Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

TorchTheWitch

(11,065 posts)
116. well, let's start with Z's re-enactment
Tue Jul 2, 2013, 05:09 AM
Jul 2013


So, nothing much interesting happens until around 6 minutes in where Z says that he couldn't remember the name of the street. This ties in with what he said later about his supposedly getting out of the car to try to get an address rather than getting out of the car to chase Martin which we all can tell from his 911 call (or non-emergency line he called) was the real reason he got out of the car. Right there is where he starts trying to cover up what he was really doing. Now, this guy has lived here for 3 years and there are only 3 streets in the complex. He's also the neighborhood watch dude who has been spending a lot of time cruising around the complex looking for stuff to report to the police. The very idea that he doesn't know the name of the street or can describe where he is and how police can find him is ludicrous.

Next thing is that he tells the operator (911 or non-emergency line) that police can meet him at his car, but he omits that he told the operator later in the call to have police call him when they get there and he'll tell them where he's at. It's pretty clear that the reason he did that was because he was going to continue looking for Martin and would not be waiting for police at his car.

Next thing is that he starts explaining that he gets to the top of the "T" and Martin materializes from nowhere right next to him and asks him if he's got a problem, he says no, and he says that Martin replied "You've got a problem now" and punched him in the face. This is all contrary to Rachel's testimony of what was said and how to two encountered each other. Martin was also still holding his phone and had his headset on and we know this because a) he was talking to Rachel, and b) both his phone and headset were found in the grass not far from where his body lay. Who picks a fist fight with someone while talking on their phone to someone while holding their phone and with their headset still on?

Further, Z is explaining where this took place on the grass a good many feet away from the sidewalk. He says he either fell down or was pushed down, starts saying that Martin then got on top of him then realizes he's not anywhere near the sidewalk where he claims to have Martin climb on top of him and supposedly was pounding his head into the sidewalk and walks a good many feet to another spot where he says it was in that spot where Martin got on top of him and did this supposed head pounding. But Martin's body was much farther down the walkway of the long arm of the "T" and quite a distance from that walkway. How on earth could Martin's body ended up there when we know he was shot directly in the heart, that Z claims he didn't get up and travel any distance on his own and that he just rolled Martin's body off of him. How could Martin's body ended up that far from the sidewalk when even Z claims that all he did was roll Martin off of him? That alone makes it obvious that they were not close enough to the sidewalk for this supposed head pounding on it and never mind the obvious lack of injuries from having one's head repeated slammed into concrete.

Now the lies start coming fast and furious... he claims that Martin has him by the head with both hands pounding his head into the concrete and Z claims this is when he starts to scream and Martin lets go of his head and covers his bloody mouth and nose with both hands yet we know from the 911 call from one of the witnesses that the screaming does not stop once it started until the gunshot. How does Z continue to scream with his mouth and nose covered? And let's remember that there was not only not a speck of Z's blood on any portion of Martin's hands but not even a single cell of his DNA when he supposedly covered Z's bloody mouth and nose with both hands. There is also not a speck of Z's blood on Martin's shirt where having his arms and hands beneath his body may have wiped off some of that blood nor was it raining so hard or the grass so wet that it could possibly have removed every speck of Z's blood and DNA from Martin's hands. He is also unable to explain this when going through that 911 call with the police. He has no explanation for how he was able to continuously scream with both his mouth and nose covered.

All this time Z's arms and hands are free. He has no explanation for what he was doing with them while all this was going on. Why does he not try to hit Martin or try to get his hands off his head to stop the pounding or try to pry his hands off his mouth and nose or go for his gun with one of them? We're supposed to believe that while Martin is doing all this to him that he didn't do anything at all with his arms and hands to defend himself??? Ridiculous. We're supposed to believe that he did nothing at all with his arms and hands to try to stop this attack until at the last moment he suddenly remembers he has a gun on him. Baloney.

Then Z says he starts screaming for help but has no explanation how he could do that with Martin covering his mouth and nose with both hands. If Martin let go of his mouth and nose he never says that nor does he say what Martin started doing with them. Either we're supposed to believe that Z started screaming for help with his mouth and nose covered by both of Martin's hands or that Martin removed his hands from his mouth and nose and did nothing else with them... didn't hit him, didn't start pounding his head again, didn't try to strangle him, nothing. And we know from the photos that there was no smeared blood around Z's mouth and nose from having his bloody mouth and nose covered nor any other smeared blood anywhere on him.

Now he says that his jacket started riding up of its own accord. First of all, Z's jacket was unzipped. Had he been lying on his back the two sides of the jacket would have fallen back to the ground exposing the holstered gun. And we know that from testimony from his own defense attorney, O'Mara, that all he had to do to expose his gun holstered in his pants was to thrust that hip forward a bit which made that side of his jacket fall away toward his rear because that's exactly how O'Mara demonstrated how Z showed the officer where his gun was so the officer could take it from him.

Then he said he could feel Martin's hand moving down his side toward the gun, and this is when Z becomes speedy Gonzales and is able to whip his own hand down there and grab it himself all the while screaming himself while Martin is doing nothing at all with his other arm and hand. Rubbish. The whole time Martin was straddling him doing all this pounding and smothering he would have felt that gun with his thigh that was right on top of it. How did Z get to his own gun in his pants and so quickly either with Martin's leg right on top of it or up higher on Z's chest so that Z's hand couldn't have gotten past Martin's leg to get to it himself. Or are we supposed to believe that Martin straddled him so car down near Z's knees while all this was going on that no portion of his legs or knees could have been in the way? Are we supposed to believe that Martin didn't have any legs??? Or that he had such a "wide stance" straddle that either one of them could have quickly gotten to the gun with their hand??? Didn't happen. And it didn't happen because Z long since already had his gun out in his hand. His first explanation to police was that Martin was fighting with him to get his gun out of his hand.

Now comes some more Hollywood silly movie lines... Z claims that with the jacket riding up all on its own instead of having been flapped back against the ground from being unzipped that Martin sees the gun after already letting his hand travel down Z's side for no reason while the other arm and hand did nothing at all and with no leg in the way of it, reaches for it and says "You're going to die tonight, motherfucker.". He says he grabs his gun out and shoots Martin at point black range right into his heart and Martin delivers the classic movie line "You got me". Never mind the fact that Martin was probably already dead or nearly so. In Z's first sit down interview with Serino Z tells him that Martin continued to talk after delivering this Hollywood movie line even when Z flipped him over and got on top of him. Didn't happen. Martin was already dead.
https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=999

Then here's a whopper... Z then says that Martin either fell off of him or he pushed him off of him, and gets on top of him and spreads his arms out straight. Huh? How could that possibly be when we know Martin was discovered face down with both arms and hands tucked under his body? He was dead. He couldn't have moved his arms and hands under his own body himself, and every witness who saw him following the shot testified that Martin never moved. Unbelievably, Z also says that at this point when he is on top of Martin holding his arms away from his body that he didn't think he had hit him! How in the world could he NOT have hit him with the bullet at point blank range into his chest??? Totally unbelievable and totally contradicts what we know about how Martin's body was found and that Z can't be so stupid as to believe that he didn't hit him at that range and in that huge chest target. This is the same kind of outrageous claim by shooters as the "the gun just went off" excuse to try to make it appear that they didn't really mean to shoot the person and is even more ridiculous.

Then he says that Martin had been repeatedly punching him in the face. WHAT? Z never said that Martin ever punched him more than the first supposed punch while they were still standing and how he explains they landed on the ground with Martin on top of him. Further, there is zero evidence that Z was repeatedly punched in the face from his photos at the scene and Martin's pristine unbloodied hands. Right hear Z totally changes his story adding in these repeated punches to the face that we know from physical evidence of his face and Martin's hands as well as Z's previous story of what happened on this very video a few moments prior that Martin never punched him in the face even once by the time they were on the ground. Z doesn't explain how he missed this supposed punching with his explanation and it shows where he's confusing his stories because his first explanation to police before the recorded ones with Serino. In that first explanation he claimed Martin punched him in the face 35-40 times. We know that all these punches to his face never occurred because his own face pictured at the scene while he was still bloody does not in the least show repeated punches to his face. I guess he forgot to drop that bit with this story though he remembered not to mention all these supposed punches just a few moments before as he was going through his step by step version of events. That's one fucking HUGE ENORMOUS whopper of an inconsistency.

Now he thinks Martin had something in his hands which is why he moved his arms away from his body. First, he never did move his arms away from his body as Martin died nearly instantly and his arms and hands were tucked beneath his body. Second, how on earth could Z believe he had something in his hands and still be able to grab his head and pound it into the ground as well as cover his nose and mouth? We're supposed to believe that Z actually thought this??? This is where Z's story really starts going completely off the rails.

Now the Asian guy with the flashlight shows up and Z notices him. But we already heard testimony from this man as well as others that testified that the guy with the flashlight did not show up until Z was long since standing up off of Martin's body. Z goes into an imaginary scenario of the entire conversation with Asian flashlight man by first saying that he was still sitting on Martin when that guy testified that he first came into contact with Z when Z approached him and the guy noticed his face had blood on it. Another witness testified that saw Z pacing up and down the walkway several times before the guy showed up which IIRC was his wife.

Then Z goes into this imaginary conversation that happens between him and Asian flashlight man that is not only completely contradictory to that man's testimony but also reverses much of which of them said what in their conversation. First, Z was not on top of Martin when the guy showed up nor was there any conversation about his helping Z hold Martin down. For example, Z says it was himself that asked the guy to call 911 when it was that man's testimony that it was HIMSELF that asked Z if he should call 911 and that Z told him he already did. Asian flashlight man testified that he first encountered Z as Z was walking up to him, he noticed that Z was on his cellphone as he had it to his ear, that he asked Z if he needed to call 911 and that Z told him he already did. Z's saying that all this fictitious conversation with the guy occurred while he was still sitting on Martin and holding him down when we know from that guy and at least one other witness that this is not what happened. We also know from Asian flashlight guy's testimony that what little conversation they had included nothing about helping Z hold Martin down, nor was it Z who asked him to call 911. Z also mentions nothing about asking the guy to call his wife which the guy testified he did and that Z interrupted that call by telling the guy to "just tell her I shot someone." Z totally fabricates the encounter with Asian flashlight guy in both where he was and what he was doing as well as their conversation and which of them said what... all in an effort to try to make himself appear like the good guy by claiming it was himself that wanted the guy to call 911 and omitting the part where he asks the guy to call his wife interrupts the call and tells the guy to "just tell her I shot someone."

Then Z says that the police officer's arrival was when he got up off of Martin's body when that officer testified that he encountered Z and the guy talking together while both were standing some distance from the body. More fabrication from Z.

Z then demonstrates how he just moves his right arm upward exposing his gun and telling the officer that's where his gun was. Z had his jacket unzipped, so it was unzipped while he was on the ground tussling with Martin so there was no riding up of his jacket that took place at that time for Martin to see only at that time that he had a gun. If it was that easy to see that by just that little movement as even O'Mara described in court for Z's gun to be seen than it would have been just as easy for Martin to have seen it when he and Z first encountered each other if Z didn't purposely expose it or draw it at that time. Martin having the gun drawn on him or seeing it at the start of their encounter would have certainly given Martin every reason to believe that this creep who was following him and chasing him through the complex intended on shooting him and therefore, every reason to fight for his life.

Further, in Z's first explanation to police not only does he claim he was repeated punched in the face about 35-40 times he also said that Martin was going for the gun in his hand during their struggle on the ground.

And that's just this re-enactment. Why on earth the defense wanted it in evidence I have no idea as clearly there are so many lies and inconsistencies by Z in his own words in it.



Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

They overcharged. Stupid. dkf Jul 2013 #1
I totally agree. The MOMENT he pulled the trigger it was manslaughter. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #2
Public pressure, not facts of the case drove this prosecution.. pipoman Jul 2013 #3
PUBLIC PRESSURE FOR JUSTICE Skittles Jul 2013 #96
RIGHT pipoman Jul 2013 #100
no Skittles Jul 2013 #101
Rants work on the DU.. pipoman Jul 2013 #106
I often wonder... Scootaloo Jul 2013 #108
Zimmerman is a gun-humping vigilante COWARD Skittles Jul 2013 #111
23 million in secret payouts to dozens of overnight "houseguests"... TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #120
people go after people with money Skittles Jul 2013 #144
Show me another celebrity with a REMOTELY SIMILAR history... TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #148
show me another celebrity with a REMOTELY SIMILAR upbringing Skittles Jul 2013 #149
Not many children of celebrity suffer a NORMAL upbringing. TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #150
er........what? Skittles Jul 2013 #152
Skittles, I totally agree with you about MJ......... TheDebbieDee Jul 2013 #153
thank you Skittles Jul 2013 #154
And FAMOUS people with "issues" are given free passes... TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #155
Famous people with power and money don't get a free pass............ TheDebbieDee Jul 2013 #157
I'm talking of the millions of fans who deny the evidence. TheMadMonk Jul 2013 #158
I think that coward may very well walk Skittles Jul 2013 #109
Lesser included dpibel Jul 2013 #11
You can't make both arguments at once. A second degree closing won't be the right one to get dkf Jul 2013 #16
Then those instructions must all be wrong dpibel Jul 2013 #18
Sure you can. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #125
Actually YES it can....I was on a jury for a murder trial. The accused was charged with first degree VanillaRhapsody Jul 2013 #146
I think it is. I think I found a chart saying that manslaughter is JDPriestly Jul 2013 #114
Manslaughter is on the table. If the jury finds him guilty of manslaughter he'll get 30 years. nt Tx4obama Jul 2013 #22
I read that for aggravated manslaughter of a child, involving a gun, Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #102
They said on TV tonight 30 years, so that's all I know. Tx4obama Jul 2013 #107
How does a self defense plea work against one charge but not the other? JVS Jul 2013 #112
Self defense does work for either. dkf Jul 2013 #128
He is charged with manslaughter. Lesser included charge. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #124
AGAIN? demwing Jul 2013 #127
You really do not understand what my point is at all. dkf Jul 2013 #130
The state must have known Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #4
Don't be stupid. SYG was taken off the table a long time ago by Z's lawyers. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #5
Stupid? Lex Jul 2013 #6
Easy writer Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #7
That's a pretty cynical view if you ask me; the State giving up a life for a "loftier" goal. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #8
post edited/updated Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #9
I thought as much... but my opinion stands: This isn't about SYG nor were the charges. n/t cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #12
The state responded to the pressure of the people Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #14
Wouldn't that mean redefining self defense? Is that what you want? dkf Jul 2013 #17
I think thats the headline of the fix Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #23
What does it matter how long it took to charge? Isn't it more important to get it right? dkf Jul 2013 #30
Of course Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #38
If he isn't convicted maybe that was the right call. dkf Jul 2013 #50
This message was self-deleted by its author dpibel Jul 2013 #55
The NSA defines that as 51% so a coin flip plus one, not all that high a bar. dkf Jul 2013 #61
This message was self-deleted by its author dpibel Jul 2013 #74
The injuries, and his statement that he was afraid TM would go after his gun seem enough to me. dkf Jul 2013 #78
You're fading a bit dpibel Jul 2013 #83
If he was afraid for his life he could have gotten off of Martin and taken a hike lumpy Jul 2013 #98
I personally think Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2, but he gets the JDPriestly Jul 2013 #115
it was TRAYVON who was STANDING HIS GROUND Skittles Jul 2013 #103
He was not indicted by a grand jury pintobean Jul 2013 #133
I stand corrected Boom Sound 416 Jul 2013 #138
You throw out that word "stupid" as if you knew what it meant demwing Jul 2013 #131
then clearly you missed all the numerous inconsistencies and lies TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #10
Apparently, so did the first interviewer and the Lead Detective. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #15
well, let's start with Z's re-enactment TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #116
this is a great post and i think you should start a thread on it JI7 Jul 2013 #117
I pray to God you are either Bernie De La Ronda or John Guy and you use this in your closing. Tommy_Carcetti Jul 2013 #126
You can send something to them? TorchTheWitch Jul 2013 #147
Wish this was a OP so I could rec it. Little Star Jul 2013 #132
Wish I was following the trial like others up here Roland99 Jul 2013 #134
No forensic evidence of injuries to Martin except that he was shot dead by Zimmerman. yardwork Jul 2013 #151
this was great NatBurner Jul 2013 #137
Torch the Witch I hope the jury gets it.. Voice for Peace Jul 2013 #142
This case has had its highs & lows giftedgirl77 Jul 2013 #13
I guess you missed the part of the testimony where the first officer on the scene described Z's cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #19
Have you seen the photos? giftedgirl77 Jul 2013 #139
That's not what the first interviewing officer said premium Jul 2013 #141
I'm not disputing that, giftedgirl77 Jul 2013 #145
Ummm, GZ's clothes were not pristine, premium Jul 2013 #20
All it proves it that they were both rolling around on the ground before Zimmerman shot Trayvon Tx4obama Jul 2013 #26
And I was just correcting the poster that his premium Jul 2013 #27
No you weren't. You were also drawing conclusions. uppityperson Jul 2013 #42
This message was self-deleted by its author premium Jul 2013 #51
No, I'll just quote your conclusion "indicating that he was on his back struggling." uppityperson Jul 2013 #54
Hahahahahaha, premium Jul 2013 #57
In which case I was mistaken. He drew a conclusion and I was wrong in saying it was you. They way uppityperson Jul 2013 #59
I accept it, premium Jul 2013 #66
I've been wrong before, will be so again. Thanks. ETA, won't slink off uppityperson Jul 2013 #67
Yeh, and the first intervening officers were ready to shoot Trayvon who was aready Hoyt Jul 2013 #48
I said interviewing officer, not intervening officer. nt. premium Jul 2013 #52
This message was self-deleted by its author giftedgirl77 Jul 2013 #140
Zimmerman has NOT testified UNDER OATH in a court of law. Tx4obama Jul 2013 #21
He already buried himself. Rex Jul 2013 #24
He buried himself, premium Jul 2013 #29
No much earlier, not today. Rex Jul 2013 #33
So far, the prosecutions witness' are helping the defense premium Jul 2013 #37
Manslaughter still on the table, could get 30 years. Rex Jul 2013 #39
Yep, premium Jul 2013 #40
he is a COWARD - he won't testify Skittles Jul 2013 #105
Nor does he have to. He did, however testify today, without significant inconsistencies. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #25
But you are not using the LEGAL definition of the word 'testify' Tx4obama Jul 2013 #28
You might consider quotes around "testify" jberryhill Jul 2013 #31
As per usual, you are correct. Edit made. n/t cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #36
Your point is valid jberryhill Jul 2013 #47
Would it be possible before the jury is dismissed to deliberate pnwmom Jul 2013 #68
Beats me jberryhill Jul 2013 #70
Do you know of any state where it would be possible? I was following pnwmom Jul 2013 #72
All I know is... jberryhill Jul 2013 #80
You think the dying black youth said, "Oh, gosh, you me you got me"? pnwmom Jul 2013 #32
You think you can put words into my mouth? Gee whiz, really? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #34
I'm not putting words into your mouth. You said he didn't say anything to indicate pnwmom Jul 2013 #35
I don't know what the dying black youth said. Nor do you. Is it possible he said "You SHOT me"? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #43
But things would have been much clearer for Zimmerman because he wasn't drunk or stoned. pnwmom Jul 2013 #46
So you are saying that what Zimmy "testified" to today was not really what happened? uppityperson Jul 2013 #49
I'm saying he may have "misunderHEARD" given the gravity of the moment and adrenaline. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #58
He misheard "oh gosh, you got me" and testified that is what he heard? Any possibility he is not uppityperson Jul 2013 #62
Are you for real? Llewlladdwr Jul 2013 #99
Well, that is the first time I've read that is what he said and while that makes more uppityperson Jul 2013 #110
If there's reasonable doubt, and there might be, it's because the police pnwmom Jul 2013 #63
The question isn't whether or not Zimmerman KILLED Trayvon. We know he did. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #69
We agree that manslaughter would have been the better charge. pnwmom Jul 2013 #71
He's guilty of manslaughter and I will clap with glee if that's what he's convicted of. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #76
Zimmerman dug his own grave. Rex Jul 2013 #45
It takes about 15-45 seconds to die from being shot in the heart. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #53
The language. Have you heard a Teen say "oh gosh" any time recently? In the 21st century? uppityperson Jul 2013 #56
How about "Rather LAST BREATH"? cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #60
Trayvon said "last breath, you got me"? What? How about "let's splash, you are all wet"? uppityperson Jul 2013 #64
This message was self-deleted by its author cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #73
Excuse me but Mr. Uppity is NOT stupid. eom uppityperson Jul 2013 #75
I apologize. That came across WAAY more sarcastic than I meant it. cherokeeprogressive Jul 2013 #77
Thank you. uppityperson Jul 2013 #91
Zimmerman must be a fan of the movie Used Cars ... ThePhilosopher04 Jul 2013 #94
Humans are not deer or elk and no way can they run 100yards. lumpy Jul 2013 #89
The bullet entrance wound should indicate whether the bullet entered lumpy Jul 2013 #81
I didn't realize there was even still any question about this. Captain Stern Jul 2013 #123
Downthread he says TM said "rather last breath, you got me". Golly jeepers! uppityperson Jul 2013 #65
not even REMOTELY believable Skittles Jul 2013 #79
There is so much wrong in Zimmerman's statements of what happened lumpy Jul 2013 #85
I have to tell you lumpy Skittles Jul 2013 #86
Yes, personally I believe it didn't go down the way Zimmerman painted it. lumpy Jul 2013 #93
He will be found innocent, hopefully the verdict will be respected.. ram2008 Jul 2013 #41
You mean like the Diallo verdict? King? Bell? Zongo? Chamberlain? BklnDem75 Jul 2013 #143
Last questions from the day's testimony Azathoth Jul 2013 #44
Interesting the part of O'Mara's question you left out Just Saying Jul 2013 #84
Interesting you didn't feel the need to include the part of the transcript Azathoth Jul 2013 #87
Nice try Just Saying Jul 2013 #88
I don't think most jurors would have a hard time figuring out how to take his response Azathoth Jul 2013 #92
Thank you, premium Jul 2013 #90
Perhaps that was because they might be covering up their asses because lumpy Jul 2013 #95
Your editing of the transcript did very much so, shift the meaning graham4anything Jul 2013 #113
huh? naaman fletcher Jul 2013 #118
Yes, I saw it. 100% zimmerman guilty and Serano thought so. Zimmy is a pathelogical liar imho graham4anything Jul 2013 #119
Back that up. pintobean Jul 2013 #122
he qualified it with saying "if you don't believe he is a liar" well, zimmy lied and Trayvon died. graham4anything Jul 2013 #135
Get it right. premium Jul 2013 #136
Serino never said he thought Zimmerman was guilty, premium Jul 2013 #129
Defense Will Have To Overcome ... ThePhilosopher04 Jul 2013 #82
If the jury is awake, thinking and listening perhaps it can be helpful that lumpy Jul 2013 #97
YOU KNOW IT, PHILOSOPHER Skittles Jul 2013 #104
Serino nailed him -- "What's behind that?" "That's not fear." KurtNYC Jul 2013 #121
cause he's a fucking idiot CatWoman Jul 2013 #156
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»George Zimmerman "testifi...»Reply #116