I've told you umpteen times know the difference between a variation and a contradiction
These variations are in no way *credible evidence* nor does it affect the totality of Z's account
You have shown nothing to disprove Z's self defense claim
You are being dishonest to keep on and on about me or anyone else having "shown nothing to disprove Z's self-defense claim". We have shown for over a year already not only the forensic and physical evidence that dispute z.s accounts but also pointing out zimmerman's own contradiction in his own accounts that disproved his self-defense claim. The latest I put out was about Trayvon's de-escalation of the alleged attack per zimmerman's own story. So, please stop being so dishonest with your flaming and trolling. Do you need me to report it in order to get you to stop?
Your umpteen times are your continuous desperate denial and total dismissal no matter what the evidence show. This isn't gonna wash with people with reasonable and logical mind.
You don't get to claim being punched and fell backward into the grass the first time and then the next day on reenactment changed it to after being punched he was stumbling and pushing Trayvon away down the dogwalk onto the concrete in an attempt to fit the crime scene, after realizing the blunder when glancing yonder southward, to then get as close as possible to where Trayvon's body was found but yet not quite able to make it there to avoid being anymore ridiculous as he already was.
What Happened at the "T"?
first interview 26 FEB part one
"I fell to the ground when he punched me the first time"
"as soon as he punched me i fell backwards into the grass."
"and he punched me in the nose. At that point, I fell down…"
[Video Reenactment on Feb 27, 2012:]
Investigator...where was he at, about
Zimmerman...he was about there, but he was walking towards me
Investigator...So he was coming from this direction here (investigator is motioning with his arm back to front, back being the direction of Brandy's townhouse while standing a little way down on the sidewalk)
Zimmerman....Yes, sir. Like I said I was already past that so I didn't see exactly where he came from but he was about where...(tape cut out again a bit) And I said I don't have a problem and I went to go grab my cell phone but my.... I left it in a different pocket. I went...I looked down at my pant pocket and he said, you got a problem now and then he was here (motions that he was right there next to him) and he punched me in the face
Investigator...right here (investigator moves up to the sidewalk away from the "t")
Zimmerman...right up around here, to be honest I don't remember exactly
Investigator....that's fine
Zimmerman... I think... I stumbled, and I fell down he pushed me down, somehow he got on top of me
Investigator...on the grass or on the cement?
Zimmerman: It was more over towards here (Zimmerman walks down into the dog path) I was trying to push hime away from me and then he got on top of me somewhere around here (he looks around) and, ah, that's where I started screaming for help.
[E
mphasis mine]
This is just one major significant contraction among many other blunders the killer made. So, this is yet another zimmerman's own evidence that disprove his own evidence. So, don't ever cry baseless foul again.
But, nation wide there were probably hundred of thousands of past criminal trial cases, if not more, of criminals being convicted by the jury who simply didn't buy the defense story that didn't add up. Some, such as Amalia Mirasola's murder trial, didn't even have any contradiction whatsoever in her claim of self-defense.
Amalia who was in a wheelchair due to multiple sclerosis, was accused of shooting her 6' 2" "huge angry" husband to death in his bedroom. She claimed her husband called her to his bedroom to argue about some financial issue amid their pending divorce. She claimed her husband became angry and went at her and threatened to kill her. Amalia had maintained only one version of account throughout the whole case and no variation whatsoever let alone contradiction.
The prosecutor had no evidence to disprove Amalia's story but simply made the argument based on discrediting her story for being "less likely" and "unlikely". The prosecutor claimed that it was unlikely the the husband would call her into her bedroom to argue about financial isssue at 3 a.m and "waits while she gets out of her recliner, gets in the walker and goes over there.” The prosecutor also argue that "parents with three young children don’t routinely carry a loaded pistol in their sweatpants," while ignoring the fact that she felt her life was threatened since the day their marriage fell apart in bad blood. Another argument the prosecutor made was that their daughter was awoken by the gunshot and did not hear any argument between her mother and her father. But, how did that prove there was no argument prior to the gunshot before the daughter woke up?
Prosecutor: Butler woman's self-defense argument 'doesn't add up' | NJ.com
Jury didn't buy Butler woman's self-defense claim in murder trial | NJ.com
So, you see, zimmerman's mountains of contradiction in his various versions of story alone, let alone the physical and forensic evidence, is going to do him in if the same jury in Amalia's case were to sit in the jury panel of zimmerman's trial.
But, this case is now about the type of jury being selected and not about the evidence or justice. If the selected jurors are cut from the same cloth as you, buck, Excon and the majority of zimmerman's hardcore supporters as we have seen here, then zimmerman is going to walk.
That's the way our system works, especially in the state of Florida.
Would you gloat over a killer beating the justice system despite giving many major inconsistencies or variations after claiming he shot and killed an unarmed person, a teenager no less, in self-defense after a chase on someone doing nothing wrong, if it happens to your child?