<p>calmom: “So maybe GZ has grabbed hold of TM’s shirts around the neckline and is grasping and pulling with his left hand, then has to make sure that his own hand is out of the line of fire when he brings up the gun with his right and pulls the trigger?”</p>
<p>No, the only way it would work would be for GZ to be holding the two sweatshirts near the bottom, pulling them down and a little away from Trayvon’s body. The motion I referred to in the video looks like GZ is doing that.</p>
<p>
The problem is that GZ’s defense is <em>now</em> (in this case) tied to GZ’s story – so they can’t just suggest any plausible theory, they have to hope that the jury will believe that GZ’s own account is plausible.</p>
<p>I get very hung up on some key details of GZ’s story, both in terms of his description of the sequence of events and physical placement of his initial encounter with Trayvon, and the description of his physical movements immediately preceding the shooting. </p>
<p>I can think of a plausible, defense oriented alternative for the start of the fight, but not at the T. If GZ walked down between the houses looking for Trayvon, it’s possible that Trayvon had stopped walking to wait in the shadows to see whether he was still being followed. Then he is standing there when GZ (who he considers to be a “creepy” pervert stalking him) comes up upon him, and TM responds by hitting or pushing GZ defensively – at the site where TM’s cell phone was later found. That’s more consistent with Rachel’s account and physical evidence, and certainly is much closer to the site where the body ended up.</p>
<p>But GZ does not tell that story. There is a good reason he might lie about that – the only explanation for him being in that position would be to admit that he was trying to go after TM (and not looking for a house number). But once having told that lie, he’s stuck to it. I think it’s unlikely that any jury will spend much effort thinking up alternative defense oriented narratives – they are going to figure that the defendant knows what happened, and he’s either telling the truth or not – and figure that if he’s lying, that’s further evidence of guilt. </p>
<p>GZ could testify and try to patch up his story, but then he gets impeached by his prior, firm and repeated statement. Plus he has to explain how his keys and flashlight ended up at the T. So that won’t happen.</p>
<p>Now maybe the jury won’t be bothered by that discrepancy – maybe they will just write it all off to GZ being confused, or think that TM jumped GZ in one location and then dragged him 40 feet down the path to another. But if I am sitting on a jury, then I can’t find GZ’s account “plausible” or even reasonably possible because of the undisputable physical evidence of where TM’s body ended up. </p>
<p>A good prosecutor will try to establish a strong and convincing narrative, closely tied to the physical evidence, and then try to convince the jury that no theory is plausible unless it accounts for the physical evidence – and harp on that. The dead body can’t testify, but it can’t tell a lie either. </p>
<p>If I was defending the case, that is one of the things I would find most worrisome. The other is the claim that TM sat up and said “you got me.” I wonder if the defense can find a credible medical expert to say that is even possible?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What if the two men have rolled over on the ground, so GZ has gained the top position and is kneeling over a prone, face up TM? Could he then be pulling the shirts from the bottom with his left hand, while leaning forward to hold the gun to the chest area with his right? (That’s the scenario I posited where GZ then rolls the body over after the shot, which is why he is seen crouching over the body, and then comes up with the hands out story because he’s concerned that he needs to explain why he is near the body after the shooting).</p>
<p>Wolverine - I see the other point of view. That doesn’t mean I agree with it. </p>
<p>By “expert,” I didn’t mean a legal expert, I meant an expert on the case. By the time the jurors deliberate, they’ll hopefully know every facet of both the defense and the prosecution’s case. I wouldn’t claim such knowledge for myself, and not just because the case isn’t finished yet. That doesn’t preclude us from speaking intelligently about the case. I also don’t see how it is “dictation” to give a preliminary opinion based on the facts we have so far. I also don’t think anyone here has trouble with the concept of reasonable doubt. But “reasonable” is not an objective standard, and people will define it in different ways</p>
<p>calmom: "What if the two men have rolled over on the ground, so GZ has gained the top position and is kneeling over a prone, face up TM? Could he then be pulling the shirts from the bottom with his left hand, while leaning forward to hold the gun to the chest area with his right? (That’s the scenario I posited where GZ then rolls the body over after the shot, which is why he is seen crouching over the body, and then comes up with the hands out story because he’s concerned that he needs to explain why he is near the body after the shooting). "</p>
<p>I don’t think that works because the shot went straight through Trayvon’s body. That is, if he had been standing, the trajectory would have been parallel to the ground, and directly through the body, without angling left or right. I don’t see how this would work with GZ on top of Trayvon, assuming that GZ’s arm was extended with the gun pointing straight ahead. It could have worked if Trayvon were on top of GZ, straddling him, and trying to get up/away, with GZ holding his sweatshirts by the bottom, and Trayvon’s body at an angle perpendicular to the line of GZ’s arm/gun. But then there is the problem of how GZ drew the gun, which was holstered behind his right hip, if he were lying on his back on it, pinned down by Trayvon. Watch the walk-through from 2/27/12 and see him demonstrate how he pinned Trayvon’s hand (going for the gun) against his body and then drew his gun. I think it’s about 12 minutes into the 19-minute video. See if you find it believable.</p>
<p>If they were both standing, or kneeling facing one another, then it is easy to see how the shot went the way it did. And the height of the entry wound in Trayvon’s body corresponds well to the height of (the shorter) GZ’s arm, extended straight out. </p>
<p>I have to leave early tomorrow morning so I probably won’t be on this thread any more, for a few days.</p>
<p>Calmom, your theory about how the two confronted each other makes sense to me. You suggested TM may have waited in the shadows to see if he was being followed and the two then got into each other’s space. As you say, I think we all have our doubts about GZ looking for street signs in a development with a total of 3 streets, where he’s lived for almost 4 years. </p>
<p>GZ’s account was that he without any warning was suddenly jumped by TM from out of the bushes and had his head beaten on the sidewalk doesn’t make sense when the body was 30-40 ft away from a sidewalk. </p>
<p>How did he get jumped ? There are no bushes near where he said he was. Razorsharp explained it this way:
Pitch black when the two confronted each other? But according to what GZ told the 911 person, he previously could tell TM was looking at him. Tough to do from a distance in the darkness. And after the shooting - when presumably it would be even more pitch black, at least 2 witnesses could describe the color of the sweatshirts, who was on top, and could see arms coming up and down. All from much further away than GZ and TM were when in a completely open area Z claimed he didn’t see TM coming at him. For these reasons, GZ’s account just didn’t hold up.</p>
<p>I believe the shooting was at 7:09 p.m. EST, with a sunset at 6:21, would it have already been pitch black minutes before when GZ was trying to locate TM? (or looking for that ahem, address)</p>
<p>calmom I’m curious if you think GZ held the gun on TM to terrorize him, that’s the scenario I picture that would have TM screaming in terror. I think it was Zimmerman who said “you’re gonna die tonight” while brandishing the gun.</p>
<p>That’s a scenario that I picture as well. </p>
<p>I really can’t know what did happen, but I am pretty sure as to what didn’t happen.</p>
<p>I can also imagine a number of scenarios consistent with a lesser offense of manslaughter, or maybe even self defense – but they don’t match critical details of GZ’s story. </p>
<p>That’s why criminal defense attorneys usually encourage their clients to keep their mouths shut. People who have been through a traumatic situation can be mistaken in their perceptions; lawyers have plenty of opportunity to discuss issues and questions with their clients ahead of trial. But GZ locked himself very strongly into some critical facts that are just demonstrably wrong.</p>
<p>“Calmom, your theory about how the two confronted each other makes sense to me. You suggested TM may have waited in the shadows to see if he was being followed and the two then got into each other’s space. As you say, I think we all have our doubts about GZ looking for street signs in a development with a total of 3 streets, where he’s lived for almost 4 years.”</p>
<p>Another possibility. GZ told the NEN operator that he thought the “suspect” ran toward the rear entrance to the community. And we know he wanted to find him. We know that Trayvon was spooked when GZ followed him in his car. So he turned onto the dog-walk (sidewalk between the backs of buildings. Trayvon was staying at an apartment at the other end of the dogwalk from the T (the place where the cut-through from TTL to RVC intersected the dogwalk - which went in only one direction from there). There is a gap in GZ’s story of almost 2 minutes just before the confrontation. It is possible that he drove or walked down the street leading to the back entrance, trying to intercept Trayvon as he escaped the complex. There are a number of breaks between buildings, and he might have come through one and ran into Trayvon on the dogwalk (GZ being between Trayvon and the place where he was staying). </p>
<p>One problem is that no one really knows where GZ parked his car/truck. The police did not realize that he was driving. At some point he had his wife move it. </p>
<p>Another problem with GZ’s story: He was supposedly on his way to Target to do grocery shopping. He had only 2 quarters in his pocket, and no credit cards.</p>
<p>I really have to go to bed now.</p>
<p>I’m rooting for a guilty verdict as much as anyone, but I just don’t see it so far based on what I’ve seen of the trial. GZ may be a scum bag, but there is reasonable doubt all over the place. I think the prosecution knows they have little chance to win. But there was so much political pressure to take the case to trial that they had no choice but to try.</p>
<p>I’m rooting for the jury to make the right decision based on the evidence.</p>
<p>I’ve been fascinated with the case since it began. I’ve watched most if not all the live coverage.</p>
<p>I believe there is too much reasonable doubt surrounding the events for a murder 2 charge, but I think manslaughter might be on the table.</p>
<p>I’ve read the past few pages here and a lot of details were left out. The prosecution has had a tough time for the past two weeks because the witnesses seem to be playing for the defense. Take the two detectives/officers, the lead investigator stating that he believed Zimmerman was telling the truth (though, this was stricken from the record, still in the mind of jurors). The other officer talked about him telling her that murder was murder in his faith and that he was distressed. His account of events seems to be holding up. There are holes, but I feel that these aren’t enough to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>I have to side with TV commentators on this. While many people have a bias against Zimmerman, actual evidence is small and can be discredited by the defense with relatively plausible statements. I just don’t see GZ as a coldblooded killer. But I’m also male. I think it’s very interesting reading the strong opinions against GZ in this thread, most coming from females, and noting that the jury is all female. Makes me question that a guilty verdict may be very plausible because of the strong feelings toward an adult shooting a minor and mothers feeling very sympathetic for TM’s family. It’ll be interesting to hear the verdict, hoping commentary is right and the defense will be wrapping up next week so a verdict can be expected soon.</p>
<p>NYMom, I like your alternate theory. How exactly was GZ going to buy groceries with 50 cents and no credit cards? I have long wondered whether GZ was telling the truth about Target. Seems more likely to me that he was just driving around, which fits with his overall story of wanting to be on constant watch.</p>
<p>“NYMom, I like your alternate theory. How exactly was GZ going to buy groceries with 50 cents and no credit cards? I have long wondered whether GZ was telling the truth about Target. Seems more likely to me that he was just driving around, which fits with his overall story of wanting to be on constant watch.”</p>
<p>It’s possible that he kept credit cards in his car, or that he forgot his wallet. But it does seem strange. </p>
<p>“Makes me question that a guilty verdict may be very plausible because of the strong feelings toward an adult shooting a minor and mothers feeling very sympathetic for TM’s family.”</p>
<p>Why are you assuming that if female jurors deliver a guilty verdict, it’s because they were swayed by emotion? And you seem to be making the same kind of assumption about female posters here. I have read all the information made public by the state and the defense (FL Sunshine law) and watched GZ’s various interviews multiple times. I’ve listened to GZ’s NEN call and the various 911 calls multiple times. I’ve looked at the timeline and compared it against GZ’s story, taking into account distances on the map of the RATL. According to what GZ said, at one point Trayvon would have had to fly. My opinion of GZ’s guilt is based on facts.</p>
<p>“I’m rooting for a guilty verdict as much as anyone, but I just don’t see it so far based on what I’ve seen of the trial. GZ may be a scum bag, but there is reasonable doubt all over the place. I think the prosecution knows they have little chance to win. But there was so much political pressure to take the case to trial that they had no choice but to try.”</p>
<p>There was plenty of probably cause to arrest and try GZ. It’s shameful that it took public pressure to make this happen. I am sure that if TM had been white, GZ would have been arrested on the spot, and none of us would ever have heard about this case.</p>
<p>I have not seen that much of the trial, but I have seen some of the defense cross-examination and read about what happened in court. I think O’Mara is doing a very good job, and he may be successful in putting doubt in the juror’s minds. I hope that GZ is found guilty, though, because in my view the facts are overwhelming.</p>
<p>Oh, and those witnesses that the prosecution put on, that the defense elicited favorable testimony from? There is some rule in FL that the state has to put on all the witness testimony and not leave anything out. So the state could not pick and choose which witnesses to use. At least, that is what I read.</p>
<p>The other thing that is troubling about the gender stereotyping, Coste, is that BOTH young men were just that–young men and someone’s sons. There are people on this site who have written eloquently and heartbreakingly about their own sons’ trouble with the law. Many of us know other parents (mothers and fathers) who have gone through similar things in real life. And don’t forget that the defense extensively interviewed each juror who made the cut.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have watched several full mornings of the case live. </p>
<p>And then I’ve watched the talking heads summarize and analyze the testimony of those hours, and I’ve thought, “Are we watching the same trial?”</p>
<p>Particular talking heads and legal experts have expressed very strong opinions on “how the prosecution is doing” and “how the defense is doing”. Those opinions haven’t wavered once, in two weeks. Some reporters and analysts are evenhanded in their views and reporting, but some are clearly biased for the prosecution or defense. </p>
<p>I’m watching CNN for no particular reason during those hours that I have the trial on live. </p>
<p>I have to say that for all of us on this thread, if we are basing our opinions on news recaps, or on legal experts on news shows, or even on what is being reported in major newspapers (I read the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal every day), we don’t really have a clue what is going on in the courtroom. </p>
<p>I include myself in that assessment of not having a clue, because I haven’t watched the entire trial live.</p>
<p>I admit that came out wrong. Should have worded it more carefully because I don’t mean to accuse anyone of just going off emotion. All of you have stated facts from the case that go along with the theories presented here. I also know the jury will do so as well when deciding their verdict.</p>
<p>I guess what I’m trying to say is that there was tact in jury selection (as in all cases). It’ll be interesting to see how things play out because of how emotionally charged this case is. The prosecution is reportedly going to put TM’s mother on the witness stand today (as will GM’s family member will later) and that seems to be purely for emotional appeal to the jury because (as states earlier on the thread) jury members should discredit both testimony because there will be family bias. The all women jury could obviously go either way with how they feel about the facts surrounding the case. However, in this thread, I’ve seen various posts here stating how as a mother, some posters here can sympathize more with TM’s family because they lost a child. With five of the six women being mothers, I can’t help but wonder if they may feel the same way. </p>
<p>If I’m still sounding sexist, I don’t mean to and I’m sorry. Many people I associate with compare this case with Emmett Till’s death and how the all white male jury was quick to acquit both defendants in the case. Now many things have changed since then, but carrying on with the comparisons is the all same sex jury in this case. The media has built this whole case around stereotypes about race, generation gaps (as with the witness Rachel and the defense attorney last week), and the circumstances of assumption. That’s why people are focused on that aspect of the jury, as noted by TV commentators. But my whole point could be moot. It was just an offhand comment I made at the end of my post because I am interested in how the background of juries could effect cases (as it did in Emmett Till’s case where the all white, Southern male jury let two murders get off free and joked about it later).</p>
<p>For example, the testimony of John Good and Selma Mora gave conflicting views of who was on top during the time Zimmerman and Martin were on the ground in the very short time before Martin was shot.</p>
<p>Good says he saw Martin on top.</p>
<p>Mora says she saw Zimmerman on top.</p>
<p>Mora’s testimony has been lost in the discussion on this thread, and it has also been lost in the reporting and analysis I’ve seen and read. But the jurors saw both witnesses, and have not been exposed to the overemphasis of Good’s testimony and underemphasis of Mora’s testimony in the media. </p>
<p>They may be drawing very different conclusions about that fight than many others around the country are drawing.</p>
<p>^That’s OK, Coste. I knew where you were coming from.</p>
<p>I do think it’s worth putting TM’s mom on the stand. I don’t know who could “counter” her testimony from the GZ side–his family have not been especially sympathetic and in fact have been confrontational and openly racist. I know the families are not on trial and that their testimony is not going to be conclusive but getting a sense of where TM/GZ came from might subtly influence the jury as well, especially with regard to mindset or (in GZ’s case) motive.</p>