Undeniable Objective Evidence

buck · Oct 31, 2012

hawke812 said:
Nope, listen to it again. You are combining the 911 call with the interview. You have to separate them.

No, I am not. I am listening to her interview where she clearly states that she went to dial 911 when she realized it was "real" - which is when she heard cries for help. in the process of calling 911, the gun shot went off. She was then connected to 911 after the gun shot and when the police were out there. It's clearly and obviously exactly what states in the Serino interview. I am sure you just can't see it because you are the only one "seeing this case objectively". lol

JackFrost · Oct 31, 2012

buck said:
No, I am not. I am listening to her interview where she clearly states that she went to dial 911 when she realized it was "real" - which is when she heard cries for help. in the process of calling 911, the gun shot went off. She was then connected to 911 after the gun shot and when the police were out there. It's clearly and obviously exactly what states in the Serino interview. I am sure you just can't see it because you are the only one "seeing this case objectively". lol

Nope, listen to it again. She calls after the shot.

Rainman05 · Oct 31, 2012

You guys should watch "the practice" and "boston legal"

buck · Oct 31, 2012

hawke812 said:
Nope, listen to it again. She calls after the shot.

Here is a pretty quick transcription of what she said.

There are two men on the ground, then I heard someone desperately saying "help help" OMG this is real, this is something bad happening, I think I grabbed my phone at that time, i called 911. I remember hearing a pop noise....

.... Then I thought to myself OMG this is really happening, and I was calling 911 at that point.

She is saying she called 911 when she realized it was real - she heard the "desperate cries for help" - She was alreadyin the process of calling 911 when the pop noise went off. But, of course, you are the only objective one :roll:

buck · Oct 31, 2012

Rainman05 said:
You guys should watch "the practice" and "boston legal"

Those shows are so dumbed down - i'm assuming they are like a CSI type show, no?

Rainman05 · Oct 31, 2012

buck said:
Those shows are so dumbed down - i'm assuming they are like a CSI type show, no?

I didn't watch CSI.

I found the series quite enjoyable. They are about law and such... so not investigation.

ric27 · Oct 31, 2012

Rainman05 said:
You guys should watch "the practice" and "boston legal"

Actually, if you want to know how most homicide investigations go, watch the *first 48.*...

Excon · Oct 31, 2012

hawke812 said:
The purpose of this thread is to show the Zimmerman supporters objective evidence is NOT in his favor.

Except that we already know it is. Even this witness supports that specific portion of his account.

hawke812 said:
Witness #18 saw the shot fired. ... She said the larger Hispanic man was standing when he fired.

:doh

Talk about grasping.

According to the video you posted, you are wrong!
On both counts even.
:lamo

Q: Where were you looking at the moment the gun fired?

A: I was looking at the two men on the ground, and heard the gunshot.

Your Youtube video @ the 1:57 mark.

And you really think you are objective?
:doh

buck said:
hawke812 said:

This is the problem with people who can not discuss this case objectively like I can.

Click to expand...

This has got to be one of the funniest things i've ever read here.

I know, eh?
That was hilarious.

Rainman05 said:
I found the series quite enjoyable. They are about law and such... so not investigation.

Those shows were about the characters interpersonal relationships and the impassioned "in court" argument. Not really the law.

ric27 · Oct 31, 2012

buck said:
Those shows are so dumbed down - i'm assuming they are like a CSI type show, no?

Unfortunately, buck.... shows like CSI have a massive influence over what members of juries seem to believe is possible.

JackFrost · Oct 31, 2012

Excon said:
Except that we already know it is. Even this witness supports that specific portion of his account.

:doh

Talk about grasping.

According to the video you posted, you are wrong!
On both counts even.
:lamo

Q: Where were you looking at the moment the gun fired?

A: I was looking at the two men on the ground, and heard the gunshot.

Your Youtube video @ the 1:57 mark.

And you really think you are objective?
:doh

I know, eh?
That was hilarious.

Those shows were about the characters interpersonal relationships and the impassioned "in court" argument. Not really the law.

To clarify, she was witnessing the incident at the time the shot was fired. That is what I meant. Obviously, no one but superheroes can literally see a shot fired with their eyes. Especially if they were facing away from her window. She can't see through solid objects.

Witness 18: "I was looking at the two men on the ground, and heard the gunshot."

Excon · Oct 31, 2012

hawke812 said:
To clarify, she was witnessing the incident at the time the shot was fired. That is what I meant. Obviously, no one but superheroes can literally see a shot fired with their eyes. Especially if they were facing away from her window. She can't see through solid objects.

Witness 18: "I was looking at the two men on the ground, and heard the gunshot."

Trying to spin it I see.
We are not talking about the bullet flying through the air.

She saw no muzzle blast. No discharge. No flash of light.
Just the sound.
She says she was looking at them, but never saw the shot, and obviously never saw it's effects, like a flash.

And she never said he was standing when firing either.

Next!

JackFrost · Oct 31, 2012

buck said:
Here is a pretty quick transcription of what she said.

She is saying she called 911 when she realized it was real - she heard the "desperate cries for help" - . She was already in the process of calling 911 when the pop noise went off, But of course, you are the only objective one :roll:

Thanks for falling into my trap, VICTORY IS MINE!!! I wanted to see if anyone would actually click on a damn link and listen/watch something:lol:

Q: Where were you looking at the moment the gun fired?

A: I was looking at the two men on the ground, and heard the gunshot.

JackFrost · Oct 31, 2012

Excon said:
Trying to spin it I see.
We are not talking about the bullet flying through the air.

She saw no muzzle blast. No discharge. No flash of light.
Just the sound.
She says she was looking at them, but never saw the shot, and obviously never saw it's effects, like a flash.

And she never said he was standing when firing either.

Next!

Well you need to clarify yourself than.

Excon · Nov 1, 2012

hawke812 said:
Well you need to clarify yourself than.

No I don't, and no I didn't. Nobody is stupid enough to think we are talking about the actual bullet flying through the air.

JackFrost · Nov 1, 2012

Excon said:
No I don't, and no I didn't. Nobody is stupid enough to think we are talking about the actual bullet flying through the air.

Once again, Excon speaking before thinking:lol:

buck · Nov 1, 2012

hawke812 said:
Thanks for falling into my trap, VICTORY IS MINE!!! I wanted to see if anyone would actually click on a damn link and listen/watch something:lol:

Q: Where were you looking at the moment the gun fired?

A: I was looking at the two men on the ground, and heard the gunshot.

Then you have answered your own question as to what was contradictory in her statements. However, and maybe this is just me, but I suspect not, I tend to trust what a witness tells to the police over what they state in a TV interview. To the police (closest to the incident when memory is most fresh) she never-ever mentioned that she saw the shot and clearly indicated that she was already dialing 911 when the shot occured and, finally, that she is not even certain she was looking out the window when dialing 911 (when the shot occured).

I have no idea how this becomes a victory for you, but I guess when you don't get many you have to take them where you can - even if you have to completelly stretch the definition to a point of being completely unrecognizable.

buck · Nov 1, 2012

Excon said:
No I don't, and no I didn't. Nobody is stupid enough to think we are talking about the actual bullet flying through the air.

I think we have discovered that you are wrong about that.

ric27 · Nov 1, 2012

hawke812 said:
Nope, listen to it again. She calls after the shot.

And this *in your mind* proves what?

JackFrost · Nov 1, 2012

buck said:
I think we have discovered that you are wrong about that.

Exactly

He is wrong.

buck · Nov 1, 2012

hawke812 said:
Exactly

He is wrong.

I completely agree. He was wrong. There are in fact some people that are some stupid enough

spanky · Nov 1, 2012

the video you linked to was tryin gto turn Mark's words against him by trying to show "undenial" objective evidence that Zimm is a murderer. The evidence they posted is obviously not undeniable.

Nor was it objective.

JackFrost · Nov 1, 2012

spanky said:
Nor was it objective.

The evidence in the video was not objective:lol:

okay than:lol:

spanky · Nov 1, 2012

hawke812 said:
The evidence in the video was not objective:lol:

okay than:lol:

The video itself was not objective, if failed to mention contradictory and exculpatory evidence. I give it no more credence then a video from Free Republic or Democrat Underground.

JackFrost · Nov 1, 2012

spanky said:
The video itself was not objective, if failed to mention contradictory and exculpatory evidence. I give it no more credence then a video from Free Republic or Democrat Underground.

The video was a quick response to a specific statement made by Mark O'Mara, showing not all the evidence in this case is in favor of his client. It was pointing out some holes in his defense. Of course it is not going to go in great length about all the details:roll:

Do we discuss the entirety of the case all at once? We should just have one thread for everything than:lol:

Are all videos going to go over all the evidence at once? We would be watching hours of video all at one than:lol:

spanky · Nov 1, 2012

hawke812 said:
The video was a quick response to a specific statement made by Mark O'Mara, showing not all the evidence in this case is in favor of his client. It was pointing out some holes in his defense. Of course it is not going to go in great length about all the details:roll:

Do we discuss the entirety of the case all at once? We should just have one thread for everything than:lol:

Are all videos going to go over all the evidence at once? We would be watching hours of video all at one than:lol:

The video was produced with a specific objective in mind, which wasn't a search for truth.