Z's First Court Appearance: He Lied Under Oath

the state stated it has NO EVIDENCE to refute it. . . But the timing can demonstrate that it certainly doesn't support Zimmerman's statement that he went back to his SUV!

 

Except for the prosecutions testimoy.

 

No...YOU are wanting....demanding.... people believe "late teens" and "a little bit younger" carry definitive, legally relevant meanings.

The terms are undefinable as such... you may try to convince a jury they are...but in this court of public opinion, you're struggling mightily.

Please do continue, though....I enjoy being amused as I sip my coffee and nosh on my cream cheese slathered blueberry bagel...

 

the analysis of the voice on the phone call is pretty worthless for anything other than mass media distorion

http://www.experts.com/Articles/Voi...-Aural-Spectrographic-Method-By-Thomas-J-Owen

by the way the author of this article is the same guy who was the Orlando Sentinels expert

 

You made up the claim the prosecution said it doesn't have anything to refute Z's claims. That is patently false and the investigator actually said there is evidence disproving Z's claims.

 

But you agree that they were face to face and Zim was accurate in his estimation of T’s age

 

When the operator asked Z what the estimated age of T was, his reply:

"About like his late teens."

What does that mean? That he thought T was around 16-18 years old.


After everything transcribed, he knew of course that T was 17 years old but that's irrelevant. When Z made the call and before anything really happened, he had though the suspicious black guy (T) was no more than 18 years old.

But in the court appearance he says "I thought he was a little bit younger than I was".
How would you define a little bit younger. A year, maybe 2. Possibly up to 5. But no way would a 28 year mad describe a 17 year old as a little younger than him.


Conclusion: When Z saw T lurking in the neighbourhood, he though T was no more than 18. But in Court he reports that he thought that T was only a little bit younger than him which is a misinterpretation of the facts at best.

Why did he contradict his own earlier statement? Perhaps he was scared. Perhaps he thought people would be suspicious as to his motives when the difference in age is over 10 years. Perhaps there is more to the story and the lie comes out of guilt. No one can know for certain. But it is these minute details that help unravel the lie. On its own, it may be nothing. But it does make the average person suspicious as to why Z changed his facts in court. At the trial, many other irregularities, lies ommissions or other evidence may come to light and ultimately all of them will decide his guilt or innocence.

However, it is still true that Z did make a false statement in court/ He had not thought T to be only a few years younger than him as he said in court. He had thought t was around 10 years younger than him. Much much younger. I am around Z's age and I have a younger sister around 12 years younger than me so I know that 10 or 12 years is not a little younger. It is a lot younger.

 

The prosecution actually said they don't have evidence but are using a timeline instead to make their case, which will be guessing on their part to convince a jury.

 

Lol.....the burden of proof is on you to prove he had a broken nose and you can't do it so you commit the fallacy of proving a negative.

Then you say there is not a shred of evidence it wasn't broken??? HAHAAHAAAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!

 

So, this is all you got? It was DARK. The kid was 6'3, NONE of this matters, he was at least 5 inches taller than Zim. Only a moron thinks Zim pulled Tray on him, held, him, and then shot him. Pathetic.

 

The prosecution said they have evidence to refute Z's claims but you keep making crap because it is the only way Z can be defended.

 

I disagree. first there were NO WORDS exchanged (these would have been heard by the dispatcher,since GZ was on the phone) and, Trayvon was walking toward the SUV because GZ had parked the SUV directly along the most direct pathfor Trayvon's to go back home. The kid was simply walking, noticing that SUV parked along his way, and probably noticing the shape of a man sitting in that parked SUV . . .IN THE DARK! How could he have even made eye contact in the dark, in the rain, through closed windows, and maybe(it would be interesting to find that out) stained windows?

It just doesn't make sense. Once again, it was GZ's paranoia speaking!

 

Except that the prosecution, under oath in testimony said they don't have evidence to disprove Zimmerman's claims which I posted before.

 

I am not the one who has judged the case based on anything. you are. You are the one who stated it was jusified. that is in print. Show me where I have judged the case. By the way, surely you are aware that there is a witness who says Z was on top. That is why I have said all along is we need a jury to sort all this out. You have said Z was justified. Now just between us two, who would you say has pre-judged this case, you or me

 

More made up nonsense. The INVESTIGATOR SAID he "had evidence that Zimmerman was a liar"....which is an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING, which is why you keep trying to misquote it.

He also admitted that the state had NO EVIDENCE refuting the PRIMARY POINTS OF THE CASE, which are that Martin attacked Zimmerman while he was walking back to his truck, and that Martin threw the first punch.

But, by all means, don't let the ACTUAL FACTS intefere with your Fantasy Posting...it's so much fun to watch...and then smack you back down into your hole..again...and again...and again...and again....good times; GOOD TIMES....


Hey, I know! Bring up your completely erroneous take on "voice prints" again...whaddaya say??? C'mon....pleeeeease...?

 

So if someone attacks you, you size up certain things like, do they look like a fresh baby faced boy, even if they are 5 inches taller than you before you decide to protect yourself?

 

The issue here is that dark or not, Z thought T was at least a decade younger than him. In court, he said that he had thought that T was only a little younger. What really happened is anyone's guess because niether the prosecution nor the defendant have made the case yet. But the issue was did he lie in court. And all the evidence points out that yes he is.

 

Fair enough my point was just to illustrate that they were close enough to get an accurate estimate of T’s age

 

Age means NOTHING when you are 6'3, come on now. Someone a decade younger than you, has youth on their side and could kick your ass.

 

Your eyes are brown you're so full of crap. I'm not the least bit surprised you're denying your own bias here. To tell you the truth, I would have been surprised if you had owned up to it. I just wanted to point out the giant blind spot that you have toward your own behavior. That which you accuse others of is that which you, yourself, are the most guilty of. And you don't even see it.

Thank you for proving my point, SkyStryker. Have a nice day.

 

meaning that the Prosecution is going to atempt to use any statements made by any
witness to establish that Zimmerman was NOT going back to his vehicle
and that it was Zimmerman,Not Trayvon who made the confrontation that resulted
in Trayvon and GZ on the ground in a scuffle.
The Prosecution,I imagine is going to build a case around the mystery that No one
knows for sure how the final confrontation occurred and that somehow what Zimmerman
told the Police could be proven inaccurate.Theefore reasonable doubt as to Trayvon
indeed being the one who took aggressor move and the first punch.
But that is unethical because that doesn't portent with " probable cause ".
So Professor Dershovitz is correct.That the affadavit is using speculation and not
facts to establish who might have been the aggressor and took the first punch.
There is No Reasonablle Doubt at all here.Zimmerman did suffer injury to the head
and Trayvon did not.There is credible evidence that Zimmerman was on the ground and
Trayvon on top of him pounding away.Plus there was probably blood on that sidewalk.
There is no way in Gamorrah that a jury should have to put up with reasonable doubt as
to who the aggressor and who took the first punch.

 

Please quote Z saying "at least a decade younger"...or stop making up bullcrap.

One statement was a NIGHT, from a distance, the other was after the actual facts about age were known.

Der.......

 

The kid was NOT 6-3. He was at most 6-1(as per the prosecutor) or 6-0 (as per the police report).
Pathetic that you can't accept facts.

 

I am still waiting for a reply from HOOSIER8.........

 

Says who?