Jul 16 2012
How Will Witness 9 (GZ’s Molested Cousin) Effect TM Charges?
Well, a bombshell dropped in the George Zimmerman trial for Murder 2 for the killing of young Trayvon Martin:
A relative of George Zimmerman claims she was molested by him when they were both children, the latest allegation in the case against the former neighborhood watch volunteer charged in the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin.
The interview with police, done nearly a month after the February shooting, was made public Monday after local media fought to have it released, over objections from prosecutors and the defense.
You can get all the evidence regarding Witness 9 here. Witness 9 was the anonymous caller who told police there was a sinister, hidden side to the soft-spoken, policeman-wannabe George Zimmerman. I actually don’t see much impact on the trial except to once more destroy GZ’s credibility (which is already shot to pieces). Even her claims of racism are not against GZ, but against his estranged mother. Clearly this woman has some legitimate beef with GZ, but very little is applicable to the TM case. The only connection that might be made is how well GZ can hide brutal behavior, and how little he cares about his victims (his apology to Witness 9 and her parents was a sad joke).
To be honest, not much more is needed in the case against GZ. As you sift through the evidence, more and more problems become clear. One thing I was thinking of doing was listing how GZ’s story changes over time to deal with serious flaws in his original telling. Something like this [click to enlarge]:
The data comes from this impressive analysis (not all of which I agree with BTW). I still may do one because a few key items are missing from this table – specifically the CVSA interview which has some real damning statements from GZ. For example, at around the 28 minute mark in the interview, GZ drops this whopper on why he got out of the car (may not be 100% accurate transcription):
GZ: All the houses I was next to were the back of the houses, they are town houses so I did not know the address. They [dispatch] said we need to know what street you’re on, what address. …[GZ babbles about giving his street address]… and I got out of my car to look for a street sign so I could tell what street I was on, and … there was no street sign, and I couldn’t make out the house in front of me because there was a big pick up truck there…
This is of course a lie – he saw TM run and he jumped out of his car to follow, without any prompting from the dispatcher. All the mythical interchanges with dispatch on addresses and such never happened. But the dumb part was the reason for not using an address right in front of him. It seems this ginormous pick up truck was blocking the address number of the first house (now known to be the house of Witnesses 11 and 20) at the end of the building TM ran behind. This is why GZ has to run across the top of the T to the other side of the next building over to find any house numbers.
…. yeah, right. Check out where the house numbers are:
I mean – really? A truck totally blocked this from any view? GZ had to walk over 200 feet away, crossing two sets of buildings instead, just to find a house number (instead of maybe looking at the next house to the right)? Prosecutors are going to have a field day with this BS. BTW, recall we have two witnesses who testified GZ told them he got out of the car to find TM. And GZ admitted he was chasing TM to the police dispatcher.
Of course, the fact TM ran from GZ, who then follows TM when he runs away, is proof enough this was not a self defense or stand your ground case for GZ. When one party tries to avoid the conflict (like running away) then the person who continues the confrontation is the criminal, and the other is the victim.
In this case a dead victim.
So I don’t see how Witness 9 does anything for or against GZ. His troubles are monumental already. His story is impossible on numerous levels, with witnesses and evidence poking holes into his claims. They will not need to use witness 9 in court.
But I bet some of those standing by Zimmerman now (like is Air Marshall buddy) will be rethinking which side they want to be on….
TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT MODERATION:
mata: have you been tested for senility? you should consider it.
I don’t expect you to treat me any way, I’m not trying to be in a popularity contest.
But apparently you are regressing. Here we go again, back to the You said A, I don’t agree, I think it’s really A and here is my argument as to why and it is exactly the same as I just made.
you said: “gcotharn has a neanderthal attitude towards women (i.e. “Are we to believe …snip…that she did not have some responsibility to prevent herself being in a position where she could be molested?”
I don’t interpret that as a Neanderthal attitude, I interpret it as an opinion that I disagree with but one that she is entitled to have if she so desires. For example you think TM was an angel, fully equipped with wings. I think he was a teenage thug. We both may be right or wrong or neither, but it is only an opinion and I don’t think having an incorrect opinion makes a person good or bad, just wrong. who do you think made you the judge of attitudes toward women?
Look, I’m gone, but I protest the misrepresentation of my comment.
Do I think Witness 9 might have been molested? Yes. Definitely. There might have been psychological trauma which contributed to her continuing to put herself into jeopardy with a person whom she knew to be a molester.
However, I find that type of psychological trauma to be less likely, and not more likely. Which means, in fairness, we ought be properly skeptical of her story. And we ought be properly skeptical of reports that her parents can corroborate. (BTW, if she and her parents collaborated, then they are all liars).
Witness 9 was not around GZ for 365 days per year. She was around him for one day per year. She allegedly knew him to be a molester, yet she failed to protect herself for the one day per year when she was around him, and she allowed herself to be in private with him on that day. We say a rape victim is never responsible. However, do we imagine the rape victim will, year after year, walk into a private room with a man whom she knows, for a fact, is a rapist?
Witness 9’s story could be true, due to psychological trauma. However, based on what we know at this time, and based on Witness 9, year after year on that one day, allowing herself to be in private with GZ, i.e. allowing herself, at age 15, and at age 16, and at age 17, to be in private with a person whom she allegedly knew to be a molester: I find her story more improbable than probable.
Please, in my absence, do not further misrepresent me. And spare the world any future patting yourself on the back about how you do not believe it is right to ban commenters for their opinions.
Maybe you should be tested for basic IT skills, RT. Were gcotharn actually “banned”, he couldn’t have commented because AJ could block his email and IP via WordPress. AJ is encouraging gcotharn to leave of his own volition by making him unwelcome.
Also, please note that AJ has not deleted/censored any of gcotharn’s comments, such as Jeralyn does. But then, she has some weird and changeable standards, depending upon if they fit her narrative.
Horse manure. Link ANY place I said that. In fact, what I have said is that I would not likely invite either of these characters over for Thanksgiving dinner.
gcotharn, maybe you ought to ask RT if you can borrow his shovel.
Ah… gcotharn speaks. I rest my case…
So, RT, just how does a “banned” individual continue to comment, protesting what he thinks is a misrepresentation prior words?
Simple… because he’s not “banned”. But then, anyone with basic IT skills and some knowledge of blog management would know that.
I’ve got a comment in moderation, but I’ll repeat my last sentence to gcotharn. Perhaps you ought to ask RT if you can borrow his shovel.
Mata, you foolish chick, I am banned. A.J. has his finger on the trigger right now. But, don’t worry, A.J., don’t even bother, I won’t be back. I can’t believe I am even here now.
Peace out, RedTeam. These guys are not worth your time. Geaux Tigers.
Popcorn anyone?
Mata:
Please close your eyes and try to use a little imagination. I’ve done my best to paint a picture for you but you somehow refuse to envision what happened.
You have to start somewhere. Can we agree on this? OK, you may not like how we started but that’s the way I did it. My son stood stradling over me , holding my wrists, and in a basic 4 pt stance. As soon as I said “Go” he dropped down to the mounted position to hold me down and we strugggled for a minute or two before I called him off. I have described to you in the best detail I can the positions we were in, how our hands and arms and legs moved in the struggle. I am sick of using the word “dynamic” but that is the best description of the action.
So are you deliberately trying to be obtuse because you don’t want to acknowledge the findings of my little experiment?
Mata: “So what Layman was trying to prove was that it wasn’t easy to knock someone off balance from a 4 pt stance. Problem is, he had two of his limbs restrained that GZ did not. Nor was Martin in that position over Zimmerman, per his own description. So that’s not even close in comparison.”
That’s a total mischaracterization of my experiment and you know it -or should know it if you were paying attention instead of trying to think ahead for how you can find flaws in it.
I was thinking about repeating this on camera and posting on You Tube but you would probably just look at the opening frame, say “Hey! that’s not the way it happened”, and close out the video without watching it.
Good grief. Pray tell, how *I* can “mischaracterize” your experiment when I copy/pasted your own words on how that experiment went, Layman? Talk about obtuse… If it’s characterized inaccurately, you have only yourself to blame.
I’ll also add that in neither account (the original, which I pasted above.. your words verbatim… or the one in the this thread) do you ever tell us when, or even if, you freed your wrists from his starting grip, or only had your legs free for the duration.
Nor do I care. For AJ’s feasibility debate, anything other than addressing that moment, as Zimmerman details *thoroughly*, is akin to you telling me that the Moon looks an awful lot like Mars, if you look at it from this window and squint your eyes.
My point is, the only recreation of value would be that which is based on Zimmerman’s account of the event. Most notably, what position was he in when he drew on Martin. Everything before that moment is already a concocted mess in context with the evidence.
I pointed out the minute/second markers in the CVSA video where the officer queried Zimmerman, for almost five minutes, about the fight and specifically how he managed to pull the gun on Martin in his position. Zimmerman had his answers. Maybe you should view it for yourself and envision whether you think it’s possible, based on what he says.
Zimmerman details exactly how he pulled the gun from that position. He tells the CVSA officer that Martin was leaning forward, full weight on him, holding one hand over his mouth and the other over his nose. He can’t tell the CVSA officer which of Martin’s hands started going down the side of his body towards the gun, but he sure has a play by play of how he got that gun out of his holster, stretched his own arm out beyond his other hand, (said that a couple of times) and into Martin’s chest.
Listen to the video, document his stated movements, and start there, equipped with a holster on the right rear hip and a water pistol. Then let us know what happened. You only have to recreate a few seconds.
But of course, we have a problem. Is that version true? It’s nothing like he told his air marshal friend, who says Zimmerman’s elbow was on the ground when he fired, and he had to rotate his gun to squeeze off a round.
Which version do you want, Layman? Pick one… But then, that’s the problem, isn’t it? GZ can’t stick with a version.
Me? I’m less concerned about how he ended up pulling his gun, or the semantics as to how he did. The ultimate result is that he did. And since the bulk of his multiple accounts leading up to that moment are filled with errors and contradictions, frankly, it’s not a stretch for me to figure out even those different versions of the last moments are semi-carefully fabricated as well.
To me, and via Zimmerman’s own story from spotting Martin to the meeting, the game was over and the murder two charge was warranted when he reached into his pocket in response to hearing Martin ask him a question. From that moment, it was all Martin’s SYG defense rights… and correctly so because Zimmerman was, indeed, packing.
I’m guessing that if you had a stranger in your neighborhood, letting you pass by without saying a word then following you in a car, then on foot, continued hunting for you – all over a span of five minutes or so – then dramatically reached for – ??? a gun? the moment you said something to him, you wouldn’t be waiting around to see what he proverbially pulled out of a hat.
There’s something extremely amusing about a “banned” commenter who can keep coming in to the blog thread just to tell me he’s “banned”…. LOL
I don’t have the ’30 year scientist requirements’ to qualify for critical thinking skills…..but, I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night. You guys are taking this way to personal. I’m pretty sure none of you are going to be called as expert witnesses for the defense…..so, isn’t it still best to wait for the trial where all evidence is presented in full context, witnesses are cross examined, experts to refute other experts have their say, and all the facts are known before you so easily cast a verdict? Just curious. I’m not in anyone’s camp. I don’t think justice works that way anyway. I just don’t like the unethical behavior of the media in the beginning of this. The best process is a ‘fair trial’. If Zimmerman is guilty then let justice be served; if he is not guilty then I hope those who called him so falsely will hang their head.
mata:
“Me? I’m less concerned about how he ended up pulling his gun, or the semantics as to how he did. The ultimate result is that he did. ”
and that proves that he could draw his gun and shoot TM from the distance and angle that the evidence says he did which is in complete agreement with his story.
“Good grief. Pray tell, how *I* can “mischaracterize” your experiment when I copy/pasted your own words on how that experiment went, Layman? Talk about obtuse…” hilarious… mata, he did two different experiments and reported on both, you are hung up on the wrong one. just as you ignored AJ’s second comment to gcotharn.
obtuse? so you’ve discovered a new word. Did you check out senile? how about angel?
Do you really have a need to shout the loudest? maybe you should try listening or reading more than what you want to shout about.
Frogg1: excellent comment.
As far as Witness 9 is concerned. Unless she has a past of telling false stories of this, or similar, nature I would lean toward believing her. I can’t say if things happened just as she said and in the manner she said or not, though. If her testimony is relevant to the case then the prosecution will call her as a witness. If she is not called as a witness and her “unsubstantiated allegations” are floating around out there…..what is the liklihood that it taints the jury? I don’t know.
Change of topic: Romney’s speech today in Erwin PA was really good!
http://www.therightscoop.com/soon-watch-romney-live-in-irwin-pennsylvania/
Thanks for the link Frogg1, it was a good speech. Maybe he’ll continue to improve his speeches so that we can believe he actually wants to win. For so long, he’s been a little like McCain whom I never thought gave a damn if he won or not. Neither of them are very conservative.
So Mata, remember where we started. Several commentators stated GZ’s story was BS because he would have easily been able to escape from TM and AJ stated that the wound angle “PROVED” that GZ story was “IMPOSSIBLE.”
Based on your comments I must assume that: 1) You refuse to concede there is a possibility that body postions shifted during the struggle and therefore you agree with AJ’s statement. 2) You agree with everyone who stated GZ should have “EASILY” escaped from TM.
Fine you are entitled to your opinion. Let’s move on.
Mata,
Sadly for the Zmmerman Groupies, you hit the nail on the head:
“I’m guessing that if you had a stranger in your neighborhood, letting you pass by without saying a word then following you in a car, then on foot, continued hunting for you – all over a span of five minutes or so – then dramatically reached for – ??? a gun? the moment you said something to him, you wouldn’t be waiting around to see what he proverbially pulled out of a hat.”
If it was TM they would convict, if it was GZ they would not.
LOL! Equal justice for all?
Frogg1,
When I mentioned MY 30 years I was addressing my bona fides.
However, those who jumped into the ‘non critical thinker’ column just confesses, since never once named a name!
And yes, we can wait a year for the trial, or we can debate and discuss the situation – which is why we HAVE an open judicial system.
RT: Thanks for the support but I only conducted one experiment. In my original post I thought I provided enough detail so that AJ’s readers could picture what I did. Apparantly that was not the case so I added some more details when the subject came up again in this thread. I was hoping to clarify things and provide info to the community but apparantly all it did was confuse things.
When people started using words like “easy to escape”, “prove”, and “impossible” I wanted to see if these really were absolutes. I conducted my little experiment and convinced myself things aren’t as black and white as some suppose. If they choose to attack my methodology and motives rather than address the results that’s their choice. I suggest they get some family or friends together, conduct their own experiment, draw their own conclusions, and share their findings with us.