It is currently Tue Jun 17, 2025 6:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 983 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 50  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:54 pm
Posts: 659
OK Randomizers (is that what we are called here?), I have the GZ chat server up and running. http://sun2.highwayusa.com/gzchat/

It is web based and works through my very restrictive firewall at work, so it should work for most people. Let me know if you have any questions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:09 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57127
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
It seems that nobody wants to start any "Daily Discussion"? :95



I have provided the venue... but it wont be "Daily Discussion" unless people post things.... DAILY........ :45



I don't want to be the one person who always starts discussion... this place is not "Rumpole's Blog"


But...... in the absence of any other discussion.......Let me get one ball rolling:

Just as a spark... a post from JQ... from one of the Alpha Cretins.. actually speaking about the case (very rare) and the "wealth of evidence" against George.


Data Venia wrote:
Are all of the above sources of evidence -- 1) George's 911 call, 2) at least one witness, 3) where the fight ended up, 4) Zimmerman's statements, 5) shell casings, and 6) Mr. Martin's body -- things Detective Gilbreath said under oath the State had? Yes or no? I'm not asking if you think they're good sources or will prove the case. I'm just asking if, when reading this for comprehension of the speaker's POV and actual words, the conclusion would be that the speaker is claiming to have something other than the "nothing" you allege. Enough trolling. Time to either engage honestly or be ignored.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:47 am
Posts: 155
Location: Deland, Florida
Well, let's see. Number 1: George's 911 call was actually a NEN call and it is not incriminating evidence. George tells of Trayvon's suspicious behavior and that he looks like he is on drugs or something. Number 2: There is more than one witness that heard the cries for help and saw George on the bottom. Number 3: Where the fight ended up proves Trayvon back tracked to the T. Number 4: George's statements while not verbatum were consistent with him having to use self defense. If this was their evidence, case closed, let's go home.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 3:00 pm
Posts: 288
Rumpole wrote:
It seems that nobody wants to start any "Daily Discussion"? :95



I have provided the venue... but it wont be "Daily Discussion" unless people post things.... DAILY........ :45



I don't want to be the one person who always starts discussion... this place is not "Rumpole's Blog"


But...... in the absence of any other discussion.......Let me get one ball rolling:

Just as a spark... a post from JQ... from one of the Alpha Cretins.. actually speaking about the case (very rare) and the "wealth of evidence" against George.


Data Venia wrote:
Are all of the above sources of evidence -- 1) George's 911 call, 2) at least one witness, 3) where the fight ended up, 4) Zimmerman's statements, 5) shell casings, and 6) Mr. Martin's body -- things Detective Gilbreath said under oath the State had? Yes or no? I'm not asking if you think they're good sources or will prove the case. I'm just asking if, when reading this for comprehension of the speaker's POV and actual words, the conclusion would be that the speaker is claiming to have something other than the "nothing" you allege. Enough trolling. Time to either engage honestly or be ignored.


Not sure what all the DV verbage is about but as I remember it, O'Mara asked Gilbreath if the investigation had turned up anything to refute Zimmerman's statement of self defense and Gilbreath said "No". Is the "NO" the indication that DV writes about that the State has more then "NO"? Isn't it the State's responsibility to prove beyond a reasonable doubt their charges against George are true, which includes proving that the shot was fired with malicious intent when George was being beat up by Martin.


Last edited by cherpa1 on Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 4:22 pm
Posts: 176
I am still trying to learn my way around and have noticed no replies to my posts so maybe I am doing something wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 133
jordan2 wrote:
I am still trying to learn my way around and have noticed no replies to my posts so maybe I am doing something wrong.


I looked and haven't seen any. But now you have one! :28

Make sure you have checked you "user control panel" and have it set up they way you want it.

_________________
No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it will never become the TRUTH!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:36 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:16 am
Posts: 710
Justfactsplz - seems pretty simple doesn't it...

Rumpole - I think everyone is looking for something new to discuss, rather than rehashing. Maybe, if the depositions were held on Friday, we will hear something this week...some new motions perhaps.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:40 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57127
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
jordan2 wrote:
I am still trying to learn my way around and have noticed no replies to my posts so maybe I am doing something wrong.



I have seen your posts, Jordan and some responses to them

A forum tends to progress.... people do not keep going back to quote any individual post.

I know you are used to that... but frankly that blog comment format is a pain to navigate.

A new comment may well appear way back where people were posting 12 hours ago.... surely that is not the ideal way to have an ongoing discussion.

The linear format is (IMO) MUCH superior... you can see what I am posting now in this post... one post back is what was posted a few minutes ago... etc.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:43 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57127
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
flgirl543 wrote:
Justfactsplz - seems pretty simple doesn't it...

Rumpole - I think everyone is looking for something new to discuss, rather than rehashing. Maybe, if the depositions were held on Friday, we will hear something this week...some new motions perhaps.



True.... but to keep things ticking over and the "daily discussion" alive... we all need to "fake it" a little :24

It doesn't hurt to repeat/rephrase points.... just to keep discussion alive.


It gets really boring if it is just me.... or even ME replying to everything else that gets posted. I would rather butt out for a while and see what develops between a selection of people posting.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 6:55 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:15 am
Posts: 44
Justfacts covered it already, but I'll throw in mine too...

1) George's 911 (NEN) call: Pretty much everything in that call works in George's favor. Maybe most importantly, it proves that he did NOT run around the complex chasing Trayvon.

2) "At least one witness...": I'm not even sure what that's referring to. The main witnesses all either partly or strongly support George's claims. Even if we're talking about Crazy Mary, her original statement doesn't hurt George.

3) "Where the fight ended up": Umm... yep. It ended up very near the 'T', just where George says it started, and where Trayvon would have had to RETURNED to. But if they mean it was 30'-40' from the 'T'... um, well. George is punched; he's temporarily blinded and staggers, stumbles, tries to run away; Trayvon follows him, eventually pushing him to the ground. So... 30'-40'?... VERY easy to move that distance.

4) George's statements: Some slight variations, but overall VERY consistent considering the physical and emotional trauma he had just been through, and was STILL going through at the time of the statements.

5) Shell casings: I assume they meant that to being singular... "casing". But yeah, my answer to that is... "So what?" It was found close to where the shot was fired. If it's not precisely where you'd LIKE it to be... too bad. Nobody knows precisely how George and Trayvon were situated exactly at the second the shot was fired, and there are TONS of variables that could determine where that casing wound up. A NON-ISSUE.

6) Trayvon's body: Again, not sure what this is referring to. If it has something to do with the "front to back" trajectory of the bullet, the alignment of the holes in the clothes or whatever.... just... GIVE IT UP! Your goofy theories have been totally debunked.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:34 am
Posts: 892
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
DataVenia wrote:
Are all of the above sources of evidence...


Indeed, they are; but evidence of what, exactly?

I assume the landscape is "evidence that refutes Zimmerman's self-defense claim", or "evidence that proves Zimmerman was the initial physical aggressor"? If so, in what way does the following evidence apply?

DataVenia wrote:
1) George's 911 call


The call ended before the physical altercation.

DataVenia wrote:
2) at least one witness


Witness to what, exactly? Every witness saw either Zimmerman on bottom, or Martin on top, or both. No witness saw the start of the physical altercation.

DataVenia wrote:
3) where the fight ended up


The fight ended up some 35 feet away from where Zimmerman says that he was when accosted by Martin - and also, from where the fight actually started, as evidenced by the debris field.

(This is probably a good place to mention the witness who saw a "shadow" running north through the dog walk. Who could that even possibly be?)

DataVenia wrote:
4) Zimmerman's statements


All such statements are consistent that Martin was the initial physical aggressor, and that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.

DataVenia wrote:
5) shell casings


Casings? Plural?

In fact: only one, single shell casing. Might that be significant?

DataVenia wrote:
and 6) Mr. Martin's body


You mean, the body that showed absolutely no signs of sustaining any physical aggression from Zimmerman? That body?

DataVenia wrote:
...things Detective Gilbreath said under oath the State had? Yes or no? I'm not asking if you think they're good sources or will prove the case. I'm just asking if, when reading this for comprehension of the speaker's POV and actual words, the conclusion would be that the speaker is claiming to have something other than the "nothing" you allege.


Conveniently, we have Gilbreath's actual words, on record, from the bond hearing.

Regarding evidence that Zimmerman confronted Martin:

Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing wrote:
O'MARA: Zimmerman confronted Martin, those words. Where did you get that from?

GILBREATH: That was from the fact that the two of them obviously ended up together in that dog walk area. According to one of the witnesses that we talked with, there were arguing words going on before this incident occurred. But it was between two people.

O'MARA: Which means they met. I'm just curious with the word confronted and what evidence you have to support an affidavit you want in this judge to rely on that these facts with true and you use the word confronted. And I want to know your evidence to support the word confronted if you have any.

GILBREATH: Well, it's not that I have one. I probably could have used dirty words.

O'MARA: It is antagonistic word, would you agree?

GILBREATH: It could be considered that, yes.

O'MARA: Come up with words that are not antagonistic, met, came up to, spoke with.

GILBREATH: Got in physical confrontation with.

O'MARA: But you have nothing to support the confrontation suggestion, do you?

GILBREATH: I believe I answered it. I don't know how much more explanation you wish.

O'MARA: Anything you have, but you don't have any, do you?

GILBREATH: I think I've answered the question.



Regarding the supposed "voice experts":

Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing wrote:
O'MARA: A struggle ensued. We have witnesses concerning struggling, correct? You have evidence of that, right?

GILBREATH: Yes.

O'MARA: Witnesses heard people arguing, sounded like a struggle. During this time, witnesses heard numerous calls for help. Some of this was recorded. Trayvon's mom reviewed the 911 calls and identified the cry for help and Trayvon Martin's voice. Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?

GILBREATH: Did I?

O'MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?

GILBREATH: The "Orlando Sentinel" had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.

O'MARA: Is that part of your investigation?

GILBREATH: Yes.

O'MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?

GILBREATH: No.



Here's an interesting one, where even the biased, now-recused Judge Lester is forced to recognize that the PCA argues facts not in evidence:

Bond hearing facts not in evidence wrote:
DE LA RIONDA: And sir, you were asked about the next paragraph here that Zimmerman confronted Martin and a struggle ensued and you were asked a lot about what "confronted" means. If Mr. Martin was minding his own business and was going home and somebody comes up to him and starts accusing him (inaudible), wouldn't you consider that a confrontation?

GILBREATH: Yes.

DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn't turn around and start -- he was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman's the one that approached Mr. Martin, correct?

O'MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he's talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence.

LESTER: What's the objection?

O'MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in evidence to the witness.

LESTER: Sustained.



And here's a little gem, that gives context to DataVenia's original comment. Note, however, that the question is specifically in the context of evidence to support the assertion that Zimmerman was following Martin. (And as a reminder: following someone is not unlawful, does not meet the threshold of "initial physical aggressor", and does not deprive Zimmerman of the right to use force - even deadly force - in self-defense.)

Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing wrote:
O'MARA: -- or who they were or anything.

GILBREATH: They -- I cannot identify who they were, but it was at the same time frame this occurred.

O'MARA: Ok. Besides that any other evidence to support your conclusion that Mr. Zimmerman continued to follow?

GILBREATH: Other than his call and that witness?

O'MARA: Yes.

GILBREATH: And the fact that where it ended up. No.

O'MARA: Well you do have some other evidence don't you? We had Zimmerman's statement, don't you?

GILBREATH: We have Mr. Zimmerman's statements, we have the shell casings and we had Mr. Martin's body.


And now for the money shot: evidence regarding who was the initial physical aggressor:

Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing wrote:
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So do you know who started the fight?

GILBREATH: Do I know?

O'MARA: Right.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started the fight?

GILBREATH: No.



And further, regarding evidence that refutes Zimmerman's two claims: 1) that he turned to return to his car, and 2) that Martin was the initial physical aggressor:

Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing wrote:
O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one.

GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.

O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my car?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: No evidence. Correct?

GILBREATH: Understanding -- are you talking about at that point in time?

O'MARA: Since. Today. Do you have any evidence that conflicts with his suggestion that he had turned around and went back to his car?

GILBREATH: Other than his statement, no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts with that.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He answered it. He said no.

O'MARA: Any evidence that conflicts any eyewitnesses, anything that conflicts with the contention that Mr. Martin assaulted first?

GILBREATH: That contention that was given to us by him, other than filling in the figures being one following or chasing the other one, as to who threw the first blow, no.



To add insult to injury, after telling BDLR that Zimmerman's account was not consistent with his injuries, we get this:

Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing wrote:
GILBREATH: Managed to scoot away from the concrete sidewalk and that is at that point is when the shooting subsequently followed. That is not consistent with the evidence we found.

O'MARA: The injuries seem to be consistent with his story, though, don't they?

Dale; The injuries are consistent with a harder object striking the back of his head than his head was.

O'MARA: Could that be cement?

GILBREATH: Could be.

O'MARA: Did you just say it was consistent or did you say it wasn't consistent?

GILBREATH: I said it was.



See the rest of the transcript for more of Gilbreath's hilarious attempts to deflect from the fact that the State has no evidence whatsoever. But I would be remiss if I didn't bring up this example that the State wasn't interested in finding any exculpatory evidence to exonerate Zimmerman - such as, you know, the medical records that corroborated Zimmerman's account:

Gilbreath at the Bond Hearing wrote:
O'MARA: Ok. Have you ever had your nose broken?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: Have you ever had your nose fractured or broken.

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: You know that that was an injury that Mr. Zimmerman sustained, correct?

GILBREATH: I know that that is an injury that is reported to have sustained. I haven't seen any medical records to indicate that.

O'MARA: Have you asked him for them?

GILBREATH: Have I asked him for them? No.

O'MARA: Do you want a copy of them?

GILBREATH: Sure.



So, what say you, DataVenia?

DataVenia wrote:
Enough trolling. Time to either engage honestly or be ignored.


You first, eh?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:15 am
Posts: 44
Hey Rumpole, I know you and I had some similar bets with DMan about a couple of issues. But I don't remember if you bet him about the Dee Dee depo? I'm thinking we may have not taken all possibilities into account, since the original bet was simply a Yes or No proposition. She'll either show up or she won't. But later a lot of people realized there was a third possibility: That she shows up, with a lawyer, and proceeds to do nothing but Take da Fif!... one after another after another. I guess technically that still gives DMan the win, but yeah... it would be JUST on a technicality! ;)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:11 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57127
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
You have to keep track of your own Gambling habit Jello :13

I am sweet with Dman... I was ready to concede and give him an e-cake because there is no Immunity hearing.. we are going to trial.

But I made him an offer he can't refuse :9

He had to pay me an e-cake to open Registration "After Hours" so he could get in to RT :12


I was trying to butt out of discussion... but CHIP pulled me back in :13

Excellent work, as always Chip. I am always impressed when you take the time to go through a cretin post point by point.

DV may even respond.... she/he does not know when to stop digging. :31

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 133
jello333 wrote:
Justfacts covered it already, but I'll throw in mine too... I'll do my best to give there arguments from reading them over at Huff 'n Post's.

1) George's 911 (NEN) call: Pretty much everything in that call works in George's favor. Maybe most importantly, it proves that he did NOT run around the complex chasing Trayvon.
They still say he said "followed" which really means pursued. (I still have asked several times how he caught him. Crickets.)

2) "At least one witness...": I'm not even sure what that's referring to. The main witnesses all either partly or strongly support George's claims. Even if we're talking about Crazy Mary, her original statement doesn't hurt George.
W18. They think she's the witness that proves he murdered Trayvon. (I've had to re-listen to her 911 call (she's the one that was hysterical and had to be consoled) and interview and I don't hear what hey hear. But she and W11, who I think favors George. They think that she also proves he pursued him.)

3) "Where the fight ended up": Umm... yep. It ended up very near the 'T', just where George says it started, and where Trayvon would have had to RETURNED to. But if they mean it was 30'-40' from the 'T'... um, well. George is punched; he's temporarily blinded and staggers, stumbles, tries to run away; Trayvon follows him, eventually pushing him to the ground. So... 30'-40'?... VERY easy to move that distance.
Again, proof of a pursuit and a lie. George said he got hit and fell down. Their argument is that is a lie. If true, how did he end up 35' feet away. (This argument was presented by JackClouseau a few weeks back, remember? Chip and I and others tried to explain it to him. Well, it's their type of reasoning, also.

4) George's statements: Some slight variations, but overall VERY consistent considering the physical and emotional trauma he had just been through, and was STILL going through at the time of the statements.
ANY slight inconstancy is proof of a major lie and thus proof of a depraved mind intent on murder. It doesn't matter because the wounds were but mere scratches, (he didn't go to the hospital) with no cause as to how he inflicted them on himself. Trayvon had nothing to do with them because there is no proof that he even laid a hand on him.

5) Shell casings: I assume they meant that to being singular... "casing". But yeah, my answer to that is... "So what?" It was found close to where the shot was fired. If it's not precisely where you'd LIKE it to be... too bad. Nobody knows precisely how George and Trayvon were situated exactly at the second the shot was fired, and there are TONS of variables that could determine where that casing wound up. A NON-ISSUE.
Proof that he probably shot him from a distance as he got away from George's wrist lock.

6) Trayvon's body: Again, not sure what this is referring to. If it has something to do with the "front to back" trajectory of the bullet, the alignment of the holes in the clothes or whatever.... just... GIVE IT UP! Your goofy theories have been totally debunked.

The fact that the arms were not where George said that they were. He said that he spread them apart and held him down like that. They were not found in that position. Ergo, he lied therefore he murdered him. (I tried to point out that Trayvon didn't die instantaneously and that he may have lived a couple of minutes. So after George stood up he may have reached for his heart before he finally died. Of course, they told that it was impossible.)

_________________
No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it will never become the TRUTH!


Last edited by Ejarra on Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:43 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:40 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57127
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Since it's St Paddy's Day.......

Zimmerman: Scheme Team - Irish Side Step


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:43 pm 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57127
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Zimmerman: Scheme Team In Irish Clover


_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:15 am
Posts: 44
Rumpole wrote:
...because there is no Immunity hearing.. we are going to trial.


At least no immunity hearing in April, that's true. But... "we are going to trial". Are we? I'm still not completely ready to concede that. Depending on what happened at the depos, and what "bombshells" may be dropped in the near future, I can still see the State going "Lemme outta here!"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 133
My reply was in green to Jello's post.

_________________
No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it will never become the TRUTH!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 7:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 1:15 am
Posts: 44
Ejarra -- "The fact that the arms were not where George said that they were. He said that he spread them apart and held him down like that. They were not found in that position."

Actually, do you remember that really grainy picture of Trayvon that was "accidentally" released? It's very hard to figure out what you're even looking at, but once you see it, you see it. To me, it very much appears that Trayvon's arm IS out to his side. You can't see the other arm, wherever it might be, because of the darkness. But when it came out, I mentioned it over on TalkLeft. Jeralynn told me she didn't see it, but assured me that she wasn't saying I was lying, just that SHE couldn't see what I was claiming to see. So I sent her a couple PMs trying to describe it. After a couple back and forths she finally wrote back and said (paraphrasing), "Hey! I finally see what you're talking about." So yeah, despite the one police report that says Trayvon's arms were underneath him, that picture seems to prove they (at least one of them) were NOT... just as George claims.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 133
jello333 wrote:
Ejarra -- "The fact that the arms were not where George said that they were. He said that he spread them apart and held him down like that. They were not found in that position."

Actually, do you remember that really grainy picture of Trayvon that was "accidentally" released? It's very hard to figure out what you're even looking at, but once you see it, you see it. To me, it very much appears that Trayvon's arm IS out to his side. You can't see the other arm, wherever it might be, because of the darkness. But when it came out, I mentioned it over on TalkLeft. Jeralynn told me she didn't see it, but assured me that she wasn't saying I was lying, just that SHE couldn't see what I was claiming to see. So I sent her a couple PMs trying to describe it. After a couple back and forths she finally wrote back and said (paraphrasing), "Hey! I finally see what you're talking about." So yeah, despite the one police report that says Trayvon's arms were underneath him, that picture seems to prove they (at least one of them) were NOT... just as George claims.


I remember that picture. In fact, while I was replying I was thinking about it. My recollection was that he had one arm was down along his side. John, W6, said they look like they were in a swimming position; from what I remember.

_________________
No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it will never become the TRUTH!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 983 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 ... 50  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group