was getting tired of authority figures. I bet his Dad was on his case because from what I understand he had to beg him just to go to the store. When he finally gets a little freedom here is this man eyeballing him. Tired of being hassled by authority figures he gets angry. He runs away to get out of Zimmerman's sight but knows Z follows him. He loses Z but doesn't go home. So he wasn't scared. T sees Z walking, it hasn't been established if Z was persuing him still. T can't even go to the darned store without being hassled so he loses it. "Why you following me for?" this kid was tired of being hassled. Z says "what are you doing here?" Z was tired of crimes where he lives. Bingo, confrontation.

That's my take. I understand more about why you see it the way you do. You are entitled to your opinion. Seems reasonable but I don't agree.

 

This is where forensics will help. I think it will show the position of both T and Z.

I disagree. Z made the statement he didn't know if T was armed or not to show his situation as being dangerous. I was in a fight one time and I thought a guy had a knife. Holy crap that makes a difference in your state of mind.

 

If T was angry it would have made more sense for T to go right up to Z when Z was on the phone with the cops. T running away is proof he was avoiding a physical confrontation so even though it is more plausible he ran out of fear, we don't need to guess his action of running away proves he tried to avoid the physical.

We know Z condemned T as a criminal by Z's own words. Z called due to crime and he clearly designated T as a criminal by saying "these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s always get away." Z said that BEFORE T ran away. After T ran away is when he referred to him as " fudding punks." This is one major component of the events. It was okay for Z to call on a stranger. I don't think T did anything to warrant the call but it doesn't matter. The call itself is not the issue because the problem isn't that Z suspected T of being a criminal, he had clearly condemned him as one by lumping T in with past crimes that T had no part in.

We know Z continued to look for T after his call with dispatch because he refused a fixed meeting location with the cops. Even without the ex Chief of police and Z's dad saying Z kept looking for him we know Z's intention was to keep looking for T and since he didn't know where he would be he asked the cops call his cell so he can tell them.

T did not run straight home and based on Dee's testimony, it's because T was trying to lose the stranger. It looks like T was trying to hide between two buildings and while he was standing there Z kept looking for him. When T started walking again he came out from between two buildings and Z happened to be walking in the same direction. It was at this point T turned around and asked what was going on. Instead of Z diffusing the situation he escalates it with an accusatory tone. We already know what Z's mindset was against T so it is not hard to imagine the hostility Z carried into the argument.

 

The autopsy report states the bullet traveled directly from front to back which indicates a parallel firing position. If T was on top, or any other position the bullet would have traveled at an angle, but it was straight.

The proclamation of not knowing if T was armed or not suggests Z fired out of something other than getting beat up real bad. I think the prosecution will use that to demonstrate Z did not have to shoot out of self defense and I do think Z thought it possible T was armed by his comment to dispatch that he had something in his waistband. (Turns out T was holding a cellphone)

I know what you mean about mindset in a street fight not knowing what the other guy has. It does change how you react but it also doesn't mean you kill the guy on a suspicion.

 

I really don't think T was that scared. It doesn't make sense to run from someone and then hang out in the dark. T could have made it home. He had played football since he was 5 so he had to be in better shape than Z. T hung around in the dark. If he hadn't Z wouldn't have ran across him. As far as Z's motives I don't think he was going to confront T. It is possible but it is also possible T doubled back to confront Z. Here is a young man that had been suspended from school and staying with his dad. I bet he was sick of authority figures coming down on him. I think they will look into T's past and find he "swung on a bus drive" like it has been said. I think Z was fed up with neighborhood crime and T was fed up with being hassled by authority figures.

 

Heat of the moment self preservation takes over. The path of the bullet is interesting. That is the stuff that decides cases like these. People's testimony can be biased or just based on wrong perceptions.

This is a tragic situation no matter the outcome. I think all the media stuff is mostly unecessary. The fact that Crump hired a publicity firm is pretty repulsive to me.That is why I want to see things for myself. I don't much believe the hype.

 

Trayvon didn't "beg" his father to let him go to the story.. Trayvon's father and his girlfriend were out for dinner and a movie.. arriving home after midnight.

 

Trayvon played football in the Optimist league.. I think it goes to 8th grade or 150 pounds.. whichever comes first.

 

Not according to the Martin family publicist, I mean spokesman. Here is the article:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2866084/posts

 

The father wasn't at home when Trayvon went to the store.

Martin Spoke of ‘Crazy and Creepy’ Man Following Him, Friend Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/19/us/trayvon-martins-friend-tells-what-she-heard-on-phone.html

 

You are forgetting the possibility Trayvon could have called his dad on his cell phone. I also can't believe you wouldn't believe something from the publicist/spokesperson for the Martin/Crump propaganda machine.

 

You mean that he went to dinner with a 20 year old cousin or that he went to the store for Skittles?

I don't know how either remark impacts what happened after GZ got out of his truck.

 

You don't seem to understand. It is not an EITHER/OR issue. The State has to prove it was murder AND Zimmerman has to prove it was self-defense.

 

#1 Link?

#2 Lie detector test are not admissible in court.

 

You are correct, Dasein.

Some still don't comprehend Affirmative Defense.

 

hello! Link!

 

Yes but being on top of someone throwing punches "MMA style" is completely different from holding an attacker down while screaming for help.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-said-make-self-incriminating-statements.html

 

:music: DUN DUN DUN :music:

 

The fact that one witness saw a fight and Zimmerman had the injuries is enough to justify self defense. They cannot convict on murder in any case with that kind of reasonable doubt. Zimmerman walks just like I said the first week. The press wanted his ass too badly for it to be anything but a put up job.

 

Not if Zimmerman created the circumstances and the treat. If you cause someone to fear for their safety, you have assaulted them.. And Trayvon was NOT doing anything unlawful.

http://www.politicalforum.com/curre...-said-make-self-incriminating-statements.html

 

Thanks Margot. Geez go and play Arkaham City for awhile and everything exciting happens.