4 Witnesses Have Changed Their Stories in the Zimmerman Case.

It doesn't help the cops were telling witnesses key info during the investigation. The cops told Austin Brown the color of Z's jacket......then asked what color of jacket AB saw. That is just one example.

 

Thank you and I had pointed that out before only to be told it doesn't mean he couldn't have hit Z with his left hand. I agree with that, but there are no marks on his left hand showing he punched Z.

What the autopsy does prove is there is no way T was beating on Z as so many have falsely claimed.

A couple of people accused the funeral director of being biased or dishonest just to help T's family and now we know the autopsy report only confirms what he said.

Have you notice the silence over the media mis-reporting the info? The media falsely claimed T had skinned knuckles and now that we know that isn't true, I don't see any Z supporters getting upset about those false claims or saying T's parents should sue for false representation.

 

Sky: have you ever worked with media.. Even if you write the report out for them, they will still screw up the details.. With a 24/7 news cycle its worse.......

 

You asked why did he go back to where Z was. Are you freaking serious?????? Other than your imaginations, there is absolutely no evidence T double backed in any way. That wagist map so many people used was written by a complete dumbass called Dan Linehan who uses sources like Stormfront.

Don't ask questions based purely on your fantasies as if they have any meaning. It just shows how desperate you guys are to defend Z.

 

Actually, this case was the first time I ever emailed a journalist. I pointed out why the SYG did not apply and used that to show why her article was wrong. She claimed her article was accurate until the guys who wrote the law said it didn't apply to Z for the exact reasons I told her a few weeks before. She suddenly lost my email address.

I know what you mean, but Z supporters and their double standards on this are astronomical and almost comical. Like a real life The Onion.

 

Oh I have never spoken to media inquiries re: any criminal matters.. I am saying they can't get the facts right even in business reporting.

 

personally I have not heard any witness that is 100% reliable in this case, what I depend on most is the 911 calls, and so far I believe Z is guilty of manslaughter based on current evidence as I do not believe he intentionally went out to kill Martin, but i do believe it was his actions that led to Martin being killed that night

can one use self defense to justify murder in defending oneself from the one their perusing defending themselves, I do not think so
.
.
.

 

Actually, you pretty much just defined 2nd degree murder by Florida law. M2 does not require intent to kill at any point in time. This is probably one of the reasons some people think he was over charged but M2 in FL does not have the same standards as many states.

 

It may or may not..

If you pull a gun and shoot, that becomes intentional.. as opposed to premeditated or with malice.

 

The defendant can claim they did not intend to kill the person. By Florida removing the "intent" element it removes a lot of dancing room for people who illegally shoot other people. It doesn't matter if Z intended to kill or not. Pulling his gun and shooting the person he just harassed and profiled as a criminal without just cause, becomes depraved indifference towards human life.

 

Tryy it this way.. the gun didn't go off accidentally.. you see ?

 

Intentionally pulling the trigger does not automatically translate into intending to kill the person. A fine line but one skilled defense lawyers have used to help acquit people. Florida was smart enough to remove intent to kill from the books so the prosecution doesn't need to prove intent to kill to prove M2.

 

Two doctors, Loftus and Loftus, and published on the reliability of eyewitness testimony and their research is credible. Of course, lynch mobs aren't concerned with credibility. Emotion rules.

 

When you look at the earliest witness accounts, then the second version then the third version, it is pretty clear SPD seriously influenced witness testimony which is why their latest versions are much closer to their first versions. Not ALL of them of course, but a couple of key ones.

 

Murder in the Second in Florida:

The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, is murder in the second degree and constitutes a felony of the first degree, punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life or as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

That means that the prosecution will have to prove that Zimmerman acted in a dangerous way and was of depraved mind regardless of human life. Sorry, but following someone is not an imminently dangerous act. Asking someone a question is not an imminently dangerous act. Carrying a gun legally is not an imminently dangerous act and that he used his legal weapon while getting beaten is not evidence of a depraved mind regardless of human life.

 

Manslaughter:

The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

Chapter 776:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

 

You are partially right about Z not having any scrapes or scratches on his knuckles but you see T didn't have any signs of being hit either. T did have the abrasion and Z had injuries showing he had been hit. You see putting those things together bring the conclusion not just looking at one piece of info. The whole picture is painted with all the info. Consider also a witness saw T had Z pinned to the ground and it all adds up.

You are really stuck on this T "doubling back" thing aren't you? You see it isn't so much of the possibility T doubled back, it's only a possibility. The big thing for me is what was T doing in the time he lost Z until they met up again? Why did T hang around in the dark? These are things that are known and don't really add up if T was so frightened by the "creepy white guy" following him. I don't think he was as scared as people want to make him out to be. I think he was angry.

 

He was so angry he ran away. You think a jury would buy that? There was not much time that passed between T running away and Z coming face to face with him. Since T was running from someone in a vehicle, do you want us to believe T thought he could out run that vehicle?

Only thirty seconds passed between Z hanging up and the two meeting up face to face. Do you believe Z put his cellphone away knowing he was expecting a call from the cops?

It is not me that is hung up on the doubling back but the people defending Z claiming T doubled back when they have absolutely no evidence. Strangely, with all your objectivity you never seem to question any Z supporter on anything. Maybe you're just taking your time with addressing both sides?

What has me convinced it is a small chance T was punching Z is not just the absence of marks on T's hands, but the absence of any blood or DNA from Z. There would be nothing strange about Z getting his injuries from the two wrestling around on the ground. People kept saying wet grass doesnt cause lacerations so it MUST have been concrete and T must have been slamming his head on to it. The ems didn't see anything like that which is why they didn't send Z to the hospital. Now that we know the only blood collected was from the grass and a flashlight we have an explanation of the head laceration.

There was blood on Z's face and head. How can you reconcile the claim T was beating on him when there is absolutely no physical evidence connecting T's hands to Z's head?

 

There was a full two minutes between the time T says he lost Z and was "by his house" to when they met again, which means that between the time that T lost Z and Z lost T to the time they met again was shortly after Z hung up.

 

It doesnt matter because you know Z pushed T first.

 

Another lie? All I have said is that the only known story is from Zimmerman, anything else is conjecture.

 

Oh that's right. You only take a part of Dee's testimony and twist it to your flavor while ignoring her testimony proves Z touched T first. I gotta say, that is one of the best examples of hypocrisy from your camp. Thanks for the great example!!

 

Dee Dees testimony is known and it dovetails with the other known facts, like the call timeline. Her testimony proves nothing about who touched who first.

 

Oh that's right. You only take a part of Dee's testimony and twist it to your flavor while ignoring her testimony proves Z touched T first. I gotta say, that is one of the best examples of hypocrisy from your camp. Thanks for the great example!!

(keep ignoring how she said T had to turn around to ask Z why he was following him. Keep ignoring how she heard T saying "Get off" before the call was cut off.)

This is just an awesome example of how you guys cherry pick, use hypocrisy, and basically make some of the silliest possible claims.

 

How did Dee know T "had to turn around" to ask Z anything? How could she see that through the phone? Ear witness testimony is more unreliable than eyewitness testimony and just look at what these eyewitnesses claim. They are all over the place for the most part.