Some new evidence in the Zimmerman case

[TwoCentPlain]

I might be one the few who haven't followed this case at all. Mostly because I plain don't care and, in small part, because I've been really busy and don't have any time.

Life ain't fair and neither is the media. In case you haven't figured it out, here's how the media works (at least in my eyes): to maximize profits, maximize number of viewers. To do this, take any potentially divisive issue and present it so that 50% are on one side and 50% on the other. Bingo. Profits maximized. Now milk that issue (i.e. those profits) for as long as possible or until a more profitable opportunity presents itself.

Natural disasters are a two-for-one. First you get the rubber-neckers and then you find an issue which will divide the viewers (blame the government usually works just fine ).

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How about you ask him. Or look at his post in this thread. LOL!

Let me help you out here. Post 244.

Have fun.

You too funny.

I did look at his post. I took it as sarcasm. I could be wrong of course but seeing that you didn't even know that he was BnA you obviously do not know him all too well.

I am still waiting for some proof of your slander about me. You seem lo love insulting people and their character.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

I did look at his post. I took it as sarcasm. I could be wrong of course but seeing that you didn't even know that he was BnA you obviously do not know him all too well.

I am still waiting for some proof of your slander about me. You seem lo love insulting people and their character.

Wasn't up to me to make that public knowledge. Friends do keep thing confidential when they are asked to.

As to slander (LOL BTW) Nope. Not their charter. Just their characterizations. You should learn the difference.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You'd fit right in with your "hang 'em without any evidence" meme. You are just as credible as they are.

So you stand by this statement?

 

[Cajuncowboy]

So you stand by this statement?

By your characterization.

this all started by YOU suggesting people were defending Zimmerman. You don't seem to like the fact that there are other sides of the story. So that would lead me to think that you only want one side told and therefore you want to hang the guy before the evidence is in. You should go back and re-read.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

By your characterization.

You sure do like to dissemble. Well, by your characterization it fits right into your meme of being without honor or intellectual honesty.

Good day, sir.

 

[Cajuncowboy]

You sure do like to dissemble. Well, by your characterization it fits right into your meme of being without honor or intellectual honesty.

Good day, sir.

Maybe re-read your own post that started this. And the fact that someone like you would have the gall to mention honor or intellectual honesty when you have a problem with people trying to present ALL the facts make you look completely foolish.

Post 271 for those who wish to discern this ludicrous back and forth.

 

[justbob]

From the beginning I said the problem with this case was everyone is forming opinions without knowing any of the facts.

I told Tony33 that the picture was consistent and why. He didn't believe me. I don't have to prove myself to him....But I offered up personal information that has no business on this forum to Hos so Tony could at least confirm that I was not blowing smoke ...He would rather challenge me..So I give .Hos is wrong on his statement and Tony can tell everyone how great he is because I did not lay things out for him..All of which he would challenge anyway--

Fuzzy --never said I practiced law ,but I do know what goes on in criminal trials and civil trials ...I stand by my statements. And CA and I have talked by pm and hopefully he has a better understanding of what I was saying. I meant no disrespect to him and I hope he knows that..That said I do stand by all that I have said..

Saying all the above--- that the only intelligent statement that has been said on this thread is the one made by Sarge

 

[JoseyWales]

You're going to have to explain what "major doctoring" is, because I haven't seen that really harped on by anyone except a select handful of people here.

I would think a guy who aspires to be a lawyer would pay a bit more attention to what he's reading. I said nothing about "major doctoring". I said "major media" as in NBC, ABC, etc... was doctoring 911 calls. And NBC has admitted to cutting the tape to show Zimmerman in a bad light. Meaning racist. That wouldn't be another lawyer trick to try spin away from the point, would it?

Also, if you think those pictures didn't get out around the internet and have an impact, you're mistaken. This is 2012 - Twitter and Facebook reach more people and reach further than any news source could hope to reach. That's why social media managers get paid big time dollars from corporations, etc. these days.

Yeah, they got out and went viral. So? I'd like to also point out that it was quickly ascertained that the pic was not Martin, and the media happily reported that news. Still doesn't change the fact there is a HUGE difference between some random schlub on the internet posting a false pic and major media outlets tampering with an official recording, skewing its message. Or continually posting pics of the two involved. One guy looking rough in county orange, the other a sweet innocent 12-13 yr old child. No matter that those pics were roughly 5 yrs old. Now the guy in county orange looks different. Clean cut. The sweet 12-13 yr old has changed, too. He now is a 17 yrs old guy, a whole lot bigger and stronger. Making it look like a criminal has attacked a young innocent child would be more shocking than if a clean cut guy had just shot a 17 year old guy almost fully grown. And that's exactly what happened. So again, as an aspiring lawyer, I'd hope you'd see the difference between some random stranger posting a pic, and news channels broadcasting near continous coverage of the pics and recordings.

Were the photos of Zimmerman doctored? Are you talking about photos released by the media, and media coverage of the story?

See above. No, the photos weren't doctored. But they weren't truthful, either. Neither person is still the same person the media tried to lead people to believe. Now, the 911 tapes? Oh yeah. Majorly doctored.

They're more similar than anyone would want to believe, at least as far as public reaction/outcry, etc. But it would take someone looking from the outside as objectively as possible to see that.

Not even close. First, the two cases aren't even remotely close to each other. Second, this public outcry you're talking about isn't close either. In the Anthony case, it was over a woman accused of killing her own child and trying to cover it up. Black, white, yellow, red, and green were all equally outraged. Especially when she was found not guilty. The Martin/Zimmerman case has been racially charged since the outset. And people like J. Jackson, A. Sharpton, and the new black panthers have done nothing but fan that fire. With an ample assist from the media.

What photos? This question doesn't make any sense to me.

Seriously? You come in using the example of a random pic off the internet being passed off as Martin being no different from the pics the media was putting out. I questioned you on that, and that has lead to all this. And now you ask 'What photos'? Another lawyer trick, perhaps?

So now that we've cleared up 'what photos', the question still stands.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Maybe re-read your own post that started this. And the fact that someone like you would have the gall to mention honor or intellectual honesty when you have a problem with people trying to present ALL the facts make you look completely foolish.

Post 271 for those who wish to discern this ludicrous back and forth.

You mean the post that said that after the defense had questioned the lead prosecutors about Zimmerman's testimony, the prosecutor revealed that they had evidence to question the validity of Zimmerman's account of how he got his head wound.

I know that in your quest to 'hear all the facts' that you don't want to hear it but the state of Florida is actually bringing a charge of murder against Zimmerman. They have been very tight-lipped about what their case is so in my quest to 'hear all the facts' I thought it germane to bring it up.

After you made sure to rebut the testimony of the lead investigator, you have since tried to attack my character. You have summarized anyone that entertains the idea that the state may actually have a case as 'idiots' and likened me to Black Panthers and a lynch mob. Its straight up ad hominem that you do not even stand by. Instead you claim 'characterization' or just ignore any askance of justification with a renewed assault.

As I said its transparent, the only 'facts' that you are interested in those that exonerate Zimmerman and then bully anyone that entertain any notion otherwise. Its contemptible.

I want to hear the state's case. Deal with it.

 

[casmith07]

You mean the post that said that after the defense had questioned the lead prosecutors about Zimmerman's testimony, the prosecutor revealed that they had evidence to question the validity of Zimmerman's account of how he got his head wound.

I know that in your quest to 'hear all the facts' that you don't want to hear it but the state of Florida is actually bringing a charge of murder against Zimmerman. They have been very tight-lipped about what their case is so in my quest to 'hear all the facts' I thought it germane to bring it up.

After you made sure to rebut the testimony of the lead investigator, you have since tried to attack my character. You have summarized anyone that entertains the idea that the state may actually have a case as 'idiots' and likened me to Black Panthers and a lynch mob. Its straight up ad hominem that you do not even stand by. Instead you claim 'characterization' or just ignore any askance of justification with a renewed assault.

As I said its transparent, the only 'facts' that you are interested in those that exonerate Zimmerman and then bully anyone that entertain any notion otherwise. Its contemptible.

I want to hear the state's case. Deal with it.

The one thing I want to mention before I leave this thread, is that one thing that is completely lost in all of these pages and pages of posts is that this photo for one is alleged to be of Zimmerman - we can't really tell. Additionally, it's unclear of when it was taken, where it was taken, etc.

It likely wouldn't even be admitted into evidence even if it weren't released publicly, but with it being released to the public, it almost assuredly will not be allowed to be admitted into evidence (assuming it's even part of the defense's case, which it likely isn't).

So this really was just a lot of pages for nothing, most likely.

Carry on.

 

[justbob]

The one thing I want to mention before I leave this thread, is that one thing that is completely lost in all of these pages and pages of posts is that this photo for one is alleged to be of Zimmerman - we can't really tell. Additionally, it's unclear of when it was taken, where it was taken, etc.

It likely wouldn't even be admitted into evidence even if it weren't released publicly, but with it being released to the public, it almost assuredly will not be allowed to be admitted into evidence (assuming it's even part of the defense's case, which it likely isn't).

So this really was just a lot of pages for nothing, most likely.

Carry on.

If it is real --I betcha its admitted ---no way its not admitted by the defense.
Can't let a lawyer have the last word

 

[JoseyWales]

The one thing I want to mention before I leave this thread, is that one thing that is completely lost in all of these pages and pages of posts is that this photo for one is alleged to be of Zimmerman - we can't really tell. Additionally, it's unclear of when it was taken, where it was taken, etc.

It likely wouldn't even be admitted into evidence even if it weren't released publicly, but with it being released to the public, it almost assuredly will not be allowed to be admitted into evidence (assuming it's even part of the defense's case, which it likely isn't).

So this really was just a lot of pages for nothing, most likely.

Carry on.

Wrong on all counts, counselor. It's already been proven to have been taken at the site, only 3 minutes after the gunshot was heard over the phone. A neighbor took it with his iphone, and the time and gps proves where it was taken and when. The neighbor also gave a statement that it was Zimmerman in the photo, and that Zimmerman told him to call his wife and tell her he (Zimmerman) had shot somebody. Also, it's already been discussed by legal experts this is a huge piece of evidence in trying to prove Zimmerman's self defense plea. Of course, if it is proven Zimmerman started the physical portion of the altercation, then Martin was within his right to stand his ground.

And for the guy earlier claiming the blood looked dry, the pic clearly shows the reflection of the flash. Indicating that the blood was still wet. And the blood in the pic was bright red. Another indicator it was wet, as dried blood will darken and turn brownish in color. As for the different flow patterns of the blood, that tends to happen when what ever is bleeding is in motion. Possibly from Zimmerman turning his head from side to side while on his back? Guess we'll find out in court.

 

[casmith07]

If it is real --I betcha its admitted ---no way its not admitted by the defense.
Can't let a lawyer have the last word

lol bob...thanks. you stick to blood spatters I'll stick to evidence

ps - you're hired!

 

[casmith07]

Wrong on all counts, counselor. It's already been proven to have been taken at the site, only 3 minutes after the gunshot was heard over the phone.

I wasn't aware that the trial had started, and that the prosecution had already finished their case and rested, and that the defense had successfully introduced the photo into evidence.

MAN that IS a speedy trial.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wrong on all counts, counselor. It's already been proven to have been taken at the site, only 3 minutes after the gunshot was heard over the phone. A neighbor took it with his iphone, and the time and gps proves where it was taken and when. The neighbor also gave a statement that it was Zimmerman in the photo, and that Zimmerman told him to call his wife and tell her he (Zimmerman) had shot somebody. Also, it's already been discussed by legal experts this is a huge piece of evidence in trying to prove Zimmerman's self defense plea. Of course, if it is proven Zimmerman started the physical portion of the altercation, then Martin was within his right to stand his ground.

And for the guy earlier claiming the blood looked dry, the pic clearly shows the reflection of the flash. Indicating that the blood was still wet. And the blood in the pic was bright red. Another indicator it was wet, as dried blood will darken and turn brownish in color. As for the different flow patterns of the blood, that tends to happen when what ever is bleeding is in motion. Possibly from Zimmerman turning his head from side to side while on his back? Guess we'll find out in court.

Its been public knowledge that he was injured in the back of the head since the beginning. It was in the initial police report that he was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head.

Does anyone actually want to acknowledge that the lead investigator is saying that they have evidence to conclude to not believe Zimmerman's account of how he got the head wound?

 

[justbob]

lol bob...thanks. you stick to blood spatters I'll stick to evidence

Agreed --and that is why I am right --it will have to be analyzed . Goes to the self defense....

Stop now --no closing arguments


And I am proud of you for using the term spatter and not splatters

 

[Tony33]

From the beginning I said the problem with this case was everyone is forming opinions without knowing any of the facts.

I told Tony33 that the picture was consistent and why. He didn't believe me. I don't have to prove myself to him....But I offered up personal information that has no business on this forum to Hos so Tony could at least confirm that I was not blowing smoke ...He would rather challenge me..So I give .Hos is wrong on his statement and Tony can tell everyone how great he is because I did not lay things out for him..All of which he would challenge anyway--

Are you the one who tried to convince blood could defy gravity because a head isn't perfectly round? Anyway, I have no idea who Hos is or you but I should just trust what you say because you "know"! If I'm not mistaken you said you had proof that I was wrong. Again prove it. I don't care what random people on this site vouch for you. You said you had proof provide it.

 

[casmith07]

Does anyone actually want to acknowledge that the lead investigator is saying that they have evidence to conclude to not believe Zimmerman's account of how he got the head wound?

:nervous:

 

[JoseyWales]

I wasn't aware that the trial had started, and that the prosecution had already finished their case and rested, and that the defense had successfully introduced the photo into evidence.

MAN that IS a speedy trial.

Nobody has said that but you. If you want to ignore facts that have been released, so be it. No different than ignoring what was said above when it started looking bad for you, I guess.

And actual real live lawyers have said this pic will be an important piece of evidence on the defense side. Hmmm.... Who to believe.... Them, or a guy claiming to be a law STUDENT that says it probably won't. Tough one for sure.