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.
Apparently Jahvaris Fulton-Martin, Trayvon’s™ older brother, is telling the media the fight club videos containing Trayvon™ Martin refereeing the fights are not him.
Meanwhile here is the video he was proud of between “anthony and curtis“. Trayvon is the one in the white ball cap with the striped shirt. You can hear Trayvon called by name, as well as clearly identify his right arm tattoo.
Live Leak Version HERE (because YouTube scrubbed them)
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e73_1337581575
“O’Mara joined in the motion to keep his client’s statements out of the public eye ”
“so now they have to try and keep those words out of court. ”
whoa!! not the same thing. not releasing defense statements to the public is not the same as keeping them out of court.
while there is such a thing as discovery, so that the defense won’t be ‘surprised’ at the trial, there is no requirement that the defense reveal the defense ahead of time. To do so would only allow the prosecutor time to develop a new strategy.
I’ve always known Wolf Blitzer was a loon, and I’ve long suspected George Will was a closet liberal. Both confirmed my suspicions over the weekend and today.
It’s surprising to me that those two people are of the opinion that each individual American is not entitled to have their own opinion on any subject that they choose to have an opinion on.
If I have an opinion, and another person has an opposite opinion and these two opinions are on whether a certain fact is or is not true and as of the moment there is no absolute proof one way or the other, then that technically makes both opinions worth exactly the same thing. But, because one individual doesn’t change his opinion just to ‘go along with the crowd’, they think that person is not ‘entitled’ to their own opinion. Isn’t that weird?
Well, it confirmed that they are both loons.
remove all safety labels and the problem will take care of itself…..
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/329673.php
I thought I heard that the autopsy found intoxicants in TM. It is now being suggested that he could have been high on DMX. But seeing as how drug users act completely rationally and aren’t ever paranoid, I’m sure that would have no influence on the events that night.
NewEnglandDevil, gee, you think so? High usage of drugs make people paranoid, act strangely? who woulda thunk it?
I think we should ignore the fact that he was a habitual heavy user of drugs and that he regularly participated in fighting and staging fights.
I’m sure that had no impact on his actions that night. Although it might have given him super hearing so that he was able to hear his telephone conversation with his ear phones in his pocket. You can take it to the bank that nothing Martin did that night caused the situation, it was that crazed vigilante wanna be lawman that caused the whole deal. and he wasn’t even on drugs, or something….
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/5/27/44552/1872
AJ I have never seen you be so far off base as you are on this one. The above analysis is not from some far right loon quite the opposite.
Zimmerman had every right to shoot a thug who was banging his head repeatedly into the pavement regardless of whether or not he was following, profiling or throwing spitballs at said thug. Trayvon used deadly force first, zimmerman did second and prevailed! The right to self defense must be preserved else we all become slaves to the aggressors whether it be thugs in person or in govt.
Apparently ‘lean’ AKA DXM is the street term for using dextromethorphan (the active ingredient in OTC Robotussin) mixed with sweet drinks to make it more palatable. One of the recipes for “lean” calls for using Arizona Iced Tea Co.watermelon fruit juice cocktail as the beverage of choice, and Skittles candy, items found on Trayvon Martin.
Trayvon’s Facebook posts seem to show that Trayvon was a regular user of ‘lean’ going back to at least June of last year.
dhunter,
I will say this for the umpteenth time. An armed person CANNOT initiate a physical altercation and then claim he was losing the fight and had a right defend himself. He can’t make it up (and Zimmerman’s injuries do not indicate anything close to life threatening) and it can’t even be for real.
You CANNOT start the fight and then claim you were in a life struggle and shoot the other person.
You and others who believe this are fantasizing.The case law is clear, the precedence deep and long.
NEO,
There were no cold medicines in Martin’s blood, and having cold medicine in your blood (no proof it was DXM) is justification to shoot an unarmed kid.
You people making this shit up are ridiculous.
AJ,
I understand this is your blog and you can write about whatever is of interest to you. However, I find your singular focus on the Zimmerman-Martin case dull. We will find out what happened during the trial….that is the purpose of trials…and let us not forget the presumpstion of innocence. Until then…it’s all guesswork based on media interpretation of the facts. So, imo, your posts on this are little more than interpretations of interpretations.
I used to visit your blog a lot more because I found your posts on the global climate change fraud and other science/engineering related topics informative and always interesting. Unfortunately, “The Strata-Sphere” has gotten boring ever since the media decided to make this tragic incident a national circus and captured much of your attention.
Your humble public servant…
AJ, nobody is making up the fact that Martin had Watermelon cocktail and skittles on him. Now I suppose we could all just assume that while all the druggie kids everywhere is drinking ‘lean’ made with Watermelon cocktail, skittles and Robitussin, that Martin was the ‘exception’ and was only trying to fool his bro’s into thinking he was cool and was just drinking the watermelon cocktail mixed with skittles to fake them all out. Yeah, actually I’m sure that’s it. And of course he was only buying the Stunts to make his bro’s think he was smoking pot but he was faking them all out too. Oops, I forgot, the pot was ‘actually’ in his blood. Oh well, if you can’t fool them all the time, then when you can’t fool them any longer, just go ahead and smoke the pot, after all it’ll just mellow him out and make him just want to get along.
But let’s get this clear: “There were no cold medicines in Martin’s blood,”
Means it is absolutely certain he had not used any cold medicine.
So, there was Pot in his blood: So I guess we can be absolutely positive he was using pot.
I guess if he had just invited Zimmerman to share his toke they could have just all mellowed out together. or something…
Keep pluckin’ that chicken, AJ. Gotta be some meat in there somewhere.
“and Zimmerman’s injuries do not indicate anything close to life threatening”
I’m gonna agree here. I certainly don’t think getting your skull bashed onto a concrete sidewalk is life threatening. It probably could be considered as beneficial, getting all those neurons moving around and all. or something…
“justification to shoot an unarmed kid.”
and I’m gonna agree here also, there can absolutely not ever be a justification for shooting an unarmed kid. however, being unarmed does give you the right to bash someone’s head onto concrete because that’s not harmful…
I think I’m beginning to see the logic here. or something…
AJStrata,
“An armed person CANNOT initiate a physical altercation and then claim he was losing the fight and had a right defend himself.”
I have cited the Florida Statute that says in plain English that you are wrong on this assertion, but feel free to keep bringing it up.
“He can’t make it up (and Zimmerman’s injuries do not indicate anything close to life threatening) and it can’t even be for real.”
Once again, you are misstating the law. (One has to wonder why you would continually do this.) The law only says that the person has to believe his life is in imminent jeopardy. It is not subject to what you believe as you weren’t there at the time. It only matters what the person believes. Even so, it is hard to believe that any reasonable person would not believe he is at risk of great bodily harm (which is also part of the statute) or imminent death while his head is being pounded into the sidewalk
“The case law is clear, the precedence deep and long.”
Yes it is. The fact of the matter is that you won’t see the precedence is against you in this matter.
Once again, I can see why people might disagree on some unknowns or cloudy issues, but one has to wonder why you are blatantly lying about the facts of the law?
As to the point of the post, you are joking, right? You are taking the prosecution’s word at face value without even seeing what the statements are? This is the same prosecution that lied on the indictment affidavit and you are taking their word for it? This is the same prosecution that is filing these papers to keep the case going so they have a direct motive to misrepresent what is said – and you believe them without any shred of evidence?
Seriously AJ, please seek some help as you are so wedded to the idea that you are right and everyone else is wrong that you have started to exhibit behavior that is truly disturbing.
louctiel: are you keeping your time sheets up to date? At some point I’m sure you’re going to claim you’ve spent more time on this than someone. We’d like proof. or something…
“he is at risk of great bodily harm (which is also part of the statute) or imminent death while his head is being pounded into the sidewalk ”
but louctiel, are you forgetting that Martin was unarmed so he had a right to bash heads onto concrete because that is not a life threatening endeavor? Maybe you just don’t understand this ‘bodily harm’ thing.
But basically, louctiel, I’m in an agreeable mood today, so I’m liable to agree on anything. (except I’m not going to agree to keep a time sheet, you can do that)
I keep reading comments here, as well as links posted dealing with Martin’s background, and there is at least ‘reasonable doubt’ as to who started the fight leading to Martin’s death. Like what was stated in other posts, Martin was physically unscathed by any trauma, other than his knuckles and the fatal gun shot wound. However, the injuries incurred by Zimmerman were ones of someone being beaten up. I just don’t see how some people can rationalize that Zimmerman had no justification to defend himself from someone beating the crap out of him???
jan, I agree. with the facts ‘known’ as published in various sites, etc. I think it is safe to say that someone could come up with a number of scenarios. But, in doing so, there has to be some assumption based on what some of the actual released published evidence in the case is. and as you say, the physical evidence indicates that Zimmerman was getting the short end of the altercation. It certainly doesn’t seem to favor Martin as the ‘victim’. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he was being assaulted or having his head bashed against concrete (though some seem to think this is not a bad thing, certainly not life threatening. ???) or he didn’t have his nose broken or anything serious. As it turned out, he did get a bullet in the ribs, but that seems to be as a last resort to stop the punishment that the shooter was receiving. We do know that Martin was under the influence of drugs, but we do not know if Zimmerman was. Toxicology should likely have been done on both persons, but there didn’t seem to be a real need at the time. This may end up being a case where we never really know the truth (as in the Casey Anthony case). If I were voting, based on what I’ve seen and heard, I wouldn’t convict Zimmerman of anything. but I’m not voting.
Redteam,
“are you keeping your time sheets up to date? At some point I’m sure you’re going to claim you’ve spent more time on this than someone. We’d like proof. or something…”
Of course, this goes back to our discussion concerning the Obama birth certificate where you claimed you had not spent more than 5 minutes looking at the birth certificate. Of course, you see that as a positive when most people who actually understand what they were seeing would see that as a negative.
In fact, trying to understand the concept which you put forth would take more time than you gave it which simply shows you don’t care about any conclusion other than what you believe.
That, of course, if fine.
But when your argument is based on how little time you spent on the very issues you bring up and admit you don’t understand, a lack of time invested and understanding is a negative.
louchtiel: so in addition to not keeping time sheets your other fault is not having a sense of humor?
But, to get back to the birth certificate (I know you’ve been anxious to) my point there is that no one HAS to study them. It is clearly obvious to a casual viewer that they are fake. Any further time spent looking is just to add up the hundreds of errors they contain that easily prove the point.
The other point is that you definitely are not spending as much time as AJ is on this Martin/Zimmerman case. That’s why I’m suggesting you keep time sheets to incentivise(created word here) you to spend more time on it
“and admit you don’t understand” you’re wrong here, I never admitted that, in fact, just the opposite, I understand it very well but can’t understand why you can’t.
“where you claimed you had not spent more than 5 minutes looking at the birth certificate.” wrong again. I never said that. I only said that one only has to look for 5 minutes or less to know that they are fake.
On second thought, louchtiel, forget the ‘time’ sheets and go with documentation on how many times you get it wrong. I’ll be sure to point them out, but I don’t promise 100% accuracy, you’re wrong so often, it’ll be easy to overlook one occasionally. or something…