I can't find any transcripts but there are recordings.
http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/peo...6-files-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-case/
although he recanted it later after media coverage; he initially stated that that is what he thought he saw.
We have no idea on how the police re-questioned him to trigger the recantation. If they were looking to weaken his story; their questions would have been leading and targeted that way.
Anyone know if their is an actual transcript of the recantation?
There is still the fact that he saw TM on top of GZ and John feels that the person on the bottom was struggling ans screaming
Yes, he did. Though he did not change who was on top.
Where is is stated that he moved 30ft (or nearly 30ft) with TM on top of him.
Multiple scenarios were talked about 6 months ago when determining angles and approximate distances as well as the locations of the body.
End result was +\- 5 ft could easily be accounted for.
He did not recant that he saw the one on top hitting the one on bottom. He changed the part about WHOM he thought was yelling for help. His first statement was that the guy on the bottom was yelling for help. His clarification was that he said that because it made the most sense in the situation he saw, but that he didn't actually SEE the person on bottom's mouth yelling for help.
He did change the MMA portion, but didn't change the sidewalk head slamming portion of his statement.
I'm not saying they're not lacerations/cuts, just that they looked like scrapes more than a simple impact-cut.
Again, your layman's opinion; are you more qualified than a trained medial doctor to evaluate the damages?
correct
Yep, which is why soundfor is incorrect in his previous statement.
correctHe did change the MMA portion, but didn't change the sidewalk head slamming portion of his statement.
You mean Z man's doctor, right? I don't believe he was asked by anyone yet how he thought the injuries occurred.
And I don't believe a General practitioner has forensic training.
I'm not saying they're not lacerations/cuts, just that they looked like scrapes more than a simple impact-cut.
Does it matter how the injuries occurred; they were there.You mean Z man's doctor, right? I don't believe he was asked by anyone yet how he thought the injuries occurred.
And I don't believe a General practitioner has forensic training.
A laceration is not a "scrape"
A "scrape" is an abrasion.
He had two deep lacerations that certainly look to be caused by blunt force breaking the skin from tension/impact.
Still the fact remains - martin committed and continued to commit a forcible felony and was shot when the threat of forcible felony was imminent and present.
That's what make this such a slam dunk case of self defense. All the mounds of evidence that actually PROVE self defense, with zero evidence showing it wasn't.
They were not "deep". The scalp is very thin in that area.
They were not "deep". The scalp is very thin in that area.
Where's the statement by John about the head bashing? link please. I seriously have not seen it. How could he "see" head bashing, but not see blows?
They were not "deep". The scalp is very thin in that area.
He did change the MMA portion, but didn't change the sidewalk head slamming portion of his statement.
He did change the MMA portion, but didn't change the sidewalk head slamming portion of his statement.