Jun 26 2012
The Nail In George Zimmerman False Claims
This post extends analysis I did in a previous post.
There has been a lot of excellent analysis in the blogosphere regarding George Zimmerman’s claims about the events surrounding his killing of young Trayvon Martin. Analysis clearly in line with the results of the police investigation and the prosecution’s case. While there are many discrepancies throughout Zimmerman’s tall tale, some are simply too big to ignore.
(1) There is no way GZ could pull his gun as described. On his back with his holster against his hip, his holster inside his waistband, while being pinned by TM who is supposedly straddling him. This position means TM”s legs are blocking access to GZ’s waist area (especially if he wiggles ‘downward’ through the straddling legs), as well as the ground and clothing making it impossible to reach and pull a gun. In this position you cannot pull a gun on a wet and rainy night without some evidence on the gun. But the fact is GZ’s elbow is too long to reach his waist since he claimed to be pinning TM’s arm while attempting this trick. Impossible (see below for why)
Update: For all the doubting Thomas’ out there, you can disprove this yourself. Try and get your wallet of your pants laying on your back without raising you butt off the ground (this is within inches of where a holster would be inside a waste band). Then have someone straddle you and try again – note where their legs are. And finally, pin something under your right arm, have someone straddle you (with their weight on you) and try again. While the picture above is static, your own experiment will do the trick. In the last case your elbow must bend to get to your back pocket, thus the laws of physics and biology disprove the reenactment by GZ. – end update.
(2) There is almost no GZ blood or DNA on TM. TM should be covered with blood or DNA from the punching and from the claimed suffocation attempt. But there is none.
(3) There is no TM blood or DNA on GZ, which there would be if he was shot while straddling over GZ. Blood would begin to flow and should be all over GZ.
(4) If TM was really banging GZ’s head on concrete, there should be some fractures in the skull. Apparently there are no injuries consistent with multiple hard blows to the head.
(5) Finally, the path of the bullet in TM’s body is not possible from the position described , and really is only possible if both men are standing AND GZ’s arm is extended straight.
When you look at the bullet path inside TM’s body it is pretty clear that this was not a shot from underneath, which would be the angle if events transpired as Zimmerman claims. In fact, even standing the only way to get a gun that level is with your elbows locked straight out in a typical gun range position.
This post does a great job of highlighting some of these basic issues (and where I was able to collect the bullet path image)
You can’t break the laws of physics/biology/chemistry – this is not a fictional world. The crime scene evidence completely destroys GZ’s story, even before you get to issues like the timeline described vs the timeline recorded on the dispatch call, the lies about why GZ exited the car (to follow TM, not to read house numbers which were right in front of him). Basically, nothing beyond the fact he shot Trayvon appears to be true.
And why would GZ need to lie so much?
Because the truth is his actions led to the death of young Trayvon Martin. That is the only reason to make up so much fiction.
“So called Miami Cannibal, Rudy Eugene, had only marijuana in his system, not the illicit drug known as “bath salts” ”
what was it TM had in his system?
“Therefore he would be aware of the CVSA, and of course would want to cooperate because he carefully constructed his story to look as unquestionable self defense.”
So the theory now is that GZ got up that morning planning to kill someone that night and carefully spent the day crafting events and rehearsing his CVSA tests so that he could get away with 1st degree murder?
I’m sure that’s what happened, or something…
RT, stop leaping into hyperbole. Never believed that GZ set out to kill TM. Only that the dumb bozo set himself up for that be creating the conditions that would lead to the death, and he was incapable of controlling them.
Even State doesn’t believe that, or they would have gone for premeditated murder one.
mata: your statement: “I would find it inconsistent with GZ NOT to cooperate. He thought of himself as a budding LEO, acted as an LEO, was attending college to become an LEO. Therefore he would be aware of the CVSA, and of course would want to cooperate because he carefully constructed his story to look as unquestionable self defense.”
then a partial of that quote: “and of course would want to cooperate because he carefully constructed his story to look as unquestionable self defense.”
So he did all this ‘carefully constructing’ on the spur of the moment?
If you’re gonna just make all that up, then I may as well make up something that fits your made up stuff.
These elements are totally made up with absolutely no basis:
” He thought of himself as a budding LEO”
” acted as an LEO,”
“he carefully constructed his story ”
you had no problem ‘jumping to hyperbole’.
” acted as an LEO,”
In fact, many have held that ‘had he done so, and informed TM that he was a LEO(Neighborhood Watch) and asked why TM was in the neighborhood, the whole thing would have been prevented. You can’t have it both ways.
Yes, I know a Neighborhood Watch is not a LEO.
It’s interesting that you have such a good feel for the Supreme Court decision today and are completely out of touch with reality on this case.
t’ain’t making it up, RT. He was a wannabe cop by his own admission and choce of community college curriculum, he acted as a wannabe cop, as even you admit with the Neighborhood Watch. And his story, carefully concocted, are all words of his own statements… albeit a pack of lies in more than a few instances.
So what’s your beef? This is all George, from George. No making it up.
And speaking of making things up, your reading problem still afflicting you? What “good feeling” about the SCOTUS case?
Which one of the words in my sentence..
… is beyond your preschool capabilites?
Okay, this is *my* reading disability. Mea culpa. LOL Apologies. Thought you meant I had a good feeling about the SCOTUS decision.
I look at them the same way, RT. Legal aspects and as little emotion as possible. I see Roberts arguments, but personally I find more merit in the dissenting opinion. They are all judicial officials high in the food chain. When you see that lawyers and judges disagree all the time, you’ll understand why I don’t automatically accept any pundit’s opinion that really is dodging the State’s charges in this case. First and foremost, TZ has to deal with what the State is charging him with… and he’s going to have a hard time doing that by his own device.
Mata: What the hell are you talking about? This entire post was AJ’s theory that GZ was mounted and could not expose his gun, could not reach for it, could not draw it, could not fire it. Impossible! We’re done! Proof positive GZ is a liar.
My comments had nothing to do with your analysis of the impossible. I still say that with regards to being “mounted” GZ’s story is entirely possible.
And I’m still awaiting AJ’s answer to my “reasonable man” question. I have asked him that specific question at least three times over the last 6 weeks and he has ignored it every time. Since he’s ducking it, why don’t you answer.
You Mata have got yourself into a bad situation. Its probably your fault. You find yourself on the ground with a guy bashing your head against the sidewalk. Can you (reasonably) be in fear for your life?
Layman, what the hell are *you* talking about…
From AJ’s post:
He also couldn’t have shot TM “as described” even with his CVSA version, which had his gun arm relatively straight out.
Where’s the rest of your “could not expose” his gun BS coming from?
Every bit of the “impossible” comments comes from the evendence as it relates to c GZ’s story or the accounts to reality… which is plainly noted in AJ’s post when he says “as described” What difference does it make if you had some situation where you wiggled around? Not relevant. This is GZ’s story and evidence, not your anecdote.
sigh… I do hate this hypothetical stuff because I”m pretty darned sure you’ll respond the same way others have when I’ve answered.
But in deference to you polite request, I’ll tell you.
If I were eyed by a stranger while walking thru the neighborhood who then:
1: Let me pass by nary saying a word then
2: Followed me slowly in his car then
3: Exited his car to chase me when I ran (which, according to GZ’s account to the police, was only a matter of 20-30′ ahead of him), then
4: Spent another 3-4 minutes looking for me in the hood while I waited in the shadows, then
5: Exchanged verbal words with me then
6: “reached” for something…
… I would have shot him on the spot if I was armed. If I wasn’t armed, the minute he “reached” for something, I’d assume he was armed and fight tooth and nail because I was in fear for my life.
Then I would stand trial if I killed him. And you know what? My story that he was eying me, following me, chasing me, and continuing a search for me would all be documented proof I was telling the truth by his own dispatcher call.
I’d say the chances I would walk for justifiable self defense would be pretty good. Even if I shot him because both of us were equally matched by being armed. Even better if he was armed, and I wasn’t.
But were I in GZ’s place, it never would have happened because I never would have gotten out of the car to follow a suspicious person. I would have waited for the police, as was prudent.
RT,
Your back to “stuck on stupid”. The ‘depraved mind’ part of Murder 2 is GZ’s vigilante madness, his unwillingness to hold back as trained and instructed, his need to detain TM to play LEO, and his use of a deadly weapon when he got in over his head someone punched him in the nose (which is when Mr. Hyde took full control, went mad and killed).
You can play the childish game of putting YOUR stupid words in other people’s mouths, but we all know whose dumb ideas these are. As Mata and I have said, if he planned this from the morning it would be Murder 1. If he planned to play cop (for weeks) and he killed someone while play acting, that is Murder 2.
BTW, I said from day 1 the way GZ would be found guilty was the holes in his quickly concocted alibi. Read it and weep dude, but that was my prediction day 1 and it has been proven true. All your silly denial and diversions aside.
Mata,
Proof positive GZ was playing cop is in his written statement that night, where instead of referring to TM has ‘the neighborhood kid down the street’ (the reality) he referred to him as ‘the suspect’. RT will deny this means anything of course, but he has so much ego built into this now he will never come back to Earth….
Layman,
You have my answers in my posts. I ain’t buying what your peddling….
Mata: “… I would have shot him on the spot if I was armed. If I wasn’t armed, the minute he “reached” for something, I’d assume he was armed and fight tooth and nail because I was in fear for my life.
…
But were I in GZ’s place, it never would have happened because I never would have gotten out of the car to follow a suspicious person. I would have waited for the police, as was prudent.”
Checkmate. And when these two legitimate perspectives on the events of that night (which also has been a cornerstone of my posts from day 1, and that is TM has a right to stand his ground too) the jury will convict.
There is clear evidence TM was running away from GZ – GZ supplies most of this himself (is he running/yes, are you following/yes). It is supported by Dee Dee and one witness seeing a chase. It is supported by the crime scene which is spread across 60 ft from first contact to dead body.
All the holes in GZ’s testimony point to what you just noted. TM tried to stand his ground against a vigilante. He did not have to go home, but GZ was required to stay in his car and wait for police.
A good lawyer will close this one quickly.
AJ,
The only problem I have with your comment above, “Proof positive GZ was playing cop is in his written statement that night, where instead of referring to TM has ‘the neighborhood kid down the street’ (the reality) he referred to him as ‘the suspect’,” is that I would have a similar problem. Whether I was a witness or a suspect, because of my legal background I would use terms such as “suspect” in written statements. He was raised by a judge and took coursework in criminal justice. The terminology is familiar to him. I don’t think it is a very strong argument to prove he was a vigilante. Not saying there aren’t other arguments for that, just not this one.
Sorry DJ, while I understand why you might use it, I know you better than to chase down a kid with a gun and get into a fight.
You should not look at evidence in isolation, but as a picture with many elements tying together to tell the WHOLE story.
yeah, if that was the only evidence it would not carry weight. But with his history it says it all about his mindset that evening.
GZ was a loose cannon. An armed loose cannon. And he had not right to interfere with TM’s movements, let alone take his life.
Mata: So I’m out of line for asking you a hypothetical but you politely reply by giving me a hypothetical. Great.
OK, I agree with your hypothetical. Probably very close to what I’d do if I were (hypothetically) in either of those two situations.
Still, you ducked the hypothetical coming from the other side. A bit weasley IMHO. Are you a lawyer? 🙂
DJ, there is no question that the terminology would be familiar. However is there also no question that Zimmerman was a wannabe cop, by his own admission.
I responded to (gcotharn’s? or Layman’s?) observations that GZ “cooperated”, giving him kudos, by saying I’d be surprised if GZ didn’t cooperate, since he considered himself one of them, or a budding member of their ranks. Because he had the goal of becoming an LEO, he would know about technology such as polygraphs and CVSAs. Just as a police officer, being debriefed for an incident where there was a discharge of their firearm, he would be familiar enough with self defense laws in FL to be comfortable thinking he was in a good position with his story, and not feel the need to get a lawyer (really dumb move, but he’s done a lot of those…).
It was also mentioned that he “prayed to God” there was a video of the incident. Well, that’s a pretty safe bet. GZ knew exactly where the complex surveillance cameras were – no where near the death – who to call to get them, and a phone number for that contact saved in his phone (all on one of the interviews, as they went out to get his phone for the number).
Obviously, since he was face to face with Martin, he would know if TM had a phone/camera pointed at him recording. In fact, GZ had no idea that Martin was even on the phone until that moment. So it’s quite safe to say, considering he knew there was no possible recording by Martin or surveillance cameras, that he “hoped” there was a video as another way to make him a credible victim at the hands of a teen, doing nothing illegal in a complex where he had a right to be.
The vigilante behavior is proven by GZ’s own dispatcher call, and his story of his movements. He freely admitted to profiling, following in a car, chasing on foot in his accounts. What he won’t admit to is an extended hunt, but the time elapsed post hanging up from the dispatcher is physical proof of that. He will also not admit that he was not attacked where he said he was because that would mean he either got up and chased Martin further south, or that he was further south on that path when he got decked.
He’s even well versed in self defense enough to boldly make up events to make his claim of self defense more credible:
1: TM threatening behavior “circling” his car
2: Rolling up his window in fear when TM tried to talk to him
3: Falsely stating that the dispatchers told him to get out of the car for an exact address
4: Falsely stating that he agreed to meet the PD at his car, when he did not
5: Several versions of where he was on the E-W path when finishing that call
6: Being careful never to say he went south on the N-W path at all
The problem with George is that when he carefully constructed his pat delivery, complete with physical demonstration of his movements (i.e. his “reaching” for his cell, which he says resulted in TM hitting him), he totally forgot what was said and done, and in what time frame, during the recorded dispatcher’s call.
Layman, where did I say you were “out of line”? What I said, verbatim, was:
And sure enough, you came back with the exact answer I expected because my answer will not satisfy you.
That begs that I behave, exactly as Zim, up to that moment and ignore all prior events. Obviously if I were walking along, minding my own business, armed, and someone jumped me without provocation, I’d fight and use my gun (and I do own a Colt Series 80 Mk IV rigged for action pistol competition) if necessary.
But then, that’s not the same scene, case or charges, is it? In that scene, I’d still be put on trial, perhaps for involuntary manslaughter.
If I did everything that GZ did, I too would be on trial for murder two… the difference being I’d probably plea bargain using a moment of stupidity (or perhaps a side effect of my regular drug use – and I’ve seen what the stronger version of “ritalin” – i.e. Adderall – can do to a personality) as a reason for temporary insanity. After all, he’s taking the Adderall for his ADHD, which makes him insomic, and then takes another drug – Tamazapan – to help him sleep. This yo yo of drug effects ain’t pleasant on personalities.
Simply put, there is no way that I would ever make the decisions that Zimmerman did that night. I would not have left the car but for only one reason… if I was observed that person attacking another, and I’d attempt to go to their aid. Might even just drive my car right up to them instead… I’ve done that before since it was safer than being on foot.
But that’s not what happened either, right?
Your question is a bogus hypothetical. You ask what I would do if I were losing a fight, but refuse to allow anything prior to that point as a factor in my answer.
Thus the reason that I hate the hypotheticals – not because they are “out of line” but because they are not only irrelevant, they are never accepted when the questioner doesn’t get the answer he/she wants. Been there, done that on this many times already.
This case and any established guilt or innocence does not revolve around the moment that GZ was losing the fight. Period. It would be a very ugly world where a criminal can stalk me, chase me, then be found innocent of all culpability if he shot me merely because I fought back. That is not the intent of justice, SYG or Castle Doctrine.
I simply asked: Is it reasonable for GZ to have been fearful for his life at the instant he was having his head bashed on the concrete?
A simple and responsive answer might have been: Of course he was fearful nad in the exact situation I would be too? but that doesn’t let him off the hook for all the decision he made and actions he took leading up to that moment.
Wasn’t that hard and didn’t need nearly as many words.