May 29 2012
Zimmerman’s Snap Alibi Comes Back To Bite Him
More news is out on the Trayvon Martin case, and it will be a test for all those ‘open minds’ who have decided Zimmerman is innocent in his killing of an unarmed 17 year old boy who was simply out walking and talking to his girlfriend. The news confirms my suspicions that Zimmerman was the aggressor (not someone defending himself) and is guilty of at least manslaughter (if not 2nd degree murder).
Zimmerman’s past includes well documented incidents of his hot temper and his desire to be Enforcer of The Law (which sets him apart from those who look to law enforcement as a profession – versus the ego trip). Zimmerman has all the signs of wanting to be better than others and prove his superiority. His gun is not protection, but a crutch to his ego. I have seen his type too many times not to notice all the parallels. Age and experience do count at times.
Zimmerman is also an easy liar – as he did in court when he apologized to the Martin family and claimed he thought Trayvon was much older (hinting he thought Trayvon was in his mid 20’s). Of course Zimmerman forgot he told the 911 dispatcher he had made Martin to be in his late teens when he went stalking the kid – supposedly because he looked ‘suspicious’. That ability to spew a falsehood to save his skin is an indicator, something not to be dismissed or overlooked. If that is part of his core nature, a lot of good people have probably put their faith in someone who does not deserve it.
After the incident it was clear no one immediately knew of witnesses nearby and the ear-witness on the phone with Martin (listening up to seconds before his death). George Zimmerman was especially ignorant of these people who could easily challenge a quickly concocted alibi.
As I noted before, Zimmerman’s statements are inconsistent. He claims to get out of his truck to find street names or house numbers, but then finds himself behind buildings where there are neither. He acknowledges being told to stay away from Martin until police arrive, but then somehow gets to a point behind buildings where he is ‘jumped’. Except the ear-witness on the phone hears Zimmerman talking to Martin. Clearly he was not ‘jumped’ once a dialogue is engaged.
All this led me to predict the case would be built around the ear-witness and holes in Zimmerman’s statements to police which will prove him to be untruthful (at best). Now the prosecution has confirmed my prediction:
“Defendant (Zimmerman) has provided law enforcement with numerous statements, some of which are contradictory, and are inconsistent with the physical evidence and statements of witnesses,” the prosecutors said in their court filing.
They said the statements by Zimmerman were admissible in court and “in conjunction with other statements and evidence help to establish defendant’s guilt in this case.”
Emphasis mine. Note how both testimony of witnesses AND physical evidence combine to prove Zimmerman lied in his statements to police about what happened. And why would Zimmerman lie? Because he knew he went beyond the bounds of lawful activity in stalking, confronting and killing Martin. He believed with all his twisted mind he had found a burglar in his community, and he was going to make sure this one did not ‘get away’. He was wrong. Plain and simple. No racial issues, no gun rights issues. Just one person who was probably the wrong person to be armed and playing sheriff.
The evidence must be pretty damn good, or else the prosecutors would not want to keep out of the public square. The defense will not have a chance to try this part of the case in the news media. And in fact, the defense is already starting to cede ground:
In a separate court filing on Thursday, Zimmerman’s lawyer Mark O’Mara joined in the motion to keep his client’s statements out of the public eye for the time being.
“There is the possibility that these statements may be subject to motions to suppress, if there is a potentially involuntary statement elicited from Mr. Zimmerman,” O’Mara said.
Clearly the defense has realized some of Zimmerman’s own words are going to convict him, so now they have to try and keep those words out of court. Not likely to happen, but not surprising when your case is in this kind of hole.
So all those open minds who have acquitted Zimmerman based on partial information are challenged to prove they can learn as more information becomes available. Here is a challenge to show how justice must work, even when our first impressions are wrong. Actually, the hardest part is making the change when our first impressions are wrong. But that is the sign of wisdom and fairness.
Not that I’m taking sides on this one but Jerralynn of Talk Left has an interesting take on this case. JustOneMinute created a post regarding this. I haven’t read all of the comments there, though.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872
“So all those open minds who have acquitted Zimmerman based on partial information are challenged to prove they can learn as more information becomes available.”
As opposed to the ‘open minds’ who have determined Zimmerman’s guilt based on their own prejudices? (And yes, you make very clear what your prejudices are.)
I have neither acquitted nor found guilt wrt Zimmerman. I started in your camp, attributing some guilt to Zimmerman, but I am now waiting for the full vetting of information that will occur within the trial.
It will be interesting if the DA tries to use information elicited from a possibly concussed man against him in his trial.
[…] Reading Here Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. Leave a […]
It would seem the initial comment while on the phone with police that Trevon was in his late teems is not in conflict with the statement in court.
He may have changed his estimate while the kid was smashing his head into the sidewalk… Viewing someone at a distance in the low light of evening and then later having them on top of you might change your perspective.
“Here is a challenge to show how justice must work, even when our first impressions are wrong. ”
Just asking, but are you admitting your first impression were wrong?
Actually my first impression was that Zimmerman was innocent, but I’ve changed it to ‘not an impression’ more of a ‘conviction’
DeeDee said Trayvon had run to his fathers door. She asked him why he didn’t go in. He returned to the spot where the confrontation occurred. So ‘clearly’ he was trying to cause a confrontation.
Open and Shut.
RT/AJ:
Both of you be careful when attributing ANY credibility to the “ear witness.” She didn’t come forward until several days after Trayvon’s death and after she lawyered up. In my opinion any thing she says must be considered suspect.
However AJ, since you seem to believe she is credible and everything she has stated is gospel I can’t wait to hear you refute RT’s interpretation:
“DeeDee said Trayvon had run to his fathers door. She asked him why he didn’t go in. He returned to the spot where the confrontation occurred. So ‘clearly’ he was trying to cause a confrontation.
Open and Shut.”
Layman,
A witness is a witness…
Some show up later than others. I can see a dozen reasonable reasons for the delay.
Suggest you keep your warnings to yourself. I am capable of assessing data and drawing conclusions or views.
My problem with witnesses is that they tend to have problems remembering things and details. Over time, their memories tend to change.
I have been observing several cases of animal neglect and abuse and listened to witnesses and their stories. Eventually, these witnesses have been proven as outright liars and they had intended to lie to win their cases. The stuff that they do to destroy the victims and the victims’ animals is unreal. Especially those cases that should never have been opened up.
I do not believe the witnesses until the trial begins.
Folks,
Witnesses have been part of our judicial system from the start. I would argue the recent issue with witnesses is really a problem in giving up on initial conclusions now proven to be doubtful at least.
I am not seeing a lot of open minds out there…
Absolutely right! “Witnesses have been part of our judicial system from the start.” That said, either side can (and in fact is obligated to try to) impeach the credibility of any witness that is counter to their side. I expect that when GZ goes to trial both sides will attempt to paint witnesses as unreliable and/or uncredible.
And if GZ really is a guy who: “…has all the signs of wanting to be better than others and prove his superiority. His gun is not protection, but a crutch to his ego” then the prosecution will attempt to show that in Court – and if their witnesses are credible then that will go a long way toward making their case. I look forward to seeing the evidence and testimony they put forward.
On the other hand if they can’t make the case then some people who have preconceived notions, for example: “I have seen his type too many times not to notice all the parallels. Age and experience do count at times” may have to change their mind and that can be difficult. After all,
“Actually, the hardest part is making the change when our first impressions are wrong. But that is the sign of wisdom and fairness.”
Layman
That was a ‘wise’ comment of your’s about changing first impressions. I’ve seen that over and over again, how people become entrenched with those initial ideas, so much so, that even the jaws of life can’t seem to cut them free. I think it has to do with an investment of their ego into such convictions, rather than having, or not having, an open mind.
Layman, I have great respect for the judicial process (half the family are in law). Each witness AT THIS STAGE is probably of equal credibility. The one who has issues with his snap alibi is Zimmerman. His comments are the ones not holding up to evidence.
BTW, if evidence came out that conclusively showed Zimmerman was not the hot head I believe he is then I would be glad to adjust my view, since I could care less who wins and only support justice.
So far, as information has come out and details clear, Zimmerman has been losing ground on the credibility front. He has a high bar to reach since he did kill the boy. I know people think the burden is all on the prosecution, with reasonable doubt, but there is no doubt who shot Trayvon.
And no, stand your ground does not give you carte blanche to kill as long as witnesses are not present or consistent. You may want to wish differentyly, but this goes to the ‘responsibility’ side of the argument. Just like you have a responsibility to drive safely and not injure others, Zimmerman cannot be reckless with his fire arm.
Which he was. And his excuse is weak and full of holes. And therefore his reason to shoot is not sufficient to avoid conviction.
As it should be. Use of a gun to take a life should be a high bar…
AJ: Agreed. If you recall, I’ve taken a bit of heat since day one because I said Zimmerman was responsible (to some degree) because of the actions he took. I’m just not convinced, at this point in time with what I’ve read so far, that we’re talking Murder 2. If the prosecution can make that case and a jury buys it I’ll accept it. If they make the case for Manslaughter, Wreckless Endangerment, or some other lesser charge I’ll accept that as well.
But if it turns out as some have speculated that Martin became the aggressor, confronting GZ and then attacking him – beating his head into the sidewalk – and GZ was fighting for his life, then I’ll accept that as well.
AJ, I gotta tell you, your comments are just unbelievable to me….unless you have had inside info from the beginning…which is possible. 🙂
I still go back to the Duke Lacrosse case which had all those boys CONVICTED from the get-go (same in this case). And I, too, have had lawyers in my family…ANYONE can be corrupted in the legal system, in my humble experience, top to bottom.
“Zimmerman’s past includes well documented incidents of his hot temper and his desire” very unlikely that past incidents will be allowed in this trial as evidence. What Zimmerman did in the past is no more germane than Trayvon’s past history of fighting and smoking dope and drinking ‘lean’.
“Zimmerman is also an easy liar – as he did in court when he apologized to the Martin family and claimed he thought Trayvon was much older (hinting he thought Trayvon was in his mid 20?s).”
changes in opinion or judgment is not lying. He said to the police officer that he was in his late teens, he said at a different time that he thought he was a little older. No conflict, just a change in opinion based on what he had seen between the two statements. I haven’t heard that Zimmerman is being charged with perjury.
“If that is part of his core nature, ” I’ve not seen where ‘corrupted core nature’ is one of the charges against him. Anymore so than the fact that Martin was clearly a druggie, pothead.
“ear-witness on the phone with Martin (listening up to seconds before his death). ” of course, we now know that he wasn’t really on the phone at the last moments, he had taken his earphones off and put them in his pocket while preparing for the attack.
“Witnesses have been part of our judicial system from the start.”
True, but they are only allowed to testify to what they actually know, not what someone ‘told them’ so almost none of DeeDee’s ‘revelations’ will ever be heard in the trial. (if there is one)
“More news is out on the Trayvon Martin case, ” why didn’t you include any of it in the post. Everything in it has been known almost from day one (except a little from Dee Dee that has been out since early April.)
Basically, all I have seen lately is cementing the case against Martin as the aggressor more firmly. I have seen nothing that implies any more guilt (or any guilt at all, actually) of Zimmerman.
Open and Shut.
Layman:
“Both of you be careful when attributing ANY credibility to the “ear witness.” :
I’ve said that all the time. First she wasn’t actually even on the phone when the attack occurred. We already know Martin’s earphones were in his pocket (an act he did in preparing to attack Zimmerman) but even more so, all she can say is hear say and none of that will be allowed.
Layman: AJ said: “Layman, I have great respect for the judicial process”
contrary to that, I have very little respect for it, there are more likely more corrupted attorneys per square inch than any other occupation I can think of.
This whole case is a clear demonstration of my statement. Facts in the case, no charges against Zimmerman
Racial politics enter the case, whammo, charges against Zimmerman.
The only thing that changed was the corrupted prosecutors. the facts didn’t change.
Layman: “Still, I put my flag up outside my house Friday morning and won’t take it down until tomorrow morning. ”
I love to see the American flag flying anywhere. I have had a flag pole and American flag for 3 years now. I fly it every day, year round. I wish everyone that believes in the country would fly the flag.
RT: Thank you for sharing.
Note: I consider it a given that Trayvon beat up GZ and caused GZ’s injuries. Does anyone here dispute this? So far as I know, everyone here considers this likely, and no one here considers this unlikely.
A.J.’s arguments against Zimmerman, as I understand them:
1. A lone audio analyst believes he heard Trayvon beg for his life. The assessment of this is analyst is probably correct. Therefore, it follows that GZ must have gained the upper hand in the fight, then executed Trayvon. Murder 2.
2. GZ lied, therefore GZ demonstrated consciousness of guilt, therefore, it follows that GZ must have gained the upper hand in the fight, then executed Trayvon. Murder 2.
3. A.J. has observed that Zimmerman likely is a knucklehead with a gun. Add his observation to 1 and 2 above, and: Murder 2.
I think I have fairly represented A.J.’s views.
Re 3:
3 is a hunch. Hunches are fine, yet not terribly important. We have no way to actually assess GZ’s personality. We cannot know if GZ was merely a do gooder, or was a knucklehead with a gun.
Re 2:
As stated above, and in previous comment threads: after the shooting, GZ was almost certainly in shock, and was possibly concussed. Given those circumstances, and lack of legal representation for GZ, and GZ motormouthing with police authorities: I am impressed that GZ’s story has held together as well as it has. I consider it an evidence of GZ’s likely innocence. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to imagine any innocent person’s story holding together any better that GZ’s story.
Re 1:
I have reasons to suspect the dissenting audio analyst is proffering a wrong opinion, but I do not know of reasons to completely dismiss the possibility that he is proffering a correct opinion. Therefore, I currently assess that the odds that the analyst is correct (and that GZ is guilty) as 15%.
I consider A.J.’s case, as outlined in 1,2,3 above, to be flimsy. It is perfectly proper that A.J. has a hunch that GZ is guilty. I find it baffling that A.J. does not simultaneously recognize that his case is flimsy. A.J. could do both: he could simultaneously suspect GZ’s guilt, and recognize the flimsiness of the case for GZ’s guilt.
A.J. could recognize that witnesses who changed their stories were possibly influenced by their personal concerns: rooting for the innocent child, social concerns, concerns for their future physical safety.
A.J. could acknowledge that Trayvon left behind, in his own words in his own social media, evidence that idolized a hip hop lifestyle – including the drug use and the violence which went along with that lifestyle. A.J. could recognize that Trayvon left behind, in his own words and in his own social media, evidence that he was seeking out a strong drug on the very night of his death. A.J. could recognize the implications of Dee Dee’s statements: a) Trayvon was beside his father’s apartment, yet did not go in; and b) Trayvon initiated the verbal confrontation. A.J. could acknowledge that all this information means it is credible that Trayvon could have been the aggressor.
Finally, A.J. could stop misleading himself into believing that GZ’s story about getting out of the vehicle is implausible. GZ’s story is completely plausible: he left the vehicle, he pursued, he was informed “we don’t need you to do that”, he replied “okay” and stopped the pursuit. At that point, GZ was behind buildings, and needed to walk to the front of a building to get an address. Then GZ returned towards his truck. Then GZ was confronted. GZ’s story may be true or false, yet it is completely plausible. A.J. continues to insist, without evidence, that this part of GZ’s story is implausible.
would you please get my comment ‘out of moderation’? thanks