I don I've a fuk . I font even know who th fuvk Zimmerman is.
I don I've a fuk . I font even know who th fuvk Zimmerman is.
I broke my head again!! cr****
Have Another Hit Of Colorado Sunshine
Zimmerman said in the 911 call and re-enactment his overall look ("looks like he's up to no good, or he's on drugs or something") proximity to houses ("looking at all the houses", "he was walking like in the grassy area....leisurely looking at the house") and the history of break-ins (he mentions in the 911 call "we've had some break-ins" and "history of break-ins in that building...and I called previously about this house").
Regarding the following, it was the 911 dispatcher who was asking Zimmerman what Martin's movements and location was ("do you know what the-he's near the clubhouse right now?", "Just let me know if he does anything ok", "just let me know if this guy does anything else", "so it's on the lefthand side from the clubhouse", "He's running? Which way is he running?", "Which entrance is that he's heading back towards?")
Regarding the 911 dispatcher saying "we don't need you to do that", Zimmerman then said "he ran" and later "I don't know where the kid is".
Rachel Jeantel, whose story was not always consistent and who the juror who was interviewd last night said she did not find credible, an assessment many others agreed with, said Martin was the one who initiatially spoke first "Why are you following me?".
This is after she said Martin said he was at/near the back of his daddy's fiance's house.
Jeantel could not say who initiated physical contact. ("You don't know if Trayvon got hit, do you?", "No sir", "You don't know that Trayvon didn't, at that moment, take his fist and drive it into George Zimmerman's face, do you?" "No sir").
She said heard a fall with the "bump" "wet grass", and Zimmerman was the one with injuries, wet grass was on his back, and who Jonathan Good testified was on the bottom.
What I find tiresome is the insinuation that Zimmerman didn't follow Martin. He clearly did. People like Listening want to argue the specific details without pointing out the fact that Zimmerman left his house with his gun because he saw someone in his neighborhood and decided to trail that person.
Good also testified that he didn't see Martin pound Zimmerman's head into the concrete. In fact, no one saw that, because it was completely fabricated.
What the evidence shows is that Zimmerman called the 911 non-emergency line and pursued Martin. The two fought and Zimmerman shot Martin.
Good saw Martin on top before the shooting. Selma Mora saw Zimmerman straddling Martin after Zimmerman shot him and then saw Zimmerman get up and start pacing.
Zimmerman's entire claim was that Martin was smashing his head into the concrete. But here's what bothers me: If Martin -- who was a pretty skinny 5'11" 17-year old -- was strong enough to hold down a stocky Zimmerman, wouldn't he have done much more damage to his head had he been as malicious as Zimmerman claimed? He's able to restrain and throw a bunch of punches at Zimmerman and hit his head several times into the concrete, but all you have are a few minor cuts and bruises on the back of your head and a damaged nose that was simply popped back into place?
Also, if Zimmerman was getting beaten as badly as he says he was, how in the hell does he have enough consciousness to reach down, pull out his gun while getting beaten and shoot-and-kill the kid directly in the chest in one shot? It doesn't add up. Like, at all. But people see the pictures of Zimmerman and see his blood and say, "Aww poor Georgie was beat up badly. Obviously it was self defense." Bullshit.
Come on guy didn't you see the shirtless, flexing picture of Martin used by the defense? That is who Zimmerman saw that night. That's the strapping aggressor he had to protect himself from
Did he see Martin walking out of a window in his house?
I never said he didn't follow him. Zimmerman was asked by the 911 dispatcher and admitted he was following him.
The question is, whether at some point, Zimmerman stopped following him and did Martin ever approach him?
I look at this map, purporting to show both of their paths and the house Martin was staying at.
I look at it and don't understand Martin's movements if he was only trying to go home.
According to Jeantel, Martin spoke first. Did he approach Zimmerman to talk to him? Why did he start a verbal interaction with him?
Jeantel said Zimmerman asked him what he was doing there and that's when she said she heard the bump and wet grass.
The argument for murder/manslaughter is that Zimmerman, knowing the police were on there way and apparnetly seeing Martin on the phone, immediately instigated a fight, even though he's the one with a broken nose, six impact points including injuries to the back of his head, and grass on his back.
And Zimmerman injuries, however significant you want to classify them as, were consistent with more than one impact with concrete (the medical examiner said it was consistent with one, also said it was consistent with two; Vincent Di Maio said he Zimmerman had six different impact points and injuries consistent with impacts with concrete).
Last edited by Listening; 07-16-2013 at 09:48 AM.
A punch to the nose, especially one that was impactful enough to break in, could have certainly allowed a taller/skinnier person to get "top" position on a bigger person.
Especially if it was a surprise/sucker punch.
And the fact that it was raining and on grass, and that Zimmerman might have fallen on his back, yeah, it's possible to see how a taller/skinnier person could get on "top" of a bigger person.
Last edited by Listening; 07-16-2013 at 09:55 AM.
You know, I have had my ass handed to me plenty of times. Never during any of those times have I thought I was going to die, nor thought I needed to kill the other person. I especially wouldn't have had these thoughts when it is some young punk who literally left cat scratches on the me.
He saw six different impact points on a photo that indicated force was used. He never said it was consistent with his head hitting the concrete. He never specified it what it was consistent with what it was hitting.
Rao said his injuries appeared insignificant.
There is also this from an article in the Boston Globe.
The DiMaio testimony tells a lot of things, but, in the end, he concludes multiple possibilities. Again, all I am being shown is that two men fought and one man shot another, who happened to be unarmed.Under cross-examination, DiMaio conceded that the gunshot could also be consistent with Martin pulling away from Zimmerman, and that he reached his conclusion without factoring in statements from some neighbors who say Zimmerman was on top of Martin. DiMaio, who has testified at high-profile trials including that of record producer Phil Spector, said witness accounts are often unreliable. The pathologist said he had been paid $2,400 by the defense.
I said: "Vincent Di Maio said he Zimmerman had six different impact points and injuries consistent with impacts with concrete"[/QUOTE]
As for his testimony:
DI MAIO: Right. It indicates that you've had severe force because your -- you know, it's not like you just bump your head or something like that.
DI MAIO: They're right here. It's kind of washed out with the photograph. But you can see little reddish markings, and that indicates that there was impact with a surface, a flat surface, that was not really smooth like this wood here. If you hit your head on this wood here, you would not get punctate. You'd have to get something with a little non-flat surface, you know, a little edge to it.
WEST: Would concrete of the nature that's used in your everyday sidewalk have that kind of surface?
DI MAIO: Yes.
WEST: Is this injury consistent with Mr. Zimmerman's head having impacted a sidewalk?
DI MAIO: Yes, sir.
WEST: Could that then be, those injuries caused by one or more impacts with the sidewalk?
DI MAIO: Yes, sir.
DI MAIO: I think you have six, identifiable injuries, the two lacerations on the back of the head, the impacts in both temporal regions. That's four. The nose is five. And the forehead is six. And there may be others, but the photographs are not of the quality that you can safely say.
WEST: So consistent with what you see here, is it possible there may have been other impacts, but they weren't so pronounced because there was some ability to actually resist the full force of the impact?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Objection. Speculation.
DR. VINCENT DI MAIO, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: Yes, I told you that, you know, also in addition -- you know, the head wasn't cleaned of blood in some of the photographs.
All I can say is there's definite evidence of six impacts. That does not mean that there were only six, but the six I can say.
Six impacts, only two of which were definitively caused by concrete, two others that MAY have been caused by concrete or punches and two others on the face.
I just read that transcript and remember that testimony. He sure likes to point out how bad the picture quality is over and over again.
Also, the defense surely geared those questions so the witness they paid $2,400 to testify on their behalf would answer them in a way to make the jury think. But the gunshot wound expert who was paid by the defense to look at poor photographs and make determinations on injuries that could be caused by concrete could only identify two lacerations on the back of the head. The two marks on each side of his head could be caused by having his head slammed in, but wouldn't they look similar to the marks on the back if they were made with the same severe force on the same surface? They look entirely different.
Once again, this shows me nothing more than a fist fight.
There is also the cross-examination of Di Maio:
My point is that he really doesn't know much about the actual injuries Zimmerman suffered and he's only offering what could potentially be possible. He also states that it's possible that Zimmerman punched Martin. He's a gunshot wound expert giving an opinion. He waits until the prosecution is up to point out something isn't his area of expertise after giving his answers to the defense's questions regarding an issue that isn't in his area of expertise.BERNIE DE LA RIONDA, PROSECUTOR: George Zimmerman could have hit Trayvon Martin and not left any bruising on his knuckles?
DR. VINCENT DI MAIO, FORENSIC PATHOLOGIST: That's correct, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: You were asked a bunch of questions and I think you were shown some photographs of George Zimmerman's head, right?
DI MAIO: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: All parts of his head and you gave your opinion as to what that is or not, correct?
DI MAIO: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Would you not agree, sir, that somebody whose familiar with his head, like a doctor that had treated him in the past, or like a physician's assistant, would know what's existing there before that day and not in terms of what the shape of the body or the head is?
DI MAIO: May or may not.
DE LA RIONDA: OK.
DI MAIO: I mean, you know, you don't generally remember the shape of one of your patient's heads, especially if you're seeing 20 or 30 patients a day. So --
DE LA RIONDA: Well, my next question regarding that, wouldn't you agree that that would be the best person that would see George Zimmerman (INAUDIBLE) right then and there or what's happening the next day? Would they be able to describe what injuries he had or did not have?
DI MAIO: In theory, if they do it correctly, yes. The problem is, is that emergency room records and doctors records are generally lousy in regards to describing injuries. Very, very lousy.
DE LA RIONDA: Well, you agree that the fire rescue people do an honorable job in the sense that -- they know what they're doing I guess is what I'm saying, right?
DI MAIO: Yes. I'm not saying these people are incompetent, but their job is to treat patients and they have a tendency not to document what they see. And that's why they want to put forensic nurses in emergency rooms to document these injuries because doctors aren't interested in the injuries, they're interested in treating the patient.
DE LA RIONDA: Sure. But the fire rescue people are interested in injuries, aren't they?
DI MAIO: They're interested just like doctors in treating a person. The -- because like if you read the records, they mention two lacerations. They don't even say where they are except in the back of the head.
DE LA RIONDA: Well, Miss Fulgate (ph) actually measured it for you and that's why you were able to detail exactly how little they were.
DI MAIO: Right. Well, 20 millimeters and 5 millimeters. But then they didn't say which one was on the right side, which one was on the left side or located exactly. So, you know --
DE LA RIONDA: Now, you could tell, couldn't you, when you looked at the photograph?
DI MAIO: Yes, but they didn't do it.
DE LA RIONDA: OK.
DI MAIO: And I couldn't tell which one was the 20 and which one was the five because there was - because the wound hadn't been cleaned up when they took the photograph.
DE LA RIONDA: Well, are we talking about the same photograph?
DI MAIO: There were two photographs, remember. The better one on the back of the head, there was still blood there and you couldn't really tell which one was the 20 millimeter, which was the five, because one of them had clotted blood on top of it.
DE LA RIONDA: Now you do agree with the treatment in the sense of didn't need any stitches or -- right?
DI MAIO: I agree, but actually my answer should be, it's outside my area of expertise because its --
DE LA RIONDA: OK. So you're not (INAUDIBLE) with that, right?
DI MAIO: Yes, but I won't agree that they didn't need treatment.
DE LA RIONDA: You're really - you're sticking to your main thing is gunshot wounds, correct?
DI MAIO: Well, I'm describing blunt force injuries. You're asking me about treatment, which is different.
DE LA RIONDA: I'm sorry, I -
DI MAIO: I don't -- you asked me about treatment, and I don't treat people.
DE LA RIONDA: OK. You deal with them after they're dead.
DI MAIO: Yes, sir.
DE LA RIONDA: Right?
DI MAIO: Yes, sir.
His testimony regarding Zimmerman's injuries is no more credible that the examiner that called Zimmerman's injuries minor. Zimmerman refused medical treatment and didn't require stitches. He may have felt his life was in danger, but was that because it was really endangered or was it because Zimmerman was a scared, paranoid man who freaked out and shot Martin?
Remember, this is a message board, not a court of law. From a legal stand-point, I get why he walked, but that's why it bothers me and displays how people can use loopholes to avoid jail time. His past, the injuries not necessarily reflecting the beating he described, his altering stories, the way he went about it, his demeanor in the court room, his reference to what happened as "God's plan"... it all points to one fucked up individual who wanted to play cop for an evening and bit off more he could chew.
This is the medical examiner, Valerie Rao, the one with documented problems in her office:
MARK O'MARA, ATTORNEY FOR GEORGE ZIMMERMAN: It's your position that it's at least consistent that George Zimmerman may have only received as little as three, did you call -- what term did you use, smashing or slamming -- three slamming into cement. Correct?
RAO: I didn't use the word slamming.
O'MARA: I'm sorry. I thought it was your word.
RAO: No, I got that from the reenactment.
O'MARA: What word would you use to describe what happened to the head that you say hit cement?
O'MARA: Impact. So it's your position that there are at least three impacts between that head and cement?
RAO: Yes. Concrete.
RAO: She -- she actually sent my name up to the governor. So if you want to call that an appointment, well then so be it.
O'MARA: But you were not reappointed to that position by the governor, were you?
RAO: I did not seek reappointment. It was tabled.
O'MARA: And that was because - I'm sorry?
RAO: It was tabled. I did not seek reappointment.
O'MARA: And that was because of some of the problems that existed in your administration in that office, was it not?
Last edited by Listening; 07-16-2013 at 12:52 PM.
Was just wondering if any of you fucking monkeys realize that a jury of his peers has already ruled according to the law of the State of Florida on this case. News flash, he was not guilty.
Impacts, meaning his head hit the ground three times. That could have happened in a variety of ways and does not indicate his head was slammed, which -- again -- was Zimmerman's defense. Zimmerman led everyone to believe that Martin repeatedly slammed into the concrete. Rao stated his injuries were insignificant.
I also see you added to your previous post.
It goes to show what an individual deems credible. Is Rao, a person with her own set of problems, any more or less credible than someone who has been paid multiple times by defense teams in nationally recognized court cases to testify on the defense's behalf? That's for us to decide. That's why I am not focusing on that shit. I'm focusing on their testimonies.
Di Maio's testimony when cross-examined showed that there were several other realistic situations that would nullify self-defense.
Thus, it all goes back to the evidence which, again, shows that Zimmerman followed him, the two fought and Zimmerman shot him.
Yes, I clearly meant to call you a ******.
I don't know, Kory racially profiles me ALL THE TIME.
If someone was not there when it happened, they may not agree to testify to the same characterization he used. Why would they?
But whether someone calls it "slamming" or something else, there's evidence consistent with multiple "impacts" of Zimmerman's head with concrete, which, unless you got a better theory, were the result of Martin's actions.
Rao was not only a person with her own problems, she was a person with professional problems.
You want to try and diminish Di Maio because he's paid and then conveniently side-step Rao's problems.
Not to mention why she might be testifying in this case, having gotten a position due to Angela Corey.