<p>Thanks for posting that transcript TTParent — I thought this part was significant:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is before the part where Zimmerman says Martin starts running. I think that Zimmerman would have still been in his car at that point, but don’t know for sure – just from listing to the actual audio it sounds like he Zimmerman got out of the car when he saw Martin running. (It sounds like the car door is opened after Z. says “s*t, he’s running.”)</p>
<p>I think the jury might try to establish a time line of their own, looking at which facts are confirmed by testimony from both sides. That is, if GZ’s statement “he’s running” matches up with cell phone call times – the jury might conclude that it is consistent with Rachel’s statement that she told TM to run. It would be logical for them to also conclude that the confrontation with Z. probably began at the time point where the cell phone call ended, whether or not they believe Rachel’s account of the words she heard. So you’ve got a time line that as reasonably consistent at the outset (and certainly does not support an inference that TM was threatening (“circling the car”) before the call drop.</p>
<p>As to voice comparisons, I just found something pretty interesting online. Apparently the Florida prosecutors had Zimmerman give them a voice exemplar of his shouting for help, and had them recorded on a dispatch tape. You can find these here:
[George</a> Zimmerman Voice Exemplars | AxiomAmnesia.com Presents They Always Get Away: Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman Documents, Photos, Videos, Audio, and Articles](<a href=“http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmerman-voice-exemplars/]George”>http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/audio/george-zimmerman-voice-exemplars/)</p>
<p>You can listen to both the exemplar, and to a side-by-side comparison of that re-enactment with the original tape. </p>
<p>I don’t believe that the jury has this, but I really don’t know. If they did, they’d have the first tape but not the second. So it is probably NOT something that the jury has.</p>
<p>But you can listen and draw your own conclusions. (My guess is that this was recorded in order to provide to the expert witnesses whose testimony was disallowed – so that’s probably why the jury doesn’t have it).</p>
<p>patsmom, I think the reason skittles and tea keep coming up is to emphasize just how very, very wrong vigilantes can be.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Is there any evidence for any of this, besides Zimmerman’s statements? Because as I understand it, the evidence we DO have is entirely consistent with the prosecution.</p>
<p>Well I don’t know about all the evidence but the only one with any injury that could be caused by a punch was gz. He may have punched tm but there’s no physical evidence of it on tm’s body. I know some have theories it was a head butt or something but imo that’s pretty speculative.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>At 7:10:21 Zimmman says “Now he’s just staring at me.” Later in the re-enactment he says Martin circled his vehicle.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But what is more significant is that GZ first said described TM as a “real suspicious guy” without mentioning race. Only after the dispatcher made it clear the dispatcher wanted a description of whether he was white black or hispanic did GZ say black. </p>
<p>GZ also said that it looked like TM was high on drugs. It turned out TM had marijuana in his body but the court won’t let that information into the record. I think that is reversible error.</p>
<p>you’re right bovertine,the only with an apparent punch injury is GZ. However, that does not tell us who started the confrontation, and it seems so unfair to accept GZ’s version of events since we do know he has told untruths and because Trayvon is dead. His injuries were fatal.</p>
<p>razorsharp–just wondering how you can simply accept the defendant’s words as gospel? those are only his words? that seems so unusual to me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Unfortunately the best evidence for TM died with TM. The prosecutions theory so far is that TM died by gunshot and GZ has made a lot of inconsistent statements.</p>
<p>I know. I’m just saying that there is no physical evidence gz threw a first punch. He may have started the fight some other way.</p>
<p>I predict a verdict for the prosecution based on something other than the evidence. I have been watching talking heads all over the place. The vast majority of women talking heads support the prosecution because they don’t like the fact that a kid is dead. A significant majority of the people defending GZ are male. Since the jury is female, I predict a verdict for the prosecution. I predict it will be reversed on appeal, because it is pretty clear the prosecution has not disproved GZ’s right of self defense.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But a punch could be a defensive move. The punch to the face is entirely consistent with a scenario in which GZ grabs onto TM in an effort to catch or apprehend him in order to hold him, and that when TM couldn’t pull away he resorted to a punch to force GZ to let go. That would also be consistent with the small abrasion on TM’s non-dominant hand – if GZ had grabbed onto his right arm to try to detain him, then TM would have needed to strike with his left.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The key word is may.</p>
<p>Even if Rachel Jantel is to be believed, it appear TM started the confrontation by asking GZ why he was following TM.</p>
<p>I know. See post 51. People will form their own scenarios.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s also consistent with TM being on top of GZ pushing downward and GZ struggling to get out from under him.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s also consistent with TM’s hand hitting concrete.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think you may misunderstand the standard on an appeal.</p>
<p>Even though the prosecution has the burden of proof on all elements at trial, the burden shifts on appeal. During an appeal, the question becomes one of sufficiency of evidence – ordinarily, assuming that the jury has been instructed properly, if there is any reasonable theory of the case that supports the conviction under review, the jury’s verdict will be sustained. The jury has the absolute power to determine credibility of witnesses – so it is fully within their power to decide that they believe everything Rachel said and disbelieve everything that Zimmerman and his family said. I am specifically using that example to bring home the point that even if we feel that a particular witness made a poor impression, the jury has the power to determine otherwise.</p>
<p>The appellate court will not retry the case – they will review claimed legal error - for example, whether evidence was improperly allowed against Zimmerman, or whether evidence that should have been allowed was improperly excluded. Even when error is found, the appellate court can determine that it was “harmless error” and sustain the conviction anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Which would have given GZ the opportunity to explain his concerns – which he himself admits that he never tried to do. (“I’m the neighborhood watch captain. I haven’t seen you before.”)</p>
<p>“Even if Rachel Jantel is to be believed, it appear TM started the confrontation by asking GZ why he was following TM.”</p>
<p>Trayvon used “his words” as we’ve all taught our children to do. This was a very legitimate question too, don’t you think? Perhaps if GZ actually answered that question by identifying himself and defusing the situation, the entire conflict would have been avoided.</p>
<p>Also, I’m curious Razor, why you ask if Rachel is to be believed, yet quote GZ’s story as gospel? GZ has a reason to lie. Rachel not so much. </p>
<p>I also see Calmom’s scenario as likely. Let’s imagine what GZ’s goal was in following Trayvon. I don’t think he had any intention to kill him when he followed him, but I do think he intended to be the hero once the police arrived by detaining Trayvon, who he believed was a punk or thug. He may not have recognized how afraid Trayvon was of him and therefore couldn’t predict Trayvon’s self protective desire to get away.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Again, I think that you misunderstand the options available to the jury.</p>
<p>They are required to give the benefit of the doubt if they believe that there is evidence which supports a “reasonable” interpretation consistent with GZ’s innocence of the charges.</p>
<p>But they are not required to believe GZ’s statements or his witnesses, and they can reject any theory that they consider unreasonable (or implausible).</p>
<p>The problem for the defense is that GZ has a strong motivation to lie and his story depends on TM behaving violently and irrationally, and GZ behaving in a way that is at odds by his recorded statements immediately prior to the incident. That is, GZ would have the jury believe that within 2 minutes after he is heard swearing and sounding angry in statements he made about “f-ing punks” who “always get away” - he is gong to tell TM “no problem” when he encounters him face to face. I personally don’t find it believable that a man who annoyed with another and doesn’t want him to “get away” – and who is armed with a loaded firearm – is going to be saying “no problem”. So if I were on the jury, I would reject that part of GZ’s story as being unreasonable.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I know that GZ said it in the re-enactment, that is why I said this is most likely not true. Circling is a very deliberate act, if GZ did not say that during the event and said just staring, then later it was circling and staring, then this sounds like embellishment to me, just like the 25-30 blows repeatedly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I predict that 2nd degree murder is definitely out, and less than 50/50 for conviction of manslaughter or maybe a hung jury. The law and the burden is higher for the prosecutors. I can’t see all 6 would agree, there has to be one or two that share your philosophy and inclination.</p>