Z's First Court Appearance: He Lied Under Oath

lol....but you accuse others of making stuff up.

Tell us again how voice prints don't exist while at the same time Florida protects voice prints against identity theft.

 

The prosecution will need evidence to disprove Z's claims and they have already admitted they have none.

 

And you possess no evidence that bolsters your opinion that he is guilty, yet many have convicted regardless.

 

We have the physical proof that Zimmerman was indeedy punched in the nose and suffered
injury to the back of his head,in harmony with having his head pounded into the sidewalk.
A Funeral Director stated no injury or trauma at all to Trayvon's head.
I would also like to have a report on Trayvon's hands or knuckles,if bruised.
That is enough proof for any reasonable Judge or Jury to conclude who the aggressor was.
Plus the Eyewitness account by " John ".

 

The state, however, DOES NEED EVIDENCE ot refute those claims; evidence which they HAVE ALREADY ADMITTED THEY DO NOT HAVE.

Sorry. Allrght...Im really not. I find your growing desperation hilarious.

 

The shortest possible time span would be nine years and you want people to believe a little bit younger is nine years? lol.......

 

Apparently enough evidence that the Sanford Police Dept. couldn't hold Zimmerman
or charge him the night of the shooting.

 

So if they were looking directly at each other that means they were face to face.

 

The witnesses and evidence are largely stacked in Zimmerman's favor. But you already know this and you don't really care. Because let's be honest here. Just as you are accusing Zimmerman supporters of denying any dishonesty in his statement, you are deliberately looking for things like this to villify him with. There is no part of you anywhere that is willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. You convicted him a long time ago in your own mind and now you are only looking to validate that guilty verdict. Can you at least admit to that?

 

At the suv when they exchanged words just before Zim said he’s checking me out, I would call that face to face and I would say Zim was accurate in his estimate

 

The prosecution never said it has no evidence to disprove Z's claims. Once again you invent crap.

 

This post is one example of how the right wingers have judged this case. Rose clearly states that it ( the shooting ) was justified. From the logic I see her use , I guess if you are the shorter one, you are justifed in killing the taller one. There are example after example of this in this thread. ( The judging of the case) from the right. They accuse the left of being a lynch mob. People on the left don't seem to judge the case but merely think that it should go to a jury to decide. That is not to say they do not bring up apparent contradictions by Z. That is not judging him BUT.... when you say ... If Z's head was split, you must aquit. That is a judjment. If I killed someone and wanted to say it was self defense I would probably want to make myslf look like I was attacked. I'm not saying that is what Z did( got to be careful what I say. Hoosier8 will say I am making things up ) BUT.... I am saying just because Z had a bloody head does not prove Z is innocent. To me that is a silly argument.

 

If you wish to make idiotic false claims that is your perogative. But to say there is no evidence showing Z's guilt is embarrassing.

 

All this doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. The fact of the matter is Zimmerman decided to play "cop" when he was specifically told not to, that the police were on the way. If he hadn't this testosterone fueled image of himself as the law, we wouldn't be discussing this at all. He was in the wrong, open and shut.... case closed.

 

The state never said it doesn't have evidence to disprove Z's claims. But keep inventing crap....

 

Unless of course it's as Zimmerman states, that he was headed back to his vehicle and was attacked by Martin.

 

Whats really silly, is you know there are witness' who say Z was on the ground being beat, and you want to really argue that the 6'3 child looked like Webster. Thats pretty silly. But when you are capable of establishing your position based on just skin color, everything logical to you would be silly.

 

PLease cite one thing I posted that I made up. ALL of it happened, and the court knows it. They already admitted that they cannot refute the PRIMARY POINTS OF THE CASE.

(aka: "Why the special prosecutor didn't bring this weakass crap before a Grand Jury...).



"Voics prints"...again? Your poor, desperate situation has reached pathological status.

If your mind cannot get around the fact that I agree with the FBI and Secret Service's voice recog tech trainer,who cited the common MISUSE OF THE TERM, over you,and your two numbskull "experts", who I exposed myself, about "voice prints"...tough.

'Voiceprints' are a misnomer, says expert

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/12/04/2437959.htm

Quoting a misuse of the word doesn't change it...except for you., of course.

Enjoy your meltdown; the rest of us certainly are.

 

I suppose you deny that the 2 were even on the ground then.
Because that is what the nutty fringe said all along.
That Trayvon was merely walking home and ended up shot in cold blood.
NO Confrontation.
Of course then the narrative started changing almost daily.
That ... well of course Trayvon did STOP to get out of the rain.
That ... well of course Trayvon had to seek shelter and take a cellphone call.
That ... well of course Trayvon This and Trayvon That ... but in no way did
That mean that Little 6'3" Trayvon would ever dare to start a confrontation that
it was literally Impossible because he was such an ideal,model student who just
so happens was out on suspension from school for being a little Tardy.
Then ... the Tardy bidness wasn't flying too well so ... they managed to find more
12 yr. old pics of little Trayvon in the snow like a cute bunny rabbit ... and

 

I didn't say he was guilty until I saw enough evidence to support my claim. Saying the evidence is largely stacked in Z's favor is so freaking dumb there is no way anyone who has studied the facts could claim that with a straight face.

As for this thread, I didn't invent his words but only showed how he contradicted himself. Your inability to see the importance of his changing story does not mean it isn't there.

 

Which the state has already admitted it cannot refute....

 

Why do you go off on a rant and not respond to my post???

 

The ONLY indication that GZ's nose wsa broken is the statement by his FORMER attorney (that he THOUGHT the nose was broken). . . And that one statement has been repeated over and over as a FACT. . .when ther is still no proof!

GZ totally contradicted himself under oath when he said inhis "apology" that he thought Trayvon was only a few years younger than him, while on the 911 tapes, he CLEARLY told the dispatcher that the "suspect" was in his late teens.

He also seemed to contradict himself when he stated that Trayvon was covering his mouth and his nose (which might explain a BLOODY nose, not a BROKEN nose), which would make three of his prior statements difficult to explain:
1. How do you hit "smash someone face in" if one of your hand is covering that face?
2. How do you repeatedly slam someone's head in concrete if you are holding your hand on that person's mouth and nose. . .and you have no way to hold on to the head to slam it. . . Since the guy has a shaved head?
3. How do you scream for help repeatedly and loud enogh to be heard in a phone communication yards away if your mouth and nose are covered forcibly. . . This would negate GZ's statement that HE was the one screaming for help!

If youwant to demonstrate some integrity in the way you think about what happen, you have to at least consider those incongruities in GZ's statements.

 

They didn't say anything to each other before Z said Trayvon was checking him out.

 

More mind reading? Or are you now the Official Definer Of Exactly What Zimmerman Meant?

You get more hilarious with every, desperate, sweaty palmed, "cry for help" post....