Unarmed black 17 year old shot by Neighborhood watch captain in gated community...

[spidey07]

I wonder how much Dee Dee's story will change when MOM deposes her.

Or when they bring up the evidence that the earbuds were in martin's pocket so there's no way she heard the encounter when it got physical. Martin put them in his pocket to prepare for his brutal attack. Didn't he brag about bein able to knock people out with one blow? Looks like he tried his specialty - the out of nowhere, unprovoked haymaker.

 

[TerryMathews]

Thing is, we've already had Zimmerman caught lying and decieving the court. So at this point in time the first hand witness in Dee Dee is more credible.

A) link or it didn't happen

B) first hand witness to what? She was in another state and the ear buds were in his pocket.

 

[bfdd]

1578 pages, seriously you guys? let this shit die

 

[Geosurface]

Yes, the kid who assaulted the bus driver in that video I linked from the Associated Press in 2008 was 17 at the time, I'm not saying "all black people act alike" I linked to that video because it specifically demonstrates the threat that someone "unarmed" and "a minor" can pose. Which of course shouldn't have needed to be pointed out to anyone, but apparently it does. It also shows an unarmed, 17 year old minor "swinging on" a bus driver. This is why I find the video instructive to this case. The final reason is that it shows an unarmed, 17 year old minor viciously assault someone for NO REASON WHATSOEVER and even puts his own life in danger (because the bus is moving) and will not listen to reason or stop for anything.

This is instructive to those who just cannot possibly imagine why Trayvon might attack GZ without a good reason, or might continue the assault even when he's screaming for mercy and a neighbor tells them to stop and that cops are en route.

Some people are naturally violent (from every race), some people are raised in cultures which promote and glorify violence, and if you are prepared to be violent for no reason at the drop of a hat, you earn and maintain credibility and respect. You then get a good story to tell your friends, especially the one who hears you on the phone most likely specifically lay out your plan to go and attack this person. Which is why she didn't attempt to contact authorities, and in fact hid from and refused to speak to the police for weeks.

Deedee has almost zero credibility.

oh and airdata I love the idea that someone with a broken nose, profusely bleeding gashes on the back of their head, who called cops before anyone else did that night, who fired one shot, who was seen by a witness being held down and beaten on by the other party... and who screamed in terror for mercy and help for about a minute straight before employing his firearm, has "cooked up a self-defense story" what an asinine thing to say airdata.

Not only is self-defense in this case not "cooked up" there is literally no way within the laws, or known evidence that this could even POSSIBLY be anything OTHER THAN self defense. There is no arrangement of the known facts and evidence which puts it into the murder category.

 

[OCNewbie]

Ok, speculation time: Was TM's drink open? Wasn't it his drink, or was that for his brother? I'm just thinking that if it wasn't open, this plays along better with the theory that he could have been intending to use it for that Lean drink (or whatever it's called). If it was for him, why didn't he open it at the store? Didn't it take him like ~40 minutes to walk home? He walked all that way, with a cold drink, and let it get warm without opening it? Seems like he may have had other intentions with the drink.

Edit: Anyway, the relevance this has is that this may have been why TM tried to run away.

 

[Geosurface]

The drink was closed and full. It is also possible, though I feel unlikely, that TM used it (either while covered by hoodie fabric or not) as a weapon against GZ. GZ did say he felt like TM was using something other than his fists.

Given the specific brand/flavor and the Skittles being present too, I feel that there is little to no doubt that these were ingredients for Lean. I think he either had Robitussin at Brandi's already that he brought with him, or found in her cabinet, or he purchased some at the Walmart between the 7-11 and Retreat at Twin Lakes, and ditched it when he ran from GZ.

I believe that the claim the Skittles were for Chad Green is a lie, just as the claim that Chad Green was Trayvon's little brother was a lie. It says a lot about Trayvon's family, and their entire approach to this that from the very outset they were lying about the little brother angle. It fits the same pattern as all of their other lies:

1.) Makes family look more traditional
2.) Increases sympathy for Trayvon
3.) Distracts from law breaking (lean making in this case)

 

[Geosurface]

Hey wait a sec... GZ's blood found on TM's INNER shirt which confused people, full can of Arizona was found in front hoodie pocket... GZ said he felt like TM was using an object to hit him, TM had minimal GZ blood and scratches on his hand.

John was unsure about whether TM was punching or holding down, could all this point to Trayvon part of the time wielding the can as weapon while it was still in the hoodie pouch pocket in an effort to avoid leaving evidence?

 

[soundforbjt]

Hey wait a sec... GZ's blood found on TM's INNER shirt which confused people, full can of Arizona was found in front hoodie pocket... GZ said he felt like TM was using an object to hit him, TM had minimal GZ blood and scratches on his hand.

John was unsure about whether TM was punching or holding down, could all this point to Trayvon part of the time wielding the can as weapon while it was still in the hoodie pouch pocket in an effort to avoid leaving evidence?

The can would show denting.

 

[Tom]

Deedee has almost zero credibility.

at this point she is at least as credible as a witness that materially changes what he claims to have seen. Or a killer with obvious reasons to lie or shade the truth.

Both of which you accept as completely reliable.

 

[Geosurface]

The can would show denting.

It might and it might not, depending on if he used the end or side, we also don't know that it didn't have denting

 

[TerryMathews]

at this point she is at least as credible as a witness that materially changes what he claims to have seen. Or a killer with obvious reasons to lie or shade the truth.

Both of which you accept as completely reliable.

And what do you think should happen if we are in a situation with no credible eye witnesses and no clear definitive evidence?

 

[Tom]

And what do you think should happen if we are in a situation with no credible eye witnesses and no clear definitive evidence?

A judge or jury will evaluate what there is and make a decision based on the law.

And there is a lot of evidence in this case, I think it can be pretty well established what happened, there's just two or three things that some legal authority, a judge or jury, has to decide how what happened amounted to self-defense, or didn't.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

at this point she is at least as credible as a witness that materially changes what he claims to have seen. Or a killer with obvious reasons to lie or shade the truth.

Both of which you accept as completely reliable.

So when she was interviewed having to be reminded they needed the truth and nothing more doesn't hurt her credibility?

 

[Tom]

So when she was interviewed having to be reminded they needed the truth and nothing more doesn't hurt her credibility?

Is that your standard ?

Then I assume you reject Zimmerman's statements.

btw, I didn't make any comment about her credibility as an absolute, I compared it to a witness who materially changed what he saw, and the obvious questioning of the credibility of an accused who stands to gain from lieing or shading the truth.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The can would show denting.

Agreed. Soft metal

 

[Geosurface]

Not only did she need to be instructed to stop lying during her deposition, but she made no effort to contact anyone, let alone authorities who could help him, when she supposedly heard Trayvon in distress being attacked by a big spooky old white man.

No call to Sanford police... no call to Miami Gardens police... Trayvon's family didn't know about her hearing anything for weeks, and she avoided and refused to talk to police for quite some time. When she finally spoke it was in a very controlled interview with Benjamin Crump, who is a slimeball if there ever was one, and no questions from the reporter on the other end of the phone line (who was a hack in Crump's pocket anyway) were allowed.

She had to be prompted repeatedly before she came up with the "I heard a little 'get off me'" which she made no mention of during the first 4 or 5 recitations of what she heard before the phone went dead, and even after coming up with this she told BDLR that she couldn't know for sure who she heard saying it (which has conveniently been ignored, partially because she has the same command of the English language you'd expect from a retarded dead possum fetus.)

She is worthless as a witness. What she says all matches GZ pretty well anyway, Trayvon spoke first (confronted GZ), said he wasn't going to run, she says things which could indicate he was at his dad's gf's place then turned around, though again her ability to speak English makes some of this difficult to be sure on... and the faint, distant "get off me" she heard, if she heard it at all would much more logically have been GZ. Who had someone on him? GZ. Who had the injuries? GZ.

Her "boyfriend" was a delinquent, violent, hotheaded, drug abusing thug who got exactly what he deserved. And society deserves to not have anyone like him in it.

In all likelihood the reason she didn't contact anyone is that Trayvon articulated exactly what he planned to do before hanging up with her, which was to go beat that cracker's ass. Her guilt she wouldn't explain in her deposition is most likely born out of encouraging him to do exactly that.

You're not going to call cops if you know your friend was breaking the law, you might inadvertently give them his name when they didn't have it before, if they were still trying to catch him, or you might end up incriminating him and saying something contrary to what he's telling them if the's in handcuffs for assault down at the station.

If you know he was the aggressor and was assaulting the person who shot him, later on, you're going to do exactly what she did. You're going to stay under the radar and avoid talking to cops because you had a role in it by encouraging the assault, and you know information which puts Trayvon in a worse light and could end up helping the person who shot him, which in your stupid worldview wasn't justified just because Tray-tray was beating his ass. Plus he's not black, so the idea of siding with him over a black person, let alone your friend, is unthinkable.

Later when Crump gets in touch with you and coaches you, now finally you can talk to authorities.

It stinks to high heaven.

 

[Geosurface]

Agreed. Soft metal

Here's the picture of the can taken by police:

At a glance, it doesn't look like it shows any denting. I do see one spot that looks like it could be a dent, but it may just be light reflection and rain.

Keep in mind though, we only see one side of the can in this picture.

Also, there are some factors which could prevent it from denting visibly:

1.) It was full
2.) If it hit GZ on the ends, it would be much less likely to dent
3.) If it was covered by thick hoodie fabric it would greatly reduce the potential for denting
4.) If he only swung it at GZ a couple of times, it would reduce the likelihood of denting. As in, he might've tried it a few whacks right at first, then realized it was too much of a pain in the ass to wrestle with the hoodie and the can inside of it, so he just switched to fists. We don't know.

What we know is that GZ's blood ended up under TM's hoodie on his undershirt, and that GZ said it felt like TM was using an object to hit him at first. A brief usage of the can as a weapon would explain both of these things.

It's just a possibility, that's all.

 

[TerryMathews]

Is that your standard ?

Then I assume you reject Zimmerman's statements.

btw, I didn't make any comment about her credibility as an absolute, I compared it to a witness who materially changed what he saw, and the obvious questioning of the credibility of an accused who stands to gain from lieing or shading the truth.

Tom, it seems to me by your standards we have no credible eye witnesses.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Is that your standard ?

Then I assume you reject Zimmerman's statements.

btw, I didn't make any comment about her credibility as an absolute, I compared it to a witness who materially changed what he saw, and the obvious questioning of the credibility of an accused who stands to gain from lieing or shading the truth.

There are portions of GZ statements I question however, when it comes to the time he shot TM there are witnesses and evidence that backs up his story.

As for Dee Dee, it seemed like at times during her interview she was telling the investigator what she thought they wanted to hear and they reminded her they only wanted the "Truth".

 

[Tom]

Tom, it seems to me by your standards we have no credible eye witnesses.

There might be, but the credibility comes from testifying under oath with the opportunity to be cross-examined and challenged by conflicting statements, other evidence, etc.

And even if testimony is determined to be credible, it still has to decided what relevance it has, what it proves or disproves.

 

[TerryMathews]

There might be, but the credibility comes from testifying under oath with the opportunity to be cross-examined and challenged by conflicting statements, other evidence, etc.

And even if testimony is determined to be credible, it still has to decided what relevance it has, what it proves or disproves.

You're moving the goalposts. That isn't the standard you laid out just a few posts ago.

 

[nobodyknows]

1578 pages, seriously you guys? let this shit die

Free GZ

 

[Tom]

You're moving the goalposts. That isn't the standard you laid out just a few posts ago.

I don't know what you are talking about ?

I haven't said anyone is credible, or not credible. I've said for months credibility depends on testifying under oath with cross-examination and evaluation compared to other evidence.

A few posts ago I challenged the assertion that Dee Dee isn't credible by comparing her to two other potential witnesses.

That isn't the same thing as me saying she is credible, or not.

 

[nobodyknows]

I've said for months credibility depends on testifying under oath with cross-examination and evaluation compared to other evidence.

So by your standards nobody is credible, including yourself. Gotcha!

 

[Tom]

So by your standards nobody is credible, including yourself. Gotcha!

Credible about what ?

I haven't said nobody is credible, I've said that eyewitnesses and interested parties shouldn't be assumed to be credible, that their credibility comes with proper procedures.