May 20 2012
Here I Stand Against Mob-Think, Against The Rush To Consensus
I have a deep scientific and engineering background. I live and work on the front lines of both. In my job no truth is perfect, sacrosanct nor complete. It is simply a crude, current understanding of more to be discovered. When people establish their positions too early, glued together by supposition and assumptions, they are doomed to fail. In my business it is best not to establish immutable truths. They never survive.
NASA’s Challenger and Columbia accidents were partially due to a rush to consensus through mob-think. The few dissenting voices were drowned out by all those who had their minds made up. In both cases there was large amounts of contrary evidence around. But the ‘experts’ could not afford the publicity of being wrong, and went ahead with the mob. No one had time to stop and think.
My truths are shattered on a daily (if not hourly) basis. We do the best we can to aim true, but in science and engineering there are no bullet proof road maps, recipes, processes or known facts. In science, the only thing we know for sure is this: what we don’t know dwarfs what we have discovered to date. Science is the iterative process of establishing a new and better understanding of reality, only to replace it later with another one.
Examples of not being adaptable and open minded are:
- Truthers (yes, terrorists did attack us, it was not Vice President Cheney),
- AGW Alarmists (the Earth was warming from the Little Ice Age but now it has apparently stopped and might be cooling, all CO2 driven models have been proven wrong when compared to reality, hiding data that shows a recent cooling is not science nor fact, etc),
- Birthers (Obama is a US citizen because his mother was a US citizen, soil (i.e., location) does not play into the equation when your mother is a citizen. If she is, you are – even if born at sea or on the Moon).
- Rathergatists (George Bush was not a draft dodger like Bill Clinton, and was more a soldier than the easily injured Al Gore with his purple hearts).
- Creationists (yes, Darwin was right and evolution is a scientific process – but it is not the “strong shall survive” it is the “adaptable will survive”)
- Moon Landing Deniers (yes, humanity did walk on the Moon).
I could go on, but the point is simple. Some people are adaptable and can accept new information that alters their basic world views and tenants, and others cannot.
In the Trayvon Martin killing, too many people allowed their views to be tainted by those who cried out for the family – Al Sharpton, The New Black Panthers, etc. The fact is the police missed some key evidence and had to be brought back to the case by public outcry. The fact this required public outcry is disturbing. But given what the family drew to the attention of law enforcement in terms of new evidence, the case is now better off than it was.
Al Sharpton and the New Black Panthers are now irrelevant. Their attempt to co-opt justice will fail once We The People ensure justice is provided. Fair, balanced and open to public debate.
I had a long time reader call me a bigot and tell me I should not comment on the case anymore – he wants me to give up my 1st Amendment rights. Sadly for him I intend to do no such thing. His emotional and unbalanced outburst only bears on him. Apparently my arguments (its called a debate) were too much for his world view to take, so he lashed out at me and told me to shut up.
I do not bend to the mob. I do not allow non-facts (like Sharpton) to enter into my assessment. I am pro gun and demand those who handle guns to be responsible with them, under the penalty of law. And the killing of an unarmed child who is not committing a crime is a crime.
More details keep coming out in this case, which have proven those who ginned up details out of thin air on the Zimmerman side to be wrong. Zimmerman made claims on the spot after he hunted down Martin that are starting to fall apart. Up until his arraignment, I don’t think Zimmerman understood he killed a neighbor’s kid. That night I am certain the vigilante was positive he got his criminal. It fits his M.O. to a “T”.
He claimed he got out of the truck to read road signs or house numbers – none of which exist where he confronted Martin on the back side of the buildings of the housing complex.
Zimmerman claims he was jumped by Martin, but the person on the phone with Martin heard Martin trying to get away from Zimmerman – many times. She heard Zimmerman confront Martin. There was no ambush.
There are witnesses that claim Zimmerman was cold after the event. Matter of fact about the incident.
Some heard an argument and not the fight – again throwing out the ambush alibi.
Zimmerman lied in court when he said he thought Martin was older. He is on 911 tapes saying Martin looked to be in his late teens. Right there any sane person would realize they are more than likely dealing with a kid, and to adjust accordingly.
Zimmerman was play-acting cop. He did not calmly go up to Martin and quietly ask what he was doing. The right approach is “sorry to bother you, but we had some break ins recently and we are trying to make sure they do not happen again. Can you tell me if you are staying here?” That would be too smart for Zimmerman to pull off.
Even worse, Zimmerman broke every rule of neighborhood watch I was told when I did it. You watch in pairs (so there is no single person and no single story). You never leave the car, you never approach anyone. You never arm yourself. This is why I know Zimmerman was a vigilante – he even wore his gun to the HW store.
What a freak! You don’t need a gun to go to the store. You can’t use the gun unless someone is facing deadly harm. And the chances of that are slim because the violent criminal component of our society is still under 5%, which means the odds of encountering it are slim. Carrying a gun to the store says more about Zimmerman than most people understand. The guy felt empowered by the gun. He was a loaded weapon ready to cause trouble.
We now have competing views on the 911 calls and sounds in the background. The case against Zimmerman is strong, and the argument against is very weak. The analysis against Zimmerman is based on high tech tools and science:
In an effort to find out what might be discerned from the crucial 911 call, The Washington Post retained Reich, 67, a former University of Washington professor with a doctorate in speech science who has worked for prosecutors and defense attorneys in hundreds of criminal and civil cases over a period of more than 35 years.
Emphasis mine. This person is an expert, and moreover he still does his own work:
Reich also identified two distinct male voices outside, in the background of the recording — one younger, one older — that he concludes are those of Martin, 17, and Zimmerman, 28.
…
A friend of Martin’s who was on the phone with him at the time, said he told her that a man who looked “crazy and creepy” was following him, according to the friend’s interview with a prosecutor, released Thursday. In the interview, the friend said she heard the man say, “What are you doing around here?” And then, she said, just before the call cut off, she heard Martin say, “Get off. Get off.”
No ambush – clearly.
Using Sony Sound Forge Pro and KayPentax Multi-Speech software, he identified certain sound segments he wanted to examine more closely, such as the distant yell in the first second of the recording just as the 911 operator starts to speak.
…
The distant yell in the first second of the recording, Reich concluded, was actually a four-syllable phrase: “I’m begging you.” The yell in the very last second before the gunshot was a word that the spectrograph indicated began with an “st” sound, followed by an “ah” sound: “stop.”
Reich measured a particular frequency of the “ah” sound, which he said corresponds to certain anatomical factors in the speaker, such as the length and diameter of the vocal tract, as well as speaking style. This frequency, he said, was “highly appropriate for a 17-year-old male” who was still growing.
“The word was produced by the younger of the two male speakers, Trayvon Martin,” Reich said.
Now I understand why it is 2nd degree murder being charged. As noted many times, you cannot use deadly force if the opponent is asking to withdraw (in this case begging for his life). The only time force is allowed is if you or someone is in danger:
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.
If Martin is pleading for mercy, which apparently this person has discovered on the 911 calls, then Zimmerman deserves the charge and a guilty verdict. This is new evidence. Some people are going to have a problem dealing with it (just like they have a problem dealing the with girlfriend’s statements).
There’s more to this analyst’s conclusions:
As he continued to listen, Reich discerned a second voice in the background, one that was much more difficult to tease out. He amplified those segments, analyzed them and compared the patterns with Zimmerman’s vocal patterns on his earlier call.
Reich concluded this voice was the older of the two speakers, Zimmerman.
…
What also struck Reich as he played and replayed the recording was what he did not hear: no sound of the older voice screaming, no obvious sounds of a physical struggle.
“Acoustical evidence of slapping, punching, shoving, wrestling, falling, throwing objects, was noticeably absent,” Reich said.
The analysis does not discount the possibility that there was a physical struggle between Martin, …
Rather, Reich’s analysis suggests that whatever physical struggle occurred was over by the time the recorded 911 call began.
From that point until the gunshot 45 seconds later, Reich said, it is Zimmerman who seems to have the upper hand, not Martin.
This too makes sense as a reasonable scenario. Once Zimmerman pulls the gun Martin backs off. If true, then Zimmerman was pissed about getting a whooping and shot Martin. This too is not far afield for Zimmerman:
“Usually he was just a cool guy. He liked to drink and hang with the women like the rest of us,” he said. “But it was like Jekyll and Hyde. When the dude snapped, he snapped.”
The source said Zimmerman, who made between $50 and $100 a night, was let go in 2005.
“He had a temper and he became a liability,” the man said. “One time this woman was acting a little out of control. She was drunk. George lost his cool and totally overreacted,” he said. “It was weird, because he was such a cool guy, but he got all nuts. He picked her up and threw her. It was pure rage. She twisted her ankle. Everyone was flipping out.”
Another eyewitness to Zimmerman’s behavior.
There is another view presented in the WaPo article, but it is very weak:
Another way to consider the 45-second recording is the way James J. Ryan considers it.
Ryan is the retired head of the FBI forensic audio, video and image analysis unit [1]. He said even the best audio forensic expert in the world using the most sophisticated equipment available would have a difficult time [2] determining much at all from a recording of such degraded quality.
Stop a second and consider the source and statement. [1] tells me Ryan may not have been a hands on analyst for quite some time. People in the government who become ‘heads’ of units many times become managers. But he is also not drawing any conclusions accept in [2], where he says this is kind of analysis is hard. Well, duh. But that does not mean a compilation of data does not reveal actual results. If he has not been on the forefront of the technology for a few years (hands on), he may not be aware of what is now possible.
I see this everyday in my area of work. The managers lose their edge over time as management responsibilities pull them away from the front line work. I was especially dumbfounded by this statement:
When it comes to emotionally charged situations, especially a life-or death situation, the range of the human voice is simply too wide and varied to correlate it accurately to age, Ryan said.
A 28-year-old might scream like a 17-year old. A 17-year old might yell like a 28-year-old.
Generally, yes it would be hard to pick out the age simply from the scream. But that is not all that went into the identification. We have Zimmerman on tape. His voice pattern is established – and that includes pitch, frequency responses, etc. Martin’s is probably available also. So this is not trying to identify the age in isolation of one scream. It may not be the scream that IDs Martin, but the other voice that IDs Zimmerman (leaving Martin to be the ‘other’ voice). This is lazy commentary.
This is why I think this view is weak. The other analysis has error bars to be sure. The question is how big are they, and can the comparisons to other recordings of Zimmerman narrow them enough? Who knows, that is why we have trials.
The recordings look to be evidence that will be played in court. And if so they will be damning. Any indication the physical fight was over and Martin did plead for mercy and Zimmerman is toast. That will be powerful.
BTW, had to point out this bit at the end:
“Most trial lawyers believe, and most psychologists who study the way that people process information believe, that once people interpret something in a certain way, once they begin to believe something, they become committed to that,” he said. “And if they become committed, it’s hard to change their minds.”
Which is why you need to train yourself not to fall into this mental trap. A skill that is not easy to master.
re: “Rathergatists (George Bush was not a draft dodger like Bill Clinton, and was more a soldier than the easily injured Al Gore with his purple hearts).
AJS
Don’t you mean Sen. John Kerry who had three questionable Purple Hearts?
AJ: “If Martin is pleading for mercy, which apparently this person has discovered on the 911 calls, then Zimmerman deserves the charge and a guilty verdict. ”
Agreed, but that is a big IF. Also, a lot of the circumstances you cite involve the friend/girlfriend who refused to be interviewed by the police until several days later – after she had lawyered-up. Any statement she makes has to be suspect.
The counter scenario is that Martin, for whatever reason, doubled back and attacked Zimmerman. Go back to the map, the fatal encounter is significantly away from the place he was staying. So for the 4th time I’ll ask, “What was Zimmerman supposed to do when Martin was straddling him pounding his head into the sidewalk?”
I have stated since day one that I believe GZ bears SOME responsibility for the death of Martin. I think second degree murder is a bit over the top, but time will tell. The probelm I and many other readers have had with you is your rush to judgement and conviction of Zimmerman as a guy with a chip on his shoulder who “was play-acting cop.” And that quote is one of your tamer descriptions of GZ. At the same time you refuse to even acknowledge the possibility that the shooting was justified. Seriously, some of your posts have been a bit irrational, which has led many readers to believe you have gone over the deep end on this one.
And one other thing… the Shuttle accidents you cite were not only caused by groupthink, they were caused in some part by political pressure. Many of your readers have acted with alarm to the blatant politicization of this case and the obvious double standards (no arrest or investigation of the NBPs for putting up a bounty). Yet for the most part you’ve ignored this part of the equation and challenged your readers’ credibility for believing politics (race politics) has as much to do with this prosecution and charge as the evidence.
You want us to respect your first ammendment right but call those who disagree with you “birthers.” Perhaps it would help if you were at least willing to acknowledge that not all the evidence is in and there exists the possibility that GZ is not guilty of Murder 2.
Physician! Heal thy self!!!
” ‘Most trial lawyers believe, and most psychologists who study the way that people process information believe, that once people interpret something in a certain way, once they begin to believe something, they become committed to that,” he said. “And if they become committed, it’s hard to change their minds.’
Which is why you need to train yourself not to fall into this mental trap. A skill that is not easy to master.”
This is an amazing post. Basically it says “people are inflexible in their opinions,” and then goes on to show how you are inflexible.
“but the person on the phone with Martin heard Martin trying to get away from Zimmerman – many times. She heard Zimmerman confront Martin. There was no ambush.”
This is factually false. The police, armed with her so called “testimony” have said they do not know who initiated the physical confrontation. That is what you refuse to acknowledge. A person can confront another legally. It is the physical part (to which the girlfriend has no idea) that maters.
“Zimmerman lied in court when he said he thought Zimmerman was older. He is on 911 tapes saying Martin looked to be in his late teens. ”
Bull. You’re grasping here. Late teens is anywhere from 17 t0 19. There is no lie.
“This is why I know Zimmerman was a vigilante – he even wore his gun to the HW store.”
There ya go. You are the one saying people are sticking to conclusions no matter what the evidence and you say you “know” for certainty.
“We now have competing views on the 911 calls and sounds in the background. The case against Zimmerman is strong, and the argument against is very weak. ”
“We” don’t. YOU do. The FBI has identified the voice as Zimmermans. Martin’s father identified the voice as not being that of his son. Zimmerman’s father identified the voice as that of his son. The idea that you think this is “strong against Zimmerman” is laughable.
“Now I understand why it is 2nd degree murder being charged. As noted many times, you cannot use deadly force if the opponent is asking to withdraw (in this case begging for his life). The only time force is allowed is if you or someone is in danger:”
This is an amazing statement. The very section of the Stand Your Ground Law that you cite contradicts you. (Is this really part of your “exhaustive and extensive engineering and scientific training? Ignoring that which you cite?)
Here is the relevant section taken from your own cite:
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
Notice that a person is “justified in the use of deadly force.”
Secondly, you miss that not only did Zimmerman have the right to use deadly force under the Stand Your Ground law, but also under that laws of “self defense.” You tried to shoot that down in another screed, but as you can’t continue to misrepresent the legal theories and laws in play here.
“Which is why you need to train yourself not to fall into this mental trap. A skill that is not easy to master.”
I am sorry to say that you have not only not mastered this skill, you haven’t even read about it in a primer. It is clear that you are locked into a scenario and aren’t mature enough to simply admit your error. You continue to put forth ideas that are discredited and demonstrably false. Yet none of that dissuades you.
There are many of us who approached this case with no bias at all. You tried to play junior detective and now are caught having to admit your “scientific method” gave incorrect conclusions and you were wrong. (And by the way, to be clear, a “scientific method” is not one which you applied here. It is my belief that you used the term to gain credibility and hoped people would buy into your conclusions. As it is, by definition, your “scientific method” is not “scientific” at all.)
Louctiel,
I simply laid out the evidence that is mounting. The day something shows up exonerating Zimmerman I will address it.
So far,nothing but fictionalized scenarios that have been thrown out by the new evidence.
AJ
The evidence that is ‘mounting,’ other than your own posts, is supporting Zimmerman’s testimony of what happened, not the other way around
Where Zimmerman, though, might run into trouble is when this case goes to trial. Basically, this incident has been so sensationalized, politicized, and has become so polarized that I can see some of the witnesses showing real fear/trepidation in validating their original statements to the police. The media, the racist community, the rush-to-judgment crowd are all beating down the doors of the judicial system to convict Zimmerman, and throw the key away once he is incarcerated.
Yes the evidence is mounting, AJStrata – it is amounting to the acquittal of Zimmerman.
The problem is not that you have “laid out the evidence,” it is that you have misrepresented the evidence, ignored evidence, and basically have no idea of legal aspect of the proceedings.
Nothing illustrates this better than your citation of a part of the Stand Your Ground law in this post where you hang your hat on the idea that “deadly force may not be used,” and then ignore within the same citation – the same words you quote – the circumstances under which deadly force may be used.
Was that intentional? Sloppy? Ignorance?
(And as I have stated, the Stand Your Ground law is an initial hearing and defense. It is not all inclusive and does not preclude the use of force in self defense. The fact that you seem to be unable to address or consider that shows a lack of credibility on you part.)
Frankly sir, you are wedded to an idea and are unwilling to address anything that is contrary to that idea. While I respect that this is your blog (even though it appears you have a limited understanding of the First Amendment as well) when you are clearly this biased toward your convictions, there is never going to be anything that will dissuade you. You are identical to the very “birthers, truthers, JFK conspiracy, etc people you dismiss in the opening of this post.
It is a pity too.
Very interesting, this all starts out with a long song and dance about how people form opinions and have difficulty changing those opinions even when a lot of evidence surfaces to show that their opinion was wrong. then it goes into more about how with all your scientific training , etc you have been trained to apply all the real facts etc and get to the real truth, etc.
It is at this point that I thought you were going to spring the big one on us and tell us that while you had previously formed an opinion that zimmerman was guilty that after reapplying all your scientific training, etc to the facts that you had now seen the light and was able to state that you had been wrong all along, that a real scientific reading of the evidence had clearly proven that zimmerman was really the victim in all this.
But Noooooo…. what you were telling us is that everyone else, even without exhaustive scientific training should have been able to analyze the error of their ways and changed their opinions.
Isn’t it strange that you haven’t been able to change one single other person’s mind about what happened? You and BGG are the only two writers on this blog that buy your version of events and BGG doesn’t really, he just likes to call names and display his inability to understand facts.
But, I will begin to apply my extensive scientific and managerial training and experience and see if it brings up a different answer than just plain common sense does.
This is one of the more interesting points you made, then totally ignored:
“There is another view presented in the WaPo article, but it is very weak:
Another way to consider the 45-second recording is the way James J. Ryan considers it.
Ryan is the retired head of the FBI forensic audio, video and image analysis unit [1]. He said even the best audio forensic expert in the world using the most sophisticated equipment available would have a difficult time [2] determining much at all from a recording of such degraded quality.”
you take what one ‘audio expert’ said and buy it hook, line and sinker (because it supports your opinion) then quote a different one and throw him under the bus (because you don’t like his opinion)
“Which is why you need to train yourself not to fall into this mental trap. A skill that is not easy to master.”
I mastered that in: Mental Traps 101 back in 1974.
I post this out of concern, and not disrespect. Please go have a physical check up. There may be something going on that you’re not aware of.
I just cannot believe that the same man, who carefully examined the Plame Game, is the same man who is posting about the Zimmerman case.
Something is not right. Hopefully, it is nothing serious and is easily corrected.
All the best to you, AJ.
I’m interested now in on the politics of the entire situation. There’s a reason many of us self-characterized conservatives have jumped in on this. We see a lot of parallels with the case of the Duke lacross players. In both cases:
1. Immediately the professional race demagogues (Sharpton, Jackson, et al) entered the scene crying racisim, cover-up, white priviledge, etc.
2. The media played right along because it fit the liberal narrative. Not only that, they actively managed the story.
The quotes about Trayvon being a respectful young man, a good student, etc. The very first photos we saw of him were of this sweet, innocent looking boy – even showing him on horse back. Then it turned out those photos were of Trayvon at 14. The photos he posted of himself at 17 sure painted a different picture – but it wasn’t the news media who dug those up. It was conservative bloggers who smelled a rat.
I’m not saying he deserved to die or was a thug, maybe he was just trying to be cool by acting like a gangsta. The point is the media tryed to create an impression. Those who post the other pictures and discuss Trayvon’s drug use aren’t trying to crucify the dead guy, they’re just trying to show that the situation isn’t as (wait for it, pardon the pun) black and white as we were all initially led to believe. Remember the low-grade video of Zimmerman and the iron-clad statements that he did not have any injuries?
3. A political, prosecutor facing re-election – possibly overcharging the case. It makes you ask questions and I don’t see where asking tough questions is wrong.
So AJ, let’s get away for a moment from guilt, innocence, and responsibility. Nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. We’ll have to wait until the trial. I’d like to hear your thoughts on the politicization of this tragedy.
I am self declaring that I can now return to the comments section of this blog, insofar as other commenters are now allowed to assert that Trayvon may have been acting out his conception of what a tough guy should do, and insofar as that assertion is what originally caused me to be asked to leave this comment section.
A.J.,
I am willing to admit a possibility that Trayvon initially punched GZ, broke GZ’s nose, slammed GZ’s head into the concrete … only for Trayvon to then find himself on the losing side of a fight, and only for Trayvon to then yell for help and plead for his life, and only for Trayvon to then be shot by a vengeful GZ. I’ll even give my estimation of the likelihood of that scenario: 15%. In future, my current estimation of likelihood might go either higher or lower, depending upon what other information becomes public knowledge.
I believe I am representative of most commenters here: we want to see justice done. We are willing to go where ever the evidence leads.
Are you willing to go where ever the evidence leads?
Are you willing to admit there is a solid chance that the opinion of your favored audio expert is mistaken?
Are you willing to admit there is a solid chance that Trayvon was straddling Zimmerman, was punching GZ “MMFA style”, that GZ never gained the upper hand in the fight, and that GZ shot Trayvon in self defense (given that a concrete sidewalk was being used as a lethal weapon)?
There is little reason to question the credibility of “John”, the witness who stood on his balcony, 30 feet away, and observed Trayvon straddling GZ, and observed Trayvon punching GZ “MMFA style”, and heard GZ crying out for help. We do not know of any incentive for “John” to lie. There was a time frame, between John seeing this and John seeing Trayvon laid out in the grass, in which John walked into his apartment and called 911. During the time frame of John’s call to 911, I assess it as unlikely that Zimmerman gained the upper hand in the fight, then Trayvon begged for his life, and then Zimmerman executed Trayvon in retribution. However, I not know of a reason to completely rule out this possibility.
Finally, A.J., you appear to have a long standing grudge against knuckleheads with guns. Well, all of up probably share that concern with you. But, even if GZ were the biggest-ever knucklehead with a gun, i.e. the biggest knucklehead with a gun in all of history … being a knucklehead with a gun does not mean GZ was justifiably assaulted with deadly weapons (fists + concrete sidewalk), does not mean GZ ceded his legal right to self defense. A.J., you reason as if GZ deserved to be assaulted with a deadly weapon, and deserved to cede his legal right to self defense. You reason as if there is zero chance that Trayvon was acting out his conception of what a tough guy ought do, as if there is zero chance that GZ’s life was in danger. Your reasoning is not consistent with the reasoning of a person who is willing to let the evidence lead where ever it leads; who is willing to let justice be done, whatever that turns out to be.
I was just commenting to my wife how much I enjoy this blog and how disconcerting it is to me that AJ seems to have gone off the deep end a bit where this case is concerned. She asked me for specifics so I came back to look for the “birther” comment – but had to go no further than this post. All I had to do was show her the title. Basically it says that if you don’t agree with AJ on this topic you are a part of a mob, that you have subcombed to “Mob-Think.”
A clarification of some evidence which has been discussed here, i.e. that Zimmerman left his vehicle, and was asked by the call operator to end his pursuit of Trayvon, and that Zimmerman was surrounded by apartment #s, and that this proves that Zimmerman lied about what actually happened.
When Zimmerman left his truck, he was surrounded by apartment numbers/addresses. Zimmerman then pursued Trayvon on foot. Zimmerman then noted that Trayvon was getting away. The call operator then said, re the pursuit: “We don’t need you to do that.” Zimmerman then replied “Okay.” Zimmerman’s breathing then returned to normal. According to Zimmerman’s version of the story, at this point, Zimmerman was on the walkway which ran behind the apartments, and thus Zimmerman could not see any addresses. This is why Zimmerman had to walk around to the front of some apartments in order to see an address. Zimmerman then returned, along the same walkway, walking back towards his truck, when Trayvon approached Zimmerman from Zimmerman’s left rear. Dee Dee’s story is that the first words which were exchanged were: “Why are you following me?”
Therefore, Zimmerman’s story holds up, and Zimmerman’s story can easily be consistent with Dee Dee’s story, insofar as Trayvon could have approached Zimmerman from Zimmerman’s left rear, and insofar as an approaching Trayvon could have asked “Why are you following me?”
At this point, we know of no evidence which impeaches this part of Zimmerman’s story.
In fact, the only evidence which impeaches any part of Zimmerman’s story … is the audio expert who hears Trayvon begging for his life. If that audio expert is wrong, then Zimmerman did not execute Trayvon, but rather acted in self defense. Until the point at which it is speculated that Zimmerman gained control of the fight — up until that point: there is no credible evidence which impeaches any part of Zimmerman’s story.
Also, there has been comment/speculation re Zimmerman’s behavior immediately after the shooing. It is almost a certainty that Zimmerman was in shock, and a possibility that he was, to some degree, concussed. Drawing conclusions, from his behavior while he was in shock and possibly concussed, is foolish.
gcotharn, yes, some of the conclusions, statements don’t make sense. At one point Zimmerman is arming himself, getting out of the vehicle and pursuing Martin, then at another time Zimmerman is getting out of his vehicle to go see what the house numbers are. I’m not sure how many times he got out of his vehicle.
There are several statements by Martins friends and families that are a lot more inconsistent.
An example, Martin’s father and girlfriend returned to the apartment at 10:30 and went to bed without much concern as to Martins whereabouts when according to police records, the police was at the crime scene investigating until 3:09 am. Now this is practically right outside the apartment with crime scene tape around the area with many bright and (I assume) flashing lights and a body under a tarp and they didn’t see or hear anything unusual. These little stories ring as ‘not true’ to me. There is no way they could have approached that apartment and ‘not know’ anything was happening.
Layman: I’m not sure what believing zimmerman is innocent has to do with ‘birthers’ but; whatever……..
Redteam,
Thank you, days ago, for your comment in support of my having made a respectful and reasonable comment (before being politely asked to leave the comments section). I appreciated it.
And thanks for the info re Trayvon’s friends and family.
I do not completely dismiss that Trayvon’s father missed the commotion. If there were no police lights flashing, and investigators were being quiet in order to not disturb sleeping apartment dwellers, then I could see a possibility that Trayvon’s father arrived from another direction, and simply missed the commotion.
Then, Trayvon’s father could be the type of parent who does not check to see that their son is asleep in his bed. Or, Trayvon’s father could have known Trayvon to be a teen who sometimes stayed out until deep into the night. All speculation, but I could see it happening.
I am not aware of Zimmerman making a separate exit from his truck for the sole purpose of seeing a house number. My understanding of Zimmerman’s story: Zimmerman exited his truck, followed & chased, gave up the chase, walked to get an apartment number, then walked back towards his truck, then was approached by Trayvon.
gcotharn, you are correct. I only know of one exit from his truck myself, right after Zimmerman saying ‘he’s running’ he got out to see where martin was going. I just have read many comments about what was happening when he got out. Clearly if he got out and pursued Martin that ‘had’ to be a different exiting ‘if’ he exited to go look at house numbers. It’s just different versions of the same story.
Anyhow, glad you’re back, I enjoy your reasoned, thought out comments.
Just saw Alan Dershowitz interviewed. He mentioned that many are claiming that Zimmerman was not arrested. But the evidence – he was in handcuffs – show the opposite. He was arrested and the charges dropped due to lack of evidence. He also said that no one thought to change Zimmerman with 2nd degree murder – but with some level of manslaughter. He also stated that what the prosecutor did – withhold evidence – was literally illegal, not just unethical. He believes that Zimmerman could end up having the charges dropped completely as the evidence – how the legal system defines it — is so weak. In this case, I do trust a law professor for the explanation of the case’s weaknesses and strengths.
Another law professor – a conservative this time – William A. Jacobson of LegalInsurrection.com also says that the “[g]etting out of the car, in itself, is not provoking the use of force. The prosecution would have to show Zimmerman started the fight, not merely that he was in a place he has a right to be.
Even so, Zimmerman would have had legal protection even if he initiated contact if the counter-force were deadly or threatened serious bodily harm and there was no way to escape. There would be a fact issue if, as some reports say, Zimmerman were on the ground being beaten.
These nuances will be lost in the media blitz, and you will hear how Zimmerman must be guilty because he got out of the car…”
All of the evidence is not in but at the very least, Zimmerman will evidently have a very strong defense. I will leave it to the law and legal experts to sort through this media poisoned event.
Let’s not try it here, please.
I’ve heard Alan Dershowitz express his opinions about this case, as well, and, they are compelling. He’s matter-of-fact, in pointing out the flaws in the prosecuter’s opening shots against Zimmerman. There is no hyperbole, no assumptions. no judgment of character towards either the shooter or the victim. He simply looks at what evidence there is to date, along with not only the stand your ground law in FL, but also the prevailing self defense laws in this country.
Time and time again Dershowitz has said the same thing, that Zimmerman’s second degree murder charge was over the top…at best, he should have been charged with man slaughter or a misdemeaner.
In reading through the pages of evidence, just released by the police, what Dershowitz is saying seems plausible and reasoned, as it relates to all the reports and evidence gleaned thus far.
“Zimmerman lied in court when he said he thought Zimmerman was older.”
Should that be “… Martin was older” ?