Part 2 of 2
"Again, not the instructions provided to George Zimmerman." S
Which you refuse to disclose in text form, as I have done with the transcript.
And again, that "911" transcript PROVES Z disregarded Sanford police dispatch guidance.
"In Zimmerman's own words. "He was looking at the house intently, the same house that I had called about before."" S
I just did a character string search for "inten" in the text transcript, and got zero hit.
So if it was ever said, it wasn't said during that telephone call.
If you have the transcript, in text, of when you allege it was said, you're free to post it.
"False claim again. The instructions were to call in anything suspicious or out of place. A person who was a stranger looking intently at the house of a known neighbor, a house that had been previously cased would be enough to arouse suspicion." S
No it wouldn't.
TM's behavior as Z described it was just as consistent with a school boy walking home from the candy store, enjoying the sights and the early evening air.
Walking is not a crime.
"Looking" is not a crime.
And please tell us all:
just what is it TM could have looked at with the approach Z described, that would have promoted benefit to a burglar?
A prospective burglar might have rattled door handles, checked windows to see if any of them could be opened from the outside, look for items that could be stolen, etc.
Walking calmly home simply isn't criminal, and is not by itself probable cause.
And the sanity check on that is that even Z confessed he didn't know what TM's deal is.
"Actually there is. Jeantel testified in court and in post acquittal interviews that Martin made it to the back of the house he was staying at. The fight occurred 70 yards away near the T. The only way that happened was if Trayvon chose not to go in, and chose to return instead." S
1) What ever she said he said is known as "hear say" evidence, and is usually inadmissible as evidence.
There are exceptions; the dying declaration exception for example.
BUT !!
There's a very good reason for the "hear say" rule. It is notoriously unreliable. And in this case, perhaps particularly so.
2) I gather the witness you're referring to is literally illiterate, and not a high school grad.
- She may have misunderstood, either by bad phone connection, or miscommunication.
- If for example TM said: "I'm home", what does that mean? That he's returned from Barbados (meaning back in his home country)?
- That he'd departed the candy store, and was now within the confines of the housing complex of his destination address?
- That the door of the residence he sought was in TM's view?
- That he'd set foot on the lawn for that unit of the complex?
- That he was on the walkway dedicated to that door?
- That his hand was on the doorknob?
- That he'd opened the door, preparing to walk inside?
- That he'd opened the door, walked inside, closed the door and locked it behind him, and then had a sudden change of mind, and rushed back outside to bust that crazy cracker in the nose?
By your description of her description, we don't know which of those, or if any of those was the actual case.
And candidly, I doubt she asked for specific clarification, and I doubt TM provided that level of specificity in casual conversation.
"The only way that happened was if Trayvon chose not to go in, and chose to return instead." S
Piffle.
The Ockham's Razor explanation is that Z blocked TM's path to refuge according to the graphic I posted.
It is the far more likely scenario.
Can you offer any reason why TM would first reach safe, secure refuge, and then immediately relinquish it for a dangerous (and in point of fact, deadly) confrontation?
Your explanation is not merely irrational. It's simply factually wrong!!
"The only way that happened was if ..." S
That's simply factually wrong. And I've proved that, by offering an alternate, and far more likely scenario.