Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Seaward wrote:
Something else I noticed that I may be misinterpreting, as no one else has mentioned it that I've seen:

Jeantel's testimony included the tidbit that when she reconnected with Martin, he told her he was in back of his father's fiancee's home. The actual fight took place 70 yards from that house. Not sure how those two facts can both be true if Martin didn't go back out to look for Zimmerman.

70 yards is 210 feet. There would be numerous houses, fences, and roads in his way. We'd need a map of the neighborhood to know really if Martin had easy access to his residence.

Pure straight line along a side walk to get to the back porch of the house.

Le voila.

My i aks what you as trying to prove with the pictures(Im not being rude, Im genuinely confused)

 LordofHats wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
Something else I noticed that I may be misinterpreting, as no one else has mentioned it that I've seen:

Jeantel's testimony included the tidbit that when she reconnected with Martin, he told her he was in back of his father's fiancee's home. The actual fight took place 70 yards from that house. Not sure how those two facts can both be true if Martin didn't go back out to look for Zimmerman.

70 yards is 210 feet. There would be numerous houses, fences, and roads in his way. We'd need a map of the neighborhood to know really if Martin had easy access to his residence.

As the maps show, it couldn't get easier. He had a straight line with nothing blocking his way. 70 yards would take just a handful of seconds to cross.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
My i aks what you as trying to prove with the pictures(Im not being rude, Im genuinely confused)

Lord was asking for them, he wanted to see what impediments Martin may have had in his way from reaching the home he was staying at.

And what was the time between when Zimmerman started looking and when the fight with Martin occured?

EDIT: I ask because it looks like he could have made it now did he have the time to get there and back behind Zimmerman without Zimmerman noticing.

So he could have ran home, but instead decided to beat Z?

 LordofHats wrote:
And what was the time between when Zimmerman started looking and when the fight with Martin occured?

EDIT: I ask because it looks like he could have made it now did he have the time to get there and back behind Zimmerman without Zimmerman noticing.

It was 3 minutes and 14 seconds from the time Z hung up the phone with the police, (31 seconds after he said he lost site of Martin), and Martin was shot.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So he could have ran home, but instead decided to beat Z?

That is how I am interpreting the evidence.

Edit: Added specifics.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So he could have ran home, but instead decided to beat Z?

That's what the guys are saying.

I didn't know about this. His this been corroborated? If so, why the hell is there a trial?

I don't think he went home. I have lived in a suburb though and it isn't hard to circle around without people noticing. Wonder if the defense will argue that's what happened.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
So he could have ran home, but instead decided to beat Z?

If Rachel Jenteal's testimony is accurate, then he had already made it home and somehow got back to the shooting site.

Edit: Or, to state it more accurately, if both her testimony is accurate and it meant what it appears to have meant.

 LordofHats wrote:
I don't think he went home. I have lived in a suburb though and it isn't hard to circle around without people noticing. Wonder if the defense will argue that's what happened.

The testimony from Jeantel is that Z did find Martin, 3 minutes after Z said he lost site of Martin. 3 minutes, 70 yards. You do the math.

 whembly wrote:
If so, why the hell is there a trial?

That's a question that, even without this aspect of Jenteal's testimony, more and more people are thankfully starting to ask. It has an answer that I referred to earlier in this thread: the media slanted the ever-loving gak out of this incident, and people got riled up and demanded a trial.

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If so, why the hell is there a trial?

That's a question that, even without this aspect of Jenteal's testimony, more and more people are thankfully starting to ask. It has an answer that I referred to earlier in this thread: the media slanted the ever-loving gak out of this incident, and people got riled up and demanded a trial.

When this is done, I hope Zimmerman sues the ever living hell out of MSNBC. He should die a millionaire for what they did to him.

I'm amazed that everything she said is either a lie, or completely unreliable.

Except the tiny bit that might help Z. That bit was the truth.

 djones520 wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 whembly wrote:
If so, why the hell is there a trial?

That's a question that, even without this aspect of Jenteal's testimony, more and more people are thankfully starting to ask. It has an answer that I referred to earlier in this thread: the media slanted the ever-loving gak out of this incident, and people got riled up and demanded a trial.

When this is done, I hope Zimmerman sues the ever living hell out of MSNBC. He should die a millionaire for what they did to him.

Agreed...

Especially if this bit of information is accurate... I even don't think the Martin's would have a civil case against Zimmerman.

djones520 wrote:
The testimony from Jeantel is that Z did find Martin, 3 minutes after Z said he lost site of Martin. 3 minutes, 70 yards. You do the math.

I don't think anything she says can be believed at this point. She keeps changing the story. But I do notice when people happily start believing her when her story changes to fit what they want to think happened. I'm betting though that the jury is likely to believe her newer testimony though so Zimmerman's probably in the safe zone.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm amazed that everything she said is either a lie, or completely unreliable.

Except the tiny bit that might help Z. That bit was the truth.

Then take her testimony out completely...

State would have no case... none.

They'd still have a case. They just wouldn't have a witness claiming to have intimate knowledge of Martin's state of mind. The prosecution has botched their jobs from the get go though. Even before this there was a lot of stupid decision making.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm amazed that everything she said is either a lie, or completely unreliable.

Except the tiny bit that might help Z. That bit was the truth.

Well she admitted she lied about about some of her testimony, she admitted it while she was on the stand. I haven't heard anyone claim the rest of her testimony was a lie.

But phone records indicate when the call between her and Martin was lost, that can't be refuted.

 d-usa wrote:
I'm amazed that everything she said is either a lie, or completely unreliable.

Except the tiny bit that might help Z. That bit was the truth.

I don't believe everything was a lie or unreliable save the stuff that helped George Zimmerman.

I believe, for example, she finally provided her real name under oath.

The important aspects of her testimony have changed multiple times, often depending on the circumstances in which she was interviewed. She denied a key aspect of her testimony - what she originally said she heard Zimmerman say to Martin - right up until the transcript of the deposition was read to her, then she said she remembered saying it, but it wasn't what happened.

For what it's worth, I think she's probably unreliable with regards to where Martin said he was at various points during their conversation, including the bits that "help Z." I think, frankly, that she (rightly) sees herself as the only real shot the prosecution has, and consciously tried to make her testimony as favorable as possible to Martin, even lying in numerous spots. Do I blame her for that? Not really, actually. But it doesn't change the fact that she was a train wreck of a witness who impeached the prosecution's case numerous times.

There is still a case, especially enough of one to send it to a jury to decide.

Some people shouldn't let the media whip them into a frenzy about how there is no case, especially people who complained about the media whipping people into a frenzy.

 LordofHats wrote:
They'd still have a case. They just wouldn't have a witness claiming to have intimate knowledge of Martin's state of mind. The prosecution has botched their jobs from the get go though. Even before this there was a lot of stupid decision making.

I very much doubt they'd have a case, honestly. They don't currently appear to have one even with the testimony. The numerous people involved with the initial decision that the state didn't have enough evidence for a conviction of anything, much less second degree murder, aren't looking quite so lazy/racist/complicit currently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
There is still a case, especially enough of one to send it to a jury to decide.

Some people shouldn't let the media whip them into a frenzy about how there is no case, especially people who complained about the media whipping people into a frenzy.

I certainly hope you're not referencing me. I'm discussing the actual trial proceedings; most of the talking heads are still very much on the, "Oh, this is a slam dunk for the prosecution, Zimmerman had a gun!" train.

Same here. I got to watch the last couple days of testimony, that's what I'm basing this stuff off of. The prosecution's witnesses have done nothing but show that there was ample time for Martin to get away, and that Zimmerman was the one getting his ass beat by Martin.

They have done nothing to show clear evidence that Zimmerman was threatening Martin, or intended to cause him any harm.

If we're tracking how bad Prosecution is I hope the Martin parents are tracking like us. So when Z walks they do not play the race card on Prosecution...

So none of you are reading any news stories of any kind in regards to this story? Just watching testimony without any commentary at all?

Color me surprised.

 d-usa wrote:
So none of you are reading any news stories of any kind in regards to this story? Just watching testimony without any commentary at all?

Color me surprised.

Only in looking for factual wording, from the testimony. I haven't read a single op-ed piece on the matter since the trial started.

Edit: Granted, I don't read to many op-ed's on anything now a days.

 d-usa wrote:
So none of you are reading any news stories of any kind in regards to this story? Just watching testimony without any commentary at all?

Color me surprised.

There's a live feed online that doesn't involve a bunch of babbling idiots every time there's a recess, nor commercial breaks.

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So none of you are reading any news stories of any kind in regards to this story? Just watching testimony without any commentary at all?

Color me surprised.

There's a live feed online that doesn't involve a bunch of babbling idiots every time there's a recess, nor commercial breaks.

Yup... that's what I'd prefer...

The problem with doing that is that it's easy to miss context.

 d-usa wrote:
So none of you are reading any news stories of any kind in regards to this story? Just watching testimony without any commentary at all?

Color me surprised.

You mean like all those news stories that tried to make this out to be a race hate crime at the start, and had edited recordings of 911 calls?