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

Originally posted by popsmayhem
Yes i have donated.

So you fell for them?

Its all clear now, no further questions.

Originally posted by Autumnal
331 pages of not just defending Zimmerman but offending Martin based on the idea that Martin hid somewhere and ambushed which was completely made up by posters in this thread.

If I had to make up a reason to defend someone, the first thing I would do is question my need to defend them.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say! People have gotten to the point where they literally HATE Trayvon, and everything that occurred that night was his fault. It's like the guy on Facebook you find so annoying that anything they post makes you want to strangle them. Calm the hell down!!

I'll repeat what I said earlier: no one in this thread is saying to hang Zimmerman. People are just investigating BOTH narratives, and calling out speculation where they see it. The gray area is big enough to suggest Trayvon attacked Zimmerman, just as there are enough gray holes to suggest Zimmerman chased Trayvon. In fact, I am starting to believe it was a mix a both, but if you believe it was one or the other, that's fine too and entirely possible.

I don't think anyone on this thread is saying RIGHT THIS MINUTE there is enough evidence on the table to convict Zimmerman either. All people are saying is it is actually still POSSIBLE that Zimmerman may be guilty, whether the prosecution can prove it or not. Why so serious?

Sorry for the crude analogy, but this mentality reminds me of people who accuse anyone who questions America's motivations for bombing and killing 100,000+ innocent Iraqi civilians "a terrorist." There is no "either with us or against us." There is no holy war. This is simply an investigation of the TRUTH.

I urge readers on this thread to take a few breaths and at least TRY to remain emotionally unattached to a side on this case, and to objectively investigate the most fundamental assumptions you are making beneath your beliefs about it.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Autumnal

 

Like I said, as long as the crucify zimmerman crowd keeps making stuff up to try and make zimmerman look bad, turnabout is fair play.

That does not make any sense to me. If Zimmerman has the truth on his side then that is a way better argument than making things up.

None of us were there, only two actual eye witnesses came forward. Both stated trayvon was on top beating zimmerman. Other than that, it's all speculation.

Not once in this entire thread has anyone shown two eyewitnesses claiming to have seen Martin on top, beating Zimmerman. You made that up too.
I do not see this same level of just making things up going the other way so your argument is null.

If they have some special witness that proved anything near what the prosecution claimed, I doubt the head investigator would have said what he did.....

So you have doubts because you do not know for a fact what happened and yet you still chose a side and admit to lying to defend that side?
Odd odd odd.

reply to post by Autumnal

Not once in this entire thread has anyone shown two eyewitnesses claiming to have seen Martin on top, beating Zimmerman. You made that up too. I do not see this same level of just making things up going the other way so your argument is null.

Read the thread new guy, they are in here.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Autumnal

 

Like I said, as long as the crucify zimmerman crowd keeps making stuff up to try and make zimmerman look bad, turnabout is fair play. None of us were there, only two actual eye witnesses came forward. Both stated trayvon was on top beating zimmerman. Other than that, it's all speculation.

I don't think the appropriate response to making stuff up in Trayvon's favor is to make stuff up in Zimmerman's favor. I think we need to lay out on the table all of the "fantasies" as someone so eloquently called them and get rid of them once and for all. So, let's try to deal with this in a productive and meaningful way. Can you make a list of all of the myths that are bothering you?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Autumnal

 

Not once in this entire thread has anyone shown two eyewitnesses claiming to have seen Martin on top, beating Zimmerman. You made that up too. I do not see this same level of just making things up going the other way so your argument is null.

Read the thread new guy, they are in here.

I read every page before I even registered.
No they are not.
"The guy wearing red was on top" does not equal "I saw Trayvon on top of George and he was beating him."
Show me any one single witness actually saying what you claim two of them have said or please stop making stuff up at me.
You just admitted that is what you do. I have not lied to you. Do not do it to me.

Originally posted by Autumnal
Not once in this entire thread has anyone shown two eyewitnesses claiming to have seen Martin on top, beating Zimmerman. You made that up too.
I do not see this same level of just making things up going the other way so your argument is null.

The OP talking about the anonymous witness who came out a month later, and I believe another 911 caller who said "the man in the white t-shirt was on top," who people are interpreting as Trayvon. If they are accurate, what this tells me is that Zimmerman was losing a fight-- doesn't directly address who actually started what.

ETA: It's true it is a matter of interpretation. I'm not sure how heavily they weigh eyewitness testimony either, since it can often be inaccurate. No agenda, just statistics-- anyone know?

reply to post by solarjetman


Depends really. When witness testimony is all they got one way or another, it's the heaviest thing on the scales.

reply to post by solarjetman


I know exactly what he is talking about and the problem is the massive amount of distortion.
"Someone in a white shirt was on top"
or red top or whatever color it was is one thing.
"Trayvon was on top, beating George" is completely different.
I understand the difference between these two things.
Of course I am also confounded that it was too dark to see skin color and say the black one was on top but shirt color was seen?
Anyway. This TKDRL or whatever that admits to lying is not the only one in this thread to change what the witness actually said to something far more damaging to the dead kid. I wish they would stick to the facts. If a witness or two saw someone is a shirt of a color on top, then cool. If someone saw Trayvon on top beating George then I want to hear that witness statement because it is neither of those two.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by solarjetman

 

Depends really. When witness testimony is all they got one way or another, it's the heaviest thing on the scales.

Why wouldn't they have forensic evidence?

reply to post by Autumnal


I am sure they do have some. Doesn't necessarily mean it tells anything useful though. Forensic evidence is great when someone lies and says they never have contact with someone that was dead, but they find their skin under the nails or whatever. I am sure they found powder on both trayvon and george, but that's expected already.

reply to post by Autumnal

'The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: "Help, help… and I told him to stop and I was calling 911,' he said.

Zimmerman was wearing a red sweater; Martin was in a grey hoodie.

He added: 'When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point.'

We know which one was wearing red, no?


We also know who was laying in the grass dead, am I right?

The other one, I am not searching through the thread to find his exact words. The only making stuff up I am doing, is the same everyone else is doing. Making up what could have happened from the time the phones hung up, to the time of the beating and shooting.

Originally posted by solarjetman
\The OP talking about the anonymous witness who came out a month later,

Wrong John told police what the saw that night,
and gave his written testimony the next day..

Not just one eye witness but three..

John saw zimmerman on the ground
screaming for help while treyvon was on top of him
beating his face in, and went to go call 911

Originally posted by popsmayhem
John saw zimmerman on the ground
screaming for help while treyvon was on top of him
beating his face in, and went to go call 911

Why lie like this?
"John" claims to have seen the color of the top the person on top was wearing. He did not claim to see George screaming for help or Martin beating anyone.

So why make it up?

I am pretty sure you are making up that he went to the police that night as well but one lie at at time.

Do you often find yourself defending people or positions you then need to lie about in order to continue defending? That seems like a terrible place to be in life.

Originally posted by TKDRL
We know which one was wearing red, no?

Yes. Please tell me how that gives you leeway to make up claims by witnesses that have never actually been made? I am not following your reasoning.

We also know who was laying in the grass dead, am I right?

On top of anyone at that point?

The other one, I am not searching through the thread to find his exact words. The only making stuff up I am doing, is the same everyone else is doing. Making up what could have happened from the time the phones hung up, to the time of the beating and shooting.

edit on Sun, 13 May 2012 17:12:47 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

You still think that saying other people are lying too gives your lies some validity? "The only making stuff up Iam doing is" well any is enough, right?

At least you can finally admit you are flat out making stuff up. How you have to couch I guess is your own hangup. I have yet to find a reason to lie for either side of this argument you are all having. I am confused as to what good lying on either side does anyone let alone adding to the lies on both sides as you claim.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Autumnal

 

I am sure they do have some. Doesn't necessarily mean it tells anything useful though. Forensic evidence is great when someone lies and says they never have contact with someone that was dead, but they find their skin under the nails or whatever. I am sure they found powder on both trayvon and george, but that's expected already.

Wow so you do not know jack # about forensics at all. Sorry to have bothered asking you to express yourself when I should have known you would fully opine on something with no knowledge base to draw from. That was my bad. Forensics encompasses a great deal more than what you seem to think it does.

reply to post by Autumnal


Whatever you say there junior. Aside from powder, and bullet angle, I don't see what else forensics is going to show that isn't already known.....

reply to post by Autumnal


Clearly you haven't bothered to look for the quotes cited all aver the place.....
He saw the guy screaming on the bottom was wearing red, what zimmerman happened to be wearing. And that the beater was shot dead.

reply to post by TKDRL


Bullet angle will be huge in this case, but you knew that.

Forensics will also show if TM had any of GZ DNA under his nails, like from possibly scratching GZ head to get away from him instead of GZ lame story of his head being beaten in the sidewalk.

Forensics will also show if TM's hand had any saliva from GZ on him. One of GZ claims is that TM covered his mouth to keep him from yelling. GZ better hope his DNA is found on TM hands.

Those 3 forensics pieces right there are enough to sink GZ if only one is proven true. The bullet angle had better match what GZ told police, if not, lie #1. If TM has GZ DNA under his fingernails then GZ lied about how he got those head injuries, lie #2. If TM doesn't have GZ saliva on his palms then guess what, lie #3.

If anyone of those things don't match what GZ said, then game over, I suspect all three won't match his story of events. That is what forensics will do and more. GZ is gonna wish he had never said a word to police. His words had better match up perfectly with the forensics. If they don't one lie is enough to tear the whole story......which is most likely whats gonna happen.

Originally posted by fbluth
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Bullet angle will be huge in this case, but you knew that.

The only way I can see it being huge is if it is shown to have gone through the back. A gun being fought for can go off just about any angle, as long as it's from front to back, I don't see it mattering all that much....

Forensics will also show if TM had any of GZ DNA under his nails, like from possibly scratching GZ head to get away from him instead of GZ lame story of his head being beaten in the sidewalk.

It would only show there was an altercation, which is already known.

Forensics will also show if TM's hand had any saliva from GZ on him. One of GZ claims is that TM covered his mouth to keep him from yelling. GZ better hope his DNA is found on TM hands.

Yeah, I am sure they swabbed him head to toe checking for saliva...... You watch too much CSI I think.

If anyone of those things don't match what GZ said, then game over, I suspect all three won't match his story of events. That is what forensics will do and more. GZ is gonna wish he had never said a word to police. His words had better match up perfectly with the forensics. If they don't one lie is enough to tear the whole story......which is most likely whats gonna happen.