4 Witnesses Have Changed Their Stories in the Zimmerman Case.

Who's site map? MSLSD? HUFFPO? One from a prosecutor who can't even do a true bill right?

 

I've never seen an accurate map and the one used most by Z supporters is blatantly false created by a guy with the admitted purpose of trying to prove T double backed and attacked Z.

 

The one that shows the "cut throughs"..

 

3 judges looked at it. If it was done wrong why didn't any of them dismiss it?

 

Oh jeez.


A true bill is the written decision of a Grand Jury (signed by the Grand Jury foreperson) that it has heard sufficient evidence from the prosecution to believe that a crime has been committed ...

Its NOT neccessary in Florida for Murder 2..

Do you ever take time to find out what terms mean?

 

Z said he was confronted while walking back to his SUV. Where is the evidence that shows it isn't true?

No proof to show he didn't have his head bashed on concrete. His injuries are enough to show self defense.

Again, I don't see any evidence against that. Z has a witness who said he was pinned down and Z has injuries to show he was beaten. Z's knuckles showed no sign of hitting T so there is no proof to show he was aggressive in the struggle until the shot was fired.

I thought about that one too. You would think T's fingerprints would be on the gun if he had grabbed it. It doesn't mean T wasn't trying to grab and didn't succeed. I still doubt that part though. I don't think T ever saw the gun but that is my opinion.

 

Trayvon was killed 80 yards from where GZ's truck was parked..

If GZ turned and began walking back to the north cut thru and out of the alley, Trayvon wouldn't have followed him.

 

1. That isnt the lie I was talking about. He lied about what happened when they physically encountered each other.

I find it interesting you ask for evidence to prove Z lied about returning to his truck. You accept his claim at face value but ignore Dee's testimony? Strange. However, there is evidence Z was not returning to his truck by several factors.

2. His injuries are not consistent with having your head bashed on concrete and the investigator stated they have evidence that did not happen.

3. T had no signs on his knuckles he was hitting Z. You can't claim the absence of marks on Z's knuckles is proof of something and ignore the fact T had no marks on his knuckles. The physical evidence looks like they were wrestling around which would account for Z's injuries and not a single witness says for sure T was hitting Z, which matches the physical evidence of T's autopsy report.

4. The absence of fingerprints makes it hard to buy Z 's claim, as you apparently agree with. I don't see how it is physically possible they fought for the gun yet nothing shows T ever touched it.

 

How far was Trayvon's body found from where he was staying with his dad?

 

What difference does that make? At some point we will see the video footage from the clubhouse so we know it contains info about the event and shows either T, Z, or both.

 

Not really. The only thing so far is a disagreement with Dee's testimony. But still he could claim he was walking back to his truck and he and Trayvon crossed paths. I haven't seen a map yet that explains exactly what has been proven to have happened. It is all speculation. So far it is possible the two crossed paths. Martin confronted Zimmerman by aking why he was following him and when Zimmerman asked what he was doing there, Martin punched him. That possibility has not been disproved yet.

No, I have already said how I think it happened which would make Z's story not the absolute truth no Dee's story the absolute truth. Surely you don't believe either one is telling the whole truth here. Don't be naive.

What evidence do they have? It's possible but I don't believe it until I see it. I believe in innocent until proven guilty.

The autopsy report shows T had skinned knuckles.

Z claimed T saw the gun and went for it. That doesn't mean he was successful in getting a finger on it. I have already said I don't think T ever saw the gun which shows I don't believe that part. Maybe you don't like that I am not in total agreement with the lynch mob. Truth is no one will know much of anything for sure until everything is all laid out and both sides argued. Who knows what other evidence is out there. I'm just not buying into the manufactured narrative that Zimmerman is guilty. If he is then he should go to jail. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.

 

About 70 yards according to reports..

I think the evidence will show.. that Trayvon was under no obligation to run.. He was probably waiting to determine if GZ was still after him.

Try to remember that.. there weren't any robberies at the Retreat.. and typically "burglary" is a sneak thief crime NOT a confrontational or armed crime.

GZ, however, had a reputation of being very immature and confrontational.

The death was unnecessary and completely avoidable, but for George Zimmerman's zeal..

 

I'm just trying to get a sense of distance here. That's all. Is there a reliable source to show these locations?

 

Regarding your post above, the autopsy report does not say T had skinned knuckles. It never mentions any marks at all on any knuckle on either hand. I have it in PDF but don't know how to upload it to this site so you can read it for yourself.

The lie I was referring to is Z claiming he said only one word before T punched him. Dee, and other witnesses heard them arguing before anything physical happened. Why would Z lie about it if T hit him first?

T was about 80 yards from where he was staying. All the maps I have seen are not accurate and the most popular one used by Z supporters was made by a hack on the wagist blog who couldn't even figure out where the back entrance was.

I don't think any jury is going to buy the claim T double backed. It is a claim that is not supported by any evidence at all and from the facts we do know, it is silly to think T double backed.

 

Really? But you acknowledge a mark on his hand in this post:

Tsk,tsk,tsk...the old semantic game again. You really waste alot of time doing this. If someone says "skinned knuckles" how about correcting them with what the autopsy report says exactly. Playing games is such a waste of time.

I give Dee's testimony about as much credibility as Zimmerman's. They both have motivation to lie.

Z does mention the back entrance on the 911 tape. Only he really knows where he was referring. I would like to know the exact location of Z's SUV. I've seen maps that place it in many different locations. That is a problem. So much information out there that is guess work. It is mixed with fact so who knows what the truth is. It will take a trial with people under oath to seperate fact from fiction. That is one reason I am staying as neutral as I can by saying Z is innocent until proven guilty.

I think it is possible T doubled back. What was he doing from the time he lost Z until they met up again? Hopefully there will be an accurate timeline established and where things happened and at what location. So far everyone is just guessing. This is a complicated case with few known facts so far. I don't see where you can claim it is silly to think T doubled back. With what few facts there are out there pretty much anything is possible.

 

According to Dee Dee's testimony, T lost Z for a couple of minutes until they met up again, and that was after T states he wasn't going to run because he was by his fathers house. So in that couple of minutes, T ended back up at the other end of the complex where Z was. It only takes one minute to walk from one end of that sidewalk to the other.

Now that doesn't make anyone guilty of anything yet, but that is the timeline laid down by what Dee Dee said.

At some point, whether T confronted Z or they just ended up running into each other again, T is the first one to say something according to Dee Dee.

So far what we know of Zimmerman's story matches up if he says T confronted him which could just be his perception of the meeting.

What makes me suspicious of Dee Dee's testimony is not what she said, or the timeline, but what she may possibly not be saying. After all it is against the law to withhold information from the Police and she refused to go to the police once discovered by Crump's team. Why would she not report this if it went down like she said? One guess is that she knows something that made her decide not to go to the police, like T's real state of mind that night. You can tell her testimony is coached, some of it while on the stand when she wasn't saying what the prosecutor expected her to say.

 

When was Dee Dee on the stand????

 

Testimony: a solemn declaration usually made orally by a witness under oath in response to interrogation by a lawyer or authorized public official.

In case you missed it, Dee Dee gave her sworn testimony to the prosecution and it is entered as evidence for any trial.

 

I know she was interviewed by the FBI and FDLE and that she was interviewed by the prosecution.. just din't realize that she had taken the stnd in any proceedings yet.

 

What makes you think T was in motion the whole time? When T said he was right by his father's house that doesn't mean he was at his father's house. In relation to where he walked from, I would see "right by" as in a few buildings down. What makes the most sense is after T ran away he tried to hide between two buildings in hopes of losing the stranger following him. He tells he Dee he thinks he lost him, steps out from the two buildings and begins walking when he noticed Z was behind him again.

 

If he was so worried about being followed, why didn't he just go home since he was right by his house instead of going back to where Zimmerman was minutes later. I still think that Dee Dee is not saying something that she knows went on or something that Trayvon said or she heard since she never went to the police but had to be coaxed into giving any statement, first to Crump, then to ABC, then to the FBI, and finally to the prosecution and never to the police.

If you ask me, if all of the witness testimony is unreliable, that only supports Zimmerman even more since no one can dispute his story.

 

that and now science has shown that possibly every time you recall a memory, you also save it back, sometime with minor changes, but as you recall it more, chance of corruption increase

as far as these witnesses changing their story, sure some have played that nights events over and over in their minds, rethinking their views on the matter

 

Or they fill in the memory with what they heard in the media.. Zoisas mom calls it source memory.

If I tell my eyewitness account and the "red sweater" was not part of that earliest memory, it might become part of a later recollection.

That's why the initial interviewer has to be carefully trained NOT to lead the eye witness.

 

It isn't a semantic game at all. Having one abrasion on his left fourth finger below the knuckle does not indicate he was punching Z in any way at all. I love how people say the absence of marks on Z's knuckles prove he wasnt punching T but the absence of marks on T's knuckles is meaningless. The fact T had none of Z's DNA under his fingernails proves quite a bit. You loved to pass on the false claim T had skinned knuckles. Now that you know for a fact he didn't, how about adjusting your narrative to fit the facts. How can you possibly have the same narrative when the one you have is based on false info? I look forward to seeing the proper adjustments.

We know from Z's call his truck was parked next to a cut through and looking at the map, there is only one cut through. If you place his vehicle anywhere else you can give an address but Z couldn't give an address because he was parked next to a cut through which is on the big curve between the clubhouse and the next building.

We also know from Z's call he had visual contact with the mailboxes as he was obviously looking at them while giving dispatch directions. Here is the kicker: it helps prove Z continued looking for T after he got off the phone because there is no way you can see the mailboxes once you get to the two rows of buildings where T was staying.

It makes absolutely no sense to think T would double back after he ran away. Seriously, no jury is going to buy that without valid reasoning and wanting to twist logic to make it look like T attacked Z is not valid. That is useless wishing.

 

You might also note that Trayvon was right handed.