Wrong.
And you obviously are just assuming what you want, without knowing.
This sounds like argument from assertion. Just yelling "wrong" isn't a response.
Wrong.
And you obviously are just assuming what you want, without knowing.
Same here.
No it isn't self serving by definition.
Of course it is. People accused of crimes have self-serving reasons to lie, which is why we shouldn't take them at their word on things and should look for corroboration.
Secondly, yes it is suspect because he is the accused.
Oh, so we agree, right after we disagreed. Good to know.
Which is and has been rehabilitated by the circumstances surrounding his account.
He cooperated and continued to cooperate from the get.
He has withstood hours of intensive questioning designed to break a liar.
Withstood lie detection efforts.
His account is consistent with the other witnesses accounts which he had no idea of who saw or heard anything. (You would not get that had he been lying.)
And then the physical evidence is consistent with his account as well.
Well no, that's why he was charged with Murder 2 and why he didn't have an immunity hearing. If his story was standing up he'd be free by now.
Let's take just the part of his story where he claims to have been looking for an address. There are several reasons to doubt this.
1. First off, he has a reason to lie. If he admits to continuing his pursuit, then it's harder to explain how that wasn't the provocation that started the altercation.
2. Glaringly, he never gave the dispatcher an address. If he was only looking for one, and spent a good 90 seconds on Retreat View Circle waiting before going back towards his truck, it's not credible that after finding the address he wouldn't have mentioned that.
3. There was an address right there on Twin Trees which you can see in the walk through. Why not give that one?
4. Even if he was looking for an address, why would he choose an address on RTC when his truck was on Twin Trees and he was planning on walking back towards his truck? Was he really expecting the police to meet there on RTC while he waiting in a place that they couldn't see and wouldn't know about?
5. Before he hung up the phone with NEN, he said "meet me by my truck", but then changed his mind and said "have them call me and I'll tell them where I'm at". Why would he say this when he already told them where the truck was (so they didn't need an address) and was allegedly heading right there?
That makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can convince me.
That is your spin.
™ ran from him after trying to intimidate him. His running off, as described as, more like a skip, was also done to show he was not afraid of Zimmerman.
So stop with your nonsense.
You missed my point. In Zimmerman's initial tellings, he completely left out the part about Martin running away. Later on he altered the story once it became apparent to him that there was a recording. But go ahead and see for yourself. In his written statement, does the "suspect" run? No. If not, why did he leave that out? Does that sound like a consistent story to you?
Nothing but irrelevant blather.
You provide witness 8, yet her account is far more suspect than Zimmerman's. Your bias is obvious.
We're all biased here. No use pretending, but I see no evidence that Witness 8's story is suspect beyond a conspiracy theory that claims that she's some sort of imposter. I'm looking forward to her testimony though.
You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
The timeline certainly allows for him to circle the vehicle. Duh!
I'm not sure how to respond to "duh" but here goes. You're apparently missing the point so I'll explain it to you. Zimmerman claims that he spotted Martin at Taaffe's house and that's where the recording begins. He also stated that he was parked at the clubhouse. Great, now we can time the NEN call and match it to how fast a person who, according to Zimmerman, was walking slowly, "looking about". By the time in the call he says "he's coming to check me out", there's no way that Martin could have gotten much past the clubhouse, which meshes with the call. There's NO way he could have gone from Taaffe's house all the way to the row houses, back out onto the street again, and then circled the car. This could not have happened near the T, and that will be easily demonstrated. There's a video of some internet guy doing the walk and matching it to the NEN call and it's clear as day that "he's coming to check me out" occurred near the clubhouse. Hence, "he circled my car" doesn't stand up to scrutiny and will be shown to be untrue at the trial.
And unless a person is knocked out, they do not just fall straight down, they stumble. Double duh!
I'm just going by what Zimmerman said, and he clearly, on more than one occasion, said he went straight down immediately to the ground and in fact, fell backwards away from the body. He said he was facing south, was approached by Martin as Martin walked north, and that he fell away from the location of the body. He was unambiguous about this fact. Is there some reason I should ignore this? Do I need to pull up his written statement and initial interviews for you?
Furthermore, the two items we know to be in their hands: the large flashlight and the cell phone, both fell
south of the body, not north, where you'd expect, and not at the T where Zimmerman says he was punched and knocked down immediately. Doesn't that seem odd to you? How does the first thing both people would drop in a scuffle end up, together, in a location that doesn't make sense? Is there some reason I should ignore this? Can you give me an explanation of how the flashlight and cell phone ended up there?
