It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Exclusive! First hand Witness: Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman Zimmerman Innocent Smoking Gun

page: 142
105
<< 139  140  141    143  144  145 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebellender

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kimish
. . people don't typically wear hoodies in 80 degree weather regardless of rain or not. It'd be too damn hot IMO so a hoodie could have aroused suspicion.
.


I'm 65 and I live in a hoodie. I have about 10 of them.

I'm near the ocean. Anyone who lives near the ocean or water knows how the weather changes. I never go anywhere without a hoodie.

Throw a tank and shorts on - - tie a hoodie around your waist.

If I was walking down the street at 7pm in the rain - - I would be wearing a hoodie.



why is hoodies Anne really? still on that one, come on


What is your point.

You jumped in - - - where I was responding to someone making a comment about wearing hoodies.




posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101

Originally posted by pizzanazi75

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 



Again, I never said video couldn't be used a evidence in the Supreme Court

but in a previous post you stated this


Example. Video tape is reliable but it is not allowed to used in the Supreme Court.



edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


Where in that statement did I say it was not allowed to be used as EVIDENCE in the SC?

Video cameras are not allowed in the SC when it is in session....why do you think all we are getting from the healthcare debate is audio?

If you had read, and comprehended all the conversation up until that point you would realize I was making the point that video is reliable but is not allowed to be used in the SC ... i never said anything about being used as evidence in a case in front of the SC....it went to show just because something is not used in courts does not mean it isn't reliable.

Would you like to try again?


right so your talking about filming proceedings in the supreme court thanks for clarifying that . Why the hell would you be talking about that when the conversation was about EVIDENCE which is allowed to be used in court
. Its a totally diffirent subject , your "point" has no relation to what we were talking about.
edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


Go back and read all the post. Take it in context. I was talking about things being reliable or not. Someone else took my words out of context, it was explained and moved on. Had you rad the post before your knee jerk comment you would know that. It was brought up in the context of a discussion. Sorry you cant understand. That falls on you, not me.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


well you replied to my post which questioned why the 2nd expert doesnt think the evidence should be allowed in court. I theorised he must think it not reliable enough. You replied talking about filming proceedings in court


sorry bud its not me that has a comprehension problem. Maybe you should of found an example of reliable evidence that isn't used in court that would be much better. Instead of a completely unrelated topic like allowing filming proceedings in court.
edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


I don't know where the bullet exactly entered...but if it did so from the back it's pretty much over for Zimmerman.


One single shot wound to the chest..
Please everyone in on this case knows
that..



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by pizzanazi75
You didn't read the article. Lead investigators don't just 'go to' the state attorney on a sunday night to see if its ok to charge someone.

If he got arrested what was the charge?

Give me another example of when the state attorney has overruled the lead investigators recommendation in a homicide case the very night of the crime.

And don't forget my first question....if he was arrested what was he charged with? And is he still charged with that or have those charges been dealt with, dropped, or what? Please provide your source for this information.


He was being held for questioning that is what the ABC
video is. He was *detained*. I would call it a temp. arrest.
Peopl act like he was just patted on the back and told
it was ok. When actually he was detained and took in
for questioning. the ABC video is that



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:40 PM
link   
You're in the back of a police car with handcuffs on?

That is an arrest.

Never heard of a "temporary" arrest.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


well you replied to my post which questioned why the 2nd expert doesnt think the evidence should be allowed in court. I theorised he must think it not reliable enough. You replied talking about filming proceedings in court


sorry bud its not me that has a comprehension problem. Maybe you should of found an example of reliable evidence that isn't used in court that would be much better. Instead of a completely unrelated topic like allowing filming proceedings in court.
edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


A report that you couldn't understand either. What is a comprehension problem is that you couldn't understand what the article was saying in the first place. If you can't comprehend that aspect of the article I sure don't expect you to understand an analogy.
Even if the second expert doesn't think they should be used in court doesn't mean anything. The courts let it and he agrees with the outcome that it isn't Zimmerman that is the point to the article. The experts personal opinions about how that information is used is no bearing on the results of the test itself. Can you understand that?



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by rebellender

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by kimish
. . people don't typically wear hoodies in 80 degree weather regardless of rain or not. It'd be too damn hot IMO so a hoodie could have aroused suspicion.
.


I'm 65 and I live in a hoodie. I have about 10 of them.

I'm near the ocean. Anyone who lives near the ocean or water knows how the weather changes. I never go anywhere without a hoodie.

Throw a tank and shorts on - - tie a hoodie around your waist.

If I was walking down the street at 7pm in the rain - - I would be wearing a hoodie.



why is hoodies Anne really? still on that one, come on


What is your point.

You jumped in - - - where I was responding to someone making a comment about wearing hoodies.


OK, fair enough, Annee feel free to jump out any time,



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


I don't know where the bullet exactly entered...but if it did so from the back it's pretty much over for Zimmerman.


One single shot wound to the chest..
Please everyone in on this case knows
that..


How do you know that? The autopsy has not been released. Don't say the funeral director. Has stated what he saw after the autopsy would have been done.....his testimony is important, yes, but the autopsy will give the real accurate information.
So please source your claim that its been officially established that he only had one gunshot wound to the chest. A bullet in the back could very easily exit through the front. Until the autopsy is out we are all speculating about treyvons injuries. We do know he has a bullet in him, That is all we know. We don't know from how far he was shot, what angle, etc. The autopsy will tell that.
You just proved you are basing your opinion on something other than evidence.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


They can detain someone for up to (I think) 24 (or is it 48?) hours without charging them with anything. After that, they need to be charged or they can go home.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


I don't know where the bullet exactly entered...but if it did so from the back it's pretty much over for Zimmerman.


One single shot wound to the chest..
Please everyone in on this case knows
that..


Do you know at what angle?
Chest is a pretty large area...



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


I've learned that there are always three sides to every argument, each participant's point of view and the truth. Over the last week, it seems to me that the weight of the evidence is not supporting Zimmerman's story, which is not the same as disproving.

I am not considering any stories or information about either Martin or Zimmerman outside of the the events of that night. That means that I am not going to consider allegations of racism on Zimmerman's part or allegations that he would fly into rages, nor am I considering the issues of Martin's suspension from school or other alleged activities. To do so only introduces a filter of bias and a tendency to jump to erroneous conclusions based on the fallacious interpretation of the facts because "Since xxx was this kind of person, this is what he must have been doing."

There are three kinds of data I have been looking at, with varying degrees of reliability.

1. Physical evidence. Highest degree of reliability. Examples are 911 tapes, position of the body, wounds, video and forensic analysis.

2. Witness affidavits and reports based on direct communication with either Martin or Zimmerman. The two primary ones here are the police reports and the affidavit of Martin's girlfriend who was talking to him at the time of the confrontation. I don't say allegedly talking to him since phone records do support the fact they were talking, but we only have her testimony to rely on about the content of the conversation.

3. Eyewitness accounts. These tend to be on average unreliable and certainly, as we would expect, also tend to be contradictory.

We don't know directly what Martin's version of the incident is since he never was able to tell it. However the second hand account from the girl on the phone was that Zimmerman was following him and confronted Martin and, she believed, some sort of physical altercation ensued that also terminated the call. The phone records do not provide any reason to reject her statement based on the time of the call and estimated time of the shooting, so this we will have to put down as inconclusive as to what was said.

However Zimmerman has told his story which can be vetted against the facts. There are four points where Zimmerman's story doesn't seen to mesh with the facts. I'm ignoring eyewitness testimony here since, as one would expect, there are multiple contradictory accounts. The most reliable account I suspect is the one where the witness claimed he really couldn't make out who was on top of who or exactly what was happening because it was too dark. The fact that one witness as said that it was hard to see makes me suspect that the accuracy of what was seen by the others may not be very high.

Here are the problems I have. None of these are being presented as proof of Zimmerman's guilt but rather are presented as areas where the evidence does not appear to support Zimmerman's story. After I present the problems, I'll suggest ways (other than theorizing) that would help resolve the issues.

(1) Zimmerman claims that Martin broke his nose with a punch and then was on top of Zimmerman who was lying on his back and slamming the back of Zimmerman's head onto the concrete sidewalk. However Martin's body was found on the grass, face down and head pointing away from the sidewalk with his hands underneath him (according to the police report). According to Zimmerman, they would have had to have been perpendicular to the sidewalk in order for his back to be grass-stained. After he shot Martin, Martin would have either fallen forward or the side, where his head would be pointing towards the sidewalk, of he might have fallen back, in which case he would have not been face down. The position of the body does not support Zimmerman's account at this point.Did Zimmerman move the body? The position of the body suggests either something is wrong about or missing from the Zimmerman story.

(2) Zimmerman claimed he was yelling help, which was captured on tape. However forensic analysis does not support his claim with multiple experts saying it is unlikely that Zimmerman was the person yelling. We don't know if it might have been Martin or even a third part who was seeing the assault and yelling for help.. However the important point for me is that Zimmerman claimed it was himself which is not at this point supported by the forensics. Note that this would not be an issue if Zimmerman had not made the claim that he was yelling. The truth of his claim is in doubt.

(3) The funeral home director stated that he saw no signs of a physical altercation on Martin's body, and not on his knuckles or hands, which is what you would expect to see if Martin had been beating Zimmerman with the ferocity claimed by Zimmerman. This raises doubts about Zimmerman's account of the attack.

continued in my nest post....
edit on 2-4-2012 by metamagic because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-4-2012 by metamagic because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


yeah but it doesn't matter i'm interested why he doesnt think it should be used.

i'll bet if it does come to court the defence will have their own experts singing a different tune.

anyway the biggest piece of evidence has not been released which is the recording of the phonecall bewteen TM & his GF
edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by metamagic
 


continued...

(4) The police video does not show either sign of bleeding or injury on Zimmerman, nor does is show any evidence of bandaging, nose packing or other first aid. There is a conspicuous lack of blood on his shirt and clothing. There are those that claim that several frames show a cu ton the back of his head but I don't see it.. it looks like tufts of hair to me, but I also see no evidence that if it was a scalp wound (which bleed a lot) that it was treated. The pysical appearance of Zimmerman does not seem to support his story of being soundly beaten so that he feared for his life.

What is needed to settle some of these questions. Not hypotheses or speculation (“he could have had a broken nose that didn't bleed” sorts of things) My mind won't be made up until we have the following:

(1) The report or statement from EMT as to exactly what Zimmerman's wounds were, what they did to “fix him up” and whether the video of him at the police station is consistent with that report.

(2) Medical or treatment records from the hospital visit Zimmerman claims to have made the next day that would describe injuries consistent with Zimmerman's account.

(3) A forensic analysis of the help cries to see if they are Martin's. Establishing beyond a reasonable doubt that they are would indicate that Zimmerman lied about being the one crying out.

(4) A coroner's report on the physical state of Martin and either validate or contradict the funderal director's observations.

There are also a number of other issues that deal with how the police handled the case, however I've tried to avoid all issues except those that can be addressed forensically and impartially.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


yeah but it doesn't matter i'm interested why he doesnt think it should be used.

i'll bet if it does come to court the defence will have their own experts singing a different tune.

anyway the biggest piece of evidence has not been released which is the recording of the phonecall bewteen TM & his GF
edit on 2-4-2012 by yeti101 because: (no reason given)


there is no recording between Treyvon and his Girlfriend. Where did you get that information? Source please.

and the biggest piece of evidence wouldn't be that recording, even if it did exist, which it doesn't. The autopsy report will be the biggest piece of evidence. It will show distance, angle, etc.

Ill be waiting for that source.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by Annee
 


They can detain someone for up to (I think) 24 (or is it 48?) hours without charging them with anything. After that, they need to be charged or they can go home.


So its not an arrest unless you are charged with something?

I'm aware of temporary detainment.



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:04 PM
link   
reply to post by pizzanazi75
 


sorry i got mixed up there's no recording of the call. thats a real shame



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   
Yes, you can be arrested without charges. You can also be charged with a crime without being arrested.

But once you have been arrested, they have 24 hours to officially charge you with something or they have to let you go. Zimmerman wasn't arrested, he was just brought in for questioning . They can also handcuff you without arresting you.

(Edited to add that I don't know that he wasn't arrested for sure. Did they arrest him or just detain him for questioning?)
edit on 2-4-2012 by CoherentlyConfused because: afterthought



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
Yes, you can be arrested without charges. You can also be charged with a crime without being arrested.

But once you have been arrested, they have 24 hours to officially charge you with something or they have to let you go. Zimmerman wasn't arrested, he was just brought in for questioning. They can also handcuff you without arresting you.

and they send innocent men to prison all the time in fact all convicted are innocent, ask them!!!



posted on Apr, 2 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by Annee
 


They can detain someone for up to (I think) 24 (or is it 48?) hours without charging them with anything. After that, they need to be charged or they can go home.


So its not an arrest unless you are charged with something?

I'm aware of temporary detainment.

come on Annee!!! you are 65yrs old, thought you had this stuff down by now?




top topics



 
105
<< 139  140  141    143  144  145 >>

log in

join