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.
Sirius,
Honestly, I am bored with it too, but it is more interesting than politics at the moment….
I do keep looking for other topics of interest. Just nothing out there but pols/governments behaving stupidly. Like that is news.
AJ, is there a comment missing? perhaps in ‘moderation’? I see where you addressed a response to Sirius and I don’t see any comments from Sirius. just curious.
I fully expected AJ to jump in with a new post on the commercial space transformation that we are witnessing live and in person. So in his absence, let me announce that earlier today the SpaceX Dragon capsule spashed down in the Pacific and was successfully recovered.
http://www.space.com/15939-spacex-dragon-capsule-landing-pacific.html
I consider this to be a huge step forward for the USA – right up there historically with the launch of Explorer 1. SpaceX is the first private company to launch a capsule to space and recover it. They’ve now done it twice. More importantly, this mission was also the first by a private company to reach and dock with the ISS.
SpaceX is unique in that they are working with a launch vehicle, engines, and capsule that were totally 100% in-house designed. Thet now have the inside track on getting a contract to man-rate the Dragon and provide manned launch services to NASA – and anyone else willling to but them.
The next big milestone in the commercial sector is expected in early August when Orbital Sciences will attemt to launch a demo version of their Antares rocket with a dummy capsule. Orbital’s specialty is taking old, decommissioned hardware and blending it with new to create a uniques launch system that is effectice and (relatively) inexpensive. The new rocket uses two old Soviet moon rockets – refurbished here in the USA by Aerojet – to propel a new vehicle. sounds good on paper, we’ll se eif they can make it work.
The bottom line is that both these approaches are relying on the nimbalness and creativity of the private sector to accomplish an end previously reserved for Government bureaucracies – and at significant savings over a 100% in-house solution.
It’s been pointed out to me that some in NASA are not happy with this development. Of course not. The same way the horse drawn buggy makers were not happy to see the rise of the automobile. However, if all goes well, in the next twenty years SpaceX, Virgin Glactic, Orbital, Bigelow, and others will be the big names in the space business. And don’t think for a minute that they will settle for low earth orbit only. LEO is a stepping stone to other, bolder destinations.
Please forgive the typos. I guess I really do have “fat fingers”.
For those who feel confident in their layman knowledge of self-defense laws, I’d say that the conviction of retired, disabled Marine, Jonathan Lowe, in Philadelphia’s Eastern District Court (a non jury two day trial) may rock their world as they know it. Like FL’s “Castle Doctrine”, Pennsylvania revamped their laws “Castle Doctrine” to give an individual the right to use deadly force in self-defense anywhere in which a person has a legal right to be, and eliminate any duty to retreat.
Lowe was, according to his account, defending himself against a robbery attempt by the deceased… a man with a rap sheet with 40 arrests… and two other men. A witness had testified she saw the deceased, Loren Manning Jr, chasing Lowe with a metal pipe. Lowe said he was knocked down, pinned, and Manning was chocking him.
Altho the judge did believe that Lowe was attacked, he said Lowe’s actions were an “unreasonable, or imperfect self-defense”. There were enough inconsistencies between the accounts of the events for Lowe to be charged and evidence to be heard.
The judge found Lowe guilty of voluntary manslaughter and possession of an instrument of crime, but not guilty of the more-serious charges of first- and third-degree murder.
The retired Marine is black, BTW. Manning’s race is not ID’d in either of the articles.
There are no guarantees. And while no two cases are alike, Lowe was never observing, searching for, or attempting any confrontation with Manning.
As I said on one of AJ’s other few threads, prosecution will attempt to make their case based on the events that led up to the actual confrontation between Zimmerman and Martin… not who started, or was winning/losing the fight. If they can show that Zimmerman’s actions were enough to cause Martin to perceive reasonable fear or threat, it’s game over for Zimmerman.
Oops… apologies to all about not closing the hotlink tab above on the third link. If you could mend that, AJ, I’d appreciate it.
“The judge found Lowe guilty” wonder why no jury trial?
This case doesn’t sound very similar to the Martin/Zimmerman case. This was a case where the deceased was wounded and stopped the attack and was on the ground when he was further stabbed. Nothing at all similar to having your head bashed onto a concrete sidewalk.
I’m reasonably sure that even with a jury, he likely would have been found guilty. He had plenty of time and opportunity to stop the agressive moves toward the dead person.
So Mata, I’m not sure which angle you were presenting this from, but while it’s good information and shows that the justice system likely works correctly occasionally, it gives even more reason to think that if in fact it does, then Zimmerman will be exonerated.
But for those that have confidence in the justice system, I have two words: John Edwards
I was in a holding status for jury duy today, in downtown Los Angeles Criminal Court, when the John Edwards decision came in. I just smiled, and figured that another loser got off the hook.
When I took the express bus back to my home area, one of the first persons I saw, when I was crossing the street, was a young guy, in a grey sweatshirt with the hood over his head, sort of glaring at me. I thought of Trayvon Martin and it struck me how may people he has now effected with this whole gray hoodie syndrome. It’s kind of sad.
Mata: Thanks for the heads up on that case. Just read all the background articles and you make a good point that a zealous prosecutor and sympathetic judge can wreak havoc on claims of self defense. I think Lowe will be able to appeal but its a shame when a thug gets what’s coming to him and the the victim becomes the accused.
In the Zimmerman case that will be the focus of the trial and it will be up to the jury to decide who was the attacker and who was the victim. For all those on either side who think its an open & shut case you’d better be prepared for some bumps in the road.
Layman, thank you for getting my point, and not launching into a preconceived defense that Zimmerman is innocent, or putting Martin on trial for his character. In either the Zimmerman or Lowe trial, we are only privvy to what the media reports, and not the evidence that was (or has yet to be) presented at trial by prosecutors and defense.
What only matters is that, with our system as set up by the Founding Fathers, if there is a death with conflicting stories, investigations and trials ensue. This happens even with vehicular homicides. It isn’t unusual for justice to run it’s course, much to the chagrin of many, it seems.
Witness testimonies do not hold any less value than Zimmerman’s own story – most especially if it is shown to be in conflict. It will be up to the jury to decide Zimmerman’s final fate after hearing all evidence gathered… not the court of public opinion, based on which person they happen to like better based on media reports.
However if there were what anyone would assume is a cut and dried self defense case, Lowe would be a prime example. If what we read is on the money, there were witnesses to a known criminal with a metal pipe, plus two others, chasing and assaulting a disabled Marine with the intent to rob. Lowe was pinned, and was being choked. Of course he has the right of self defense.
What seems to be the judge’s contention is that altho Lowe was the obvious victim in this case, his use of the knife against the unarmed attacker was considered excessive response to the situation.
Nor can anyone here state that Lowe continued to fight back after Manning had “retreated” unless they were in that court room and heard all the testimony. From the media accounts provided, there is no evidence that Lowe knew he had fatally wounded Manning, nor that he continued his assault with the knife once he was no longer pinned. In fact one witness said he was covered in blood, and collapsed after the assault.
On the flip side, the prosecution in the Zimmerman trial can, if they have sufficient evidence that convinces a jury, possibly show that Martin was in reasonable fear of his life and felt under threat by a man following him in his neighborhood and, after trying to retreat, exercised his right of self defense. Since only half of the evidence, and not the specific testimony, has been released, none of us know what the prosecution has to present that argument convincingly. Nor do we know, with any modicum of certainty, how that event came down. We only know two things. Zimmerman did not return immediately to his vehicle after hanging up, and that Martin did not jump him unannounced from behind.
As I said, there are no guarantees. But from what I can see, Zimmerman has an uphill battle ahead of him. And apparently, per the GZ legal defense update site, the prosecution has Zimmerman emails, statements and evidence in their arsenal that O’Mara’s team doesn’t want released to the public because airing GZ’s personal communications may have a negative impression if presented thru the media, and he doesn’t want a jury possibly tainted with preconceived notions about Zimmerman’s character.
Or, as the GZ legal site put it:
“While it is true that all relevant evidence — and witnesses — that are admissible at trial will be released publicly, there are some pieces of information that may be considered irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible, and public scrutiny of them may further negatively affect our ability to seat a fair and impartial jury. That should be the focus when attempting to answer these questions.”
Meanwhile, it seems that GZ’s failure to disclose his website donations has resulted in the judge revoking his bond.
Mata
GZ’s misleading the court, re the website money, speaks to his character, and we handicappers must adjust the odds that he is telling the truth about the confrontation with Trayvon.
I will agree that a jury trial, and a self defense plea, are always rolls of the dice.
I do not think a jury will believe Trayvon felt either trapped or threatened. Trayvon was faster, had better stamina, was taller, and was a better fighter. The geography of the area meant that Trayvon could not be trapped. Even after Trayvon confronted GZ, Trayvon could have still escaped in multiple directions. Remember, also, that Dee Dee’s statement says Trayvon was by his father’s apartment, yet did not go in, and Dee Dee’s testimony is that Trayvon initiated the verbal confrontation. These are not the actions of a young man who felt physically threatened.
I disagree with your characterization that anyone is putting Trayvon on trial for his character. The fact that Trayvon was a fan of hip hop culture, and of hip hop culture’s drug use and glorification of violence, is absolutely relevant to the possibility that the incident occurred as GZ says it did, i.e. that Trayvon attacked GZ with a deadly weapon. This is not putting Trayvon on trial for his character. Rather, it is vetting the possibility that GZ’s story is accurate.
Based on the currently known evidence, I still judge that the odds are very strong that GZ is innocent. Murder 2 is an awfully strong charge.
Also, from the beginning, everyone, here, who suspected GZ was innocent, has been openly supportive of justice being done, no matter what the complete evidence eventually shows. We simply disagree about what the publicly known evidence indicates about the case.
gcotharn, what you think the jury will believe is purely speculative. You’re simply imposing your own conclusions on to others. A jury will have far more detailed evidence and testimony in sequential real time to examine than what the public has had, piecemeal via 3rd party analysis and media interpretations.
And speaking of that, you mention “Dee Dee’s statement”. Well that’s interesting. Because the affidavit of Martin’s girlfriend is not included in the May 14th document evidence dump. So unless you are privvy to what prosecutor may, or many not, have released, you are only drawing conclusions, again, from 3rd party or media statements and construing that with fact.
You may disagree with my observation that those determined to declare GZ unquestionably innocent are doing so by putting Martin, the dead victim, on trial for his character. Yet that is what is being done. The perfect example of this kangaroo media trial of Martin is your statement that examining Martin’s character is “vetting the possibility that GZ’s story is accurate.”
Wishful thinking.
Martin’s character is not a validation of Zimmerman’s character. And as the Lowe case proves, the character of the dead victim is irrelevant. Manning had 40 arrests and 18 convictions, not that Lowe knew of them at that moment in time. But what Lowe did know is that Manning was actually engaged in committing a crime when he was killed by Lowe… unlike Martin, who was where he was legally entitled to be. Sorta pulls the chair out from under that theory, don’t you think?
It also becomes problematic when you read the vast amount of comments in the blog world about how GZ is a hero, and the world is a safer place without – as you, yourself put it – “a fan of hip hop culture, and hip hop culture’s drug use and glorification of violence”. What is that but some sort of bizarre way to state that Martin deserved his fate, even tho he was doing nothing wrong that evening?
I wonder if you think that same attitude should be directed towards the vast amount of political figures who have publicly admitted using recreational marijuana … including many Republicans (including Palin) and Abe Lincoln, who had a penchant for his pipe with sweet hemp? I daresay there are many teens and young adults that made judgmental errors, especially those of the Vietnam generation, and still grew to be responsible adults.
If the GZ supporters are justifiably offended at the racist attachments to this case ( and no, I don’t think Zimmerman racially profiled Martin in the way they portray), then it can also be said that such harsh judgment calls by Zimmerman supporters do little to tone it down, and are no less offensive than the race baiters.
As for the murder two charge, I’ve already said I can see why they are going that direction. From what evidence they have compiled, and that chosen charge, it seems they are going to be placing considerable emphasis on Zimmerman’s decisions and choices that increased the likelihood of this outcome. Just like in Lowe, if the jury finds Zimmerman guilty, they may also recommend a voluntary manslaughter lower charge.
Sorry folks for having the comments turn off. They should be on for a few more days now.
Mata – Welcome! Anyone from Flopping Aces is always appreciated here at Strata.
BTW, I love this observation of yours:
“You may disagree with my observation that those determined to declare GZ unquestionably innocent are doing so by putting Martin, the dead victim, on trial for his character. Yet that is what is being done.”
That is exactly what is wrong with this incident. It should be tried with evidence, and not determined on wild speculation. Excellent synopsis my dear
Mata and A.J.,
Who, in this blog comment section, is “determined to declare GZ unquestionably innocent”? Straw man. Several of us commenters share an opinion, based upon publicly known evidence, that GZ is likely to have been acting in self defense. Other commenters do not go that far, and simply believe that GZ is unlikely to have been guilty of Murder 2. We fully acknowledge that new evidence might impact our current evaluation. We stand for justice being done, whatever that turns out to be.
You, Mata and A.J., in order to condemn us, are forced to accuse us of defending positions which we do not hold.
Re “examining Martin’s character”. You are misusing a cliche about impugning a victim’s character.
On this blog, A.J. has consistently argued that GZ lied about what happened. A.J. has characterized GZ’s story as being implausible.
When considering the plausibility of GZ’s story, we should factor in Trayvon’s embrace of the psychology of hip hop (i.e. don’t disrespect me, or you will deserve to be punched, et al), and we should factor in Trayvon’s experience and skill at fighting, and we should factor in other factors – such as drug use which might create paranoia. Some of these factors might have had zero effect on Trayvon’s actions. Still, they ought be factored into the overall assessment. If this constitutes “examining Trayvon’s character”, then failure to examine Trayvon’s character would constitute malpractice.
GZ may have lied. But we cannot conclude that on the basis of GZ’s story being implausible. Trayvon’s embrace of hip hop psychology, and of fighting, is evidence that GZ’s story is plausible.
So far as I can tell, the prosecution has two paths:
1. the solo audio analyst
2. GZ lied, therefore GZ likely is covering up a severe misdeed.
Given that the prosecution is basing part of their case upon GZ having lied, therefore it is relevant that Trayvon’s embrace of hip hop, and of fighting, are factors in showing that GZ’s story could be accurate. I believe Trayvon’s embrace of hip hop, and of fighting, are already factors in demonstrating that Trayvon did not fear for his physical safety.
Mata,
The above does not constitute assertion that Trayvon deserved his fate for any action he took … previous to the the point at which he used a concrete sidewalk as a deadly weapon (assuming he did that). What Trayvon’s defenders never, ever admit: no matter WHAT happened before Trayvon used concrete as a deadly weapon, and no matter what kind of knucklehead GZ might or might not be, the moment Trayvon committed assault with a deadly weapon, Trayvon crossed a line and became a different kind of assailant, and new rules of conduct came into play. Everything which happened before that point became irrelevant. A deadly weapon was now being deployed. A new situation had come into being. New rules were in play. Everything which came before … no longer mattered. The situation was completely new and fresh: morally, ethically, legally, in every way.
Moving on:
I am clearly speculating re what a jury will decide. I am a blog commenter. Reasoned speculation is what I do.
If Dee Dee’s statements help the defense (and they do), then Dee Dee’s statement’s will likely be introduced into evidence. Do we have reason to believe that Dee Dee lied about Trayvon saying he was near his fathers apartment, and about her advising him to go into the apartment? Do we have reason to believe that Dee Dee lied about Trayvon initiating the verbal confrontation?
Re blog commenters, at other blogs, who write that GZ is a hero … I fail to see how an ethical discussion at this Strata Sphere blog has any misbegotten impact on those other blog commenters. If, as you imply, they are ignorant: then our ignoring truth is not going to somehow alleviate their ignorance.
I do not fully comprehend what you are asserting re my hypocrisy re pot usage, and re my alleged race crime.
gcotharn,
As Mata noted, those defending GZ do so by characterizing TM as someone who deserved to be confronted, stalked, probably attacked and then killed.
To make TM deserving of this killing some have connected skittles to drugs to make the point TM was a danger and had to be put down.
Get a clue – that is what has been going on. Trying to wrap that nonsense in reasonable sounding words doesn’t change a thing.
TM had a right to be outside, had no responsibility to run and hide in doors, had a right to stand his ground and…
He had the rtight to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
A gun-happy hot-head does not have the right or authority to take a life when his disastrous judgement was the key to the physical altercation.
Sounding reasonable will not cut it this time. Not when a young kid is dead…
Re
“A gun-happy hot-head does not have the right or authority to take a life when his disastrous judgement was the key to the physical altercation.”
I note that, in your judgement, GZ’s physical injuries do not constitute evidence of having been assaulted with a deadly weapon. Thus, in your judgement, the conflict never progressed beyond the parameters of “physical altercation.”
Is it so unreasonable that many of us judge that GZ’s injuries DO CONSTITUTE evidence of having been assaulted with a deadly weapon? Our opinions might be wrong, but our opinions are not wacko and unreasonable.
Re
“Sounding reasonable will not cut it this time. Not when a young kid is dead”
What if an attempted murderer is dead?
No one here has said that pedestrian Trayvon deserved to be attacked. Straw man. No one here has said that Trayvon deserved to be killed … EXCEPT if the truth is that Trayvon turned himself into an attempted murderer.
No one here has said Trayvon “had to be put down” b/c of drug use. Straw man. Who puts people down b/c of drug use? This is America.
EVERYONE HERE believes Trayvon had a right to be outside, had no responsibility to run and hide, had a right to stand his ground, had rights to life, liberty, happiness.
You say: “get a clue”. Yet, you are accusing us of advocating opinions which we do not hold and are not advocating. If we are so clueless, then the opinions WE ACTUALLY DO HOLD ought be easily refutable. You seem uninterested in comprehending the opinions we actually hold.
You seem to have been emotionally triggered, at the expense of reason. As in “Sounding reasonable will not cut it this time. Not when a young kid is dead”.
gcotharn, well said: very much like I was conjuring up to say and then I saw where you had already said it.
Let me add a little: “To make TM deserving of this killing some have connected skittles to drugs to make the point TM was a danger and had to be put down.” really? just a wee bit of hyperbole there. Linking to an article with the common well known recipe that the hip hop crowd in Miami is well known to be treating as their ‘drink of the day’ is not quite like saying that it made anyone into something that ‘had to be put down’.
Why would a member of the hip hop crowd be sipping on a watermelon and skittles drink and have it NOT contain the ‘active’ ingredient? I personally don’t think he would, but I am perfectly okay with the jury deciding, based on introduced evidence, whether or not he had also included the ‘active’ ingredient and if/how that may have affected his actions. I am okay with the jury deciding if his heavy frequent use of marijuana affected his actions.
I have not seen one single person on this blog state that Martin didn’t have the right to be outside smoking his dope and sipping his drink. I have seen no one state that he should die for these actions. If he did, in fact, bash GZ’s head on the concrete then he should have been stopped by whatever action it took on GZ’s part.
This quote: “As Mata noted, those defending GZ do so by characterizing TM as someone who deserved to be confronted, stalked, probably attacked and then killed.” I have not seen this, at all, on this blog. Reported to the police(as was done) yes. confronted? only by the police. TM prevented that by taking the law into his own hands and passing a death sentence on GZ. It didn’t work out for him.
Mata: “Because the affidavit of Martin’s girlfriend is not included in the May 14th document evidence dump” likely true because very little or none of it will ever be introduced, by the prosecution because it is more helpful to the defense than to the prosecutor. We don’t have to ‘speculate’ on many things that are in her statement because it has been released and I have actually heard recordings of her statement. 99% of it is hearsay anyhow and will never get into the trial.
Also: “You may disagree with my observation that those determined to declare GZ unquestionably innocent are doing so by putting Martin, the dead victim, on trial for his character.” that is a mischaracterization of almost all persons that comment on this case on this blog. Most persons here have discussed almost all the activities of that night and have basically judged TM on his actions, not on his character. The primary action that I personally judge him on is the ‘bashing of GZ’s head onto a concrete sidewalk while sitting on top of him and him screaming for help” If he was, in fact, doing that, what action do you personally think GZ should have taken? Apparently, you have read very few comments on this subject and have ‘rushed to judgment’. Maybe you should read a little more, reason a little more, pass judgment a little less.
gcotham,
Your kidding right? GZ had minor cuts and bruises. I hurt myself worse falling off a bicycle when I was a kid. He was walking around on his own.
And what deadly weapon did TM have? He was not a trained Martial Arts expert or anything. Your grasping is hilarious
“Your grasping is hilarious”
“Your kidding right? GZ had minor cuts and bruises. ”
Then GZ’s self defense worked very well to limit it to ‘minor cuts and bruises’ wonder how minor they would have been after a ‘few more bashes’ onto the concrete.
good thing to start off the day with something hilarious….
You keep pretending that silly scenario in your head is reality.
That too is damn hilarious…
As I recall, you were not a witness. Just saying.