17 yo Trayvon Martin Shot to Death by Neighborhood Watch Captain #18

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr.Fessel said:
Mr. Zimmerman’s father provided a different account, based on his conversations with his son. He said that George Zimmerman had lost sight of the hooded figure and was beginning to walk back to his vehicle when Trayvon appeared from his rear left side. He also described a conversation that began far differently than the one recalled by the girl on the phone.

“He did not see Trayvon until he was right there,” he said, at which point, Trayvon, cursing, asked if George Zimmerman had “a problem.”

“And George said, ‘No, I don’t have a problem,’ or ‘No, there is no problem.’ And Trayvon said, ‘You do now,’ and he punched George in the nose.”

Here even Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that there is some confusion. He told an Orlando news station that George was reaching for his cellphone when Trayvon punched him. But, in a later interview with The New York Times, he said that he was unsure whether his son made that movement and that he might have conflated news media reports with what he thought his son may have told him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/u...-a-review-of-ideals.html?pagewanted=5&_r=2&hp

So Mr. Zimmerman is backing away now from George telling him he backed up to reach for his phone and call police when Martin punched him.

My gut tells me he is backing away from that statement because George carries his cell phone on his belt right by his gun I bet. IMO
Click to expand...

I personally think the whole "going for the cell phone" was actually "going for the gun."

MOO
 
LolaMoon08 said:
I think it does go to the timeline. I'm actually hoping we can get video of Trayvon leaving the complex, then at 7-11, and then coming back into the complex. Hopefully even have some video of him at the clubhouse. I think it would be nice to see what was so "suspicious" about Trayvon?

I also want to see if GZ had made his own trip to the 7-11 that day?
Click to expand...

Just as TM's purchases are irrelevant I also think GZ's purchases, if he made any, are irrelevant.

IMO 7-11 as a whole is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is what happened from the first moment these two laid eyes on each other until the gunshot.

I wish they had video of that. But from the looks of things, they don't.

JMO
 
LolaMoon08 said:
Yes. It was probably two threads back. Some wanted to know where Trayvon's receipt was to prove he made the purchases. There was a big discussion about how most people do not get cash receipts from a store unless asked.
Click to expand...

Yes, there was. Concerned Papa even posted a pic of the trash cans near the entrance/exit of that 7-11.
 
vlpate said:
Identifying deceased persons - don't you have to identify the body at a morgue? The full body, not a horrible picture. Having a hard time getting past LE showing a picture of Trayvon looking that way. Please tell me this is not SOP!
Click to expand...

I missed the VLPate. Thanks for calling it to my attention.

No you don't have to always identify at the morgue. If he had ID on him it would have been pretty simple. They would look at his DL and confirm it is most likely the same person. They might do further examination like FP and or/dental too. And ask that the family give a picture to be sure. Sometimes it isn't even the next of kin but a more distant relative who would step up and say let me do it for you.

A person can identify someone by use of a picture. They would provide a picture to LE/ME and sometimes a picture of the decedent is showed to them. Sometimes they go on dental records or identifying features like a Tat or birthmark in addition to a picture..... Of course if they find the body in a home it makes it easier to tie the person to the home. I'm not saying identification at a ME is not ever done, it is. But not every time.

It is very difficult to go to the ME's office and identify a body. So whenever possible at least with the ME's I work with, they will try to use pictures and other means as I mentioned above. But I've never heard of a crime scene picture being shown to a family. There are better ways.

There are times the family wants to go to the coroners office. They need to know in their own mind that this is their loved one. I cannot say what protocol is in that State. But I can't believe protocol is showing a loved one at a crime scene. I just can't.
 
Dr.Fessel said:
Mr. Zimmerman’s father provided a different account, based on his conversations with his son. He said that George Zimmerman had lost sight of the hooded figure and was beginning to walk back to his vehicle when Trayvon appeared from his rear left side. He also described a conversation that began far differently than the one recalled by the girl on the phone.

“He did not see Trayvon until he was right there,” he said, at which point, Trayvon, cursing, asked if George Zimmerman had “a problem.”

“And George said, ‘No, I don’t have a problem,’ or ‘No, there is no problem.’ And Trayvon said, ‘You do now,’ and he punched George in the nose.”

Here even Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that there is some confusion. He told an Orlando news station that George was reaching for his cellphone when Trayvon punched him. But, in a later interview with The New York Times, he said that he was unsure whether his son made that movement and that he might have conflated news media reports with what he thought his son may have told him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/u...-a-review-of-ideals.html?pagewanted=5&_r=2&hp

So Mr. Zimmerman is backing away now from George telling him he backed up to reach for his phone and call police when Martin punched him.

My gut tells me he is backing away from that statement because George carries his cell phone on his belt right by his gun I bet. IMO
Click to expand...


BBM..But we ALL know GZ did have a problem, and the problem was with TM..We also know GZ had already called the police on TM and GZ knew they were on their way... IIRC He also requested LE call him when they arrived on the premises and he would advise them as to where he was... JMHO
 
Kimberlyd125 said:
Just as TM's purchases are irrelevant I also think GZ's purchases, if he made any, are irrelevant.

IMO 7-11 as a whole is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is what happened from the first moment these two laid eyes on each other until the gunshot.

I wish they had video of that. But from the looks of things, they don't.

JMO
Click to expand...

No, the timeline is important. Where they had both been earlier in the day. Any witnesses to their activities earlier in the day, such as possibly seeing George drinking.
 
Kimberlyd125 said:
Just as TM's purchases are irrelevant I also think GZ's purchases, if he made any, are irrelevant.

IMO 7-11 as a whole is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is what happened from the first moment these two laid eyes on each other until the gunshot.

I wish they had video of that. But from the looks of things, they don't.

JMO
Click to expand...

Wouldn't you like to know if he had been drinking? I know I would? If it's true that he became a completely different person when drinking (assaulting cops/throwing girls across the room) and he had purchased alcohol that day, I think it does have some relevance? I don't know if they could use that in court because they didn't test him, but it would put my mind at ease?

MOO
 
highflyer said:
No, the timeline is important. Where they had both been earlier in the day. Any witnesses to their activities earlier in the day, such as possibly seeing George drinking.
Click to expand...

I agree the timeline is important.
I mentioned the timeline a few posts up.

But you wouldn't see anyone drinking in a 7-11. That's my point.

Even if you saw GZ buying alcohol at the 7-11 it would be irrelevant unless he was on camera drinking it.

I buy beer sometimes at a convenience store, but I don't drink it.

My point is, 7-11 purchases are not relevant to this case.

What happened in that gated community is what is most important. From the time these two met and the gunshot.

JMO
 
Let's face it why would we even expect a teen who just turned 17 to have the experience to size up a situation he's never been in before. I was followed by a man will ill intent when I was 18 and I can tell you I did not know what to do. Kids do not have the priviledge of experience behind them unless they have been part of a street gang for years. We can all think of how we would act but it's not fair to put that kind of should of, could of, would of to someone so young. They lack the maturity to make informed decisions. Some children have been very protected regardless of how tough they may want you to think they are, it still does not mean they instantly know what to do. jmo
 
LolaMoon08 said:
Wouldn't you like to know if he had been drinking? I know I would? If it's true that he became a completely different person when drinking (assaulting cops/throwing girls across the room) and he had purchased alcohol that day, I think it does have some relevance? I don't know if they could use that in court because they didn't test him, but it would put my mind at ease?

MOO
Click to expand...

But 7-11 tapes would not tell you if he had been drinking.
 
Kimberlyd125 said:
I agree the timeline is important.
I mentioned the timeline a few posts up.

But you wouldn't see anyone drinking in a 7-11. That's my point.

Even if you saw GZ buying alcohol at the 7-11 it would be irrelevant unless he was on camera drinking it.

I buy beer sometimes at a convenience store, but I don't drink it.

My point is, 7-11 purchases are not relevant to this case.

What happened in that gated community is what is most important. From the time these two met and the gunshot.

JMO
Click to expand...

Well, depends on who owns the 7-11? :floorlaugh: I've seen 7-11's pop open the beers for the customers (a big no no).

I agree that there would be no way to prove he had actually drank the alcohol (if he bought some earlier that day) because he wasn't tested. :banghead: I would still like to see if he had been there at all that day... especially around the time Trayvon was there.

MOO
 
Seems that many here would like to know if GZ had been drinking that night.

Also seems that many here would like to know if TM had done anything other than walk straight to the store and back that night.

AFAICT, we have insufficient evidence at this time to prove anything conclusive about either of these questions.

Until we do, let's move the discussion on to more productive lines of sleuthing.

This post lands at random, and :tyou:
 
"ZIMMERMAN: Off of that sidewalk there's another sidewalk that goes between two rows of townhomes. It's my understanding that Trayvon went between the two rows of townhomes, and George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going."

"He continued walking down that sidewalk to the next street. He wanted an address. All he could see was the back of the townhomes and he could not see an address. So he asked the dispatcher to have the responding unit call him, and he could tell him the address."


"George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going."

"He continued walking down that sidewalk to the next street. He wanted an address. All he could see was the back of the town homes and he could not see an address."

How could GZ be on the sidewalk of the main street, and only see the back of homes ? Aren't the homes on the main street facing the road ? with the numbers on the front ?
:waitasec:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...-trayvon-martin-shooting?page=2#ixzz1rItzfRUG
 
So the 7-11 has the tape, but they didn't say that LE had been there to look at it? I wonder if LE has taken the tape and made copies? But then why would the tape need to be at 7-11 headquarters? You can erase/tape over the tape after LE has made copies?
 
Emeralgem said:
Bit we ALL know GZ did have a problem, and the problem was with TM..We also know GZ had already called the police on TM and GZ knew they were on their way... IIRC He also requested LE call him when they arrived on the premises and he would advise them as to where he was... JMHO
Click to expand...

Here's where the problem is. The dispatcher told him re: Following TM, "we don't want you to do that". Had he listened to the dispatcher, no one would have had to call him back to find out where he was. Why would they have to they already knew. He didn't. He made the choice to pursue the boy. I seriously suspect he drew his gun. That would explain why TM was yelling for help. That shows intent. When I used to work for the PD, we would call those kind of guys, policemen or civilians "hot dogs". JMO
 
grandmaj said:
I missed the VLPate. Thanks for calling it to my attention.

No you don't have to always identify at the morgue. If he had ID on him it would have been pretty simple. They would look at his DL and confirm it is most likely the same person. They might do further examination like FP and or/dental too. And ask that the family give a picture to be sure. Sometimes it isn't even the next of kin but a more distant relative who would step up and say let me do it for you.

A person can identify someone by use of a picture. They would provide a picture to LE/ME and sometimes a picture of the decedent is showed to them. Sometimes they go on dental records or identifying features like a Tat or birthmark in addition to a picture..... Of course if they find the body in a home it makes it easier to tie the person to the home. I'm not saying identification at a ME is not ever done, it is. But not every time.

It is very difficult to go to the ME's office and identify a body. So whenever possible at least with the ME's I work with, they will try to use pictures and other means as I mentioned above. But I've never heard of a crime scene picture being shown to a family. There are better ways.

There are times the family wants to go to the coroners office. They need to know in their own mind that this is their loved one. I cannot say what protocol is in that State. But I can't believe protocol is showing a loved one at a crime scene. I just can't.
Click to expand...

Tracy Martin says the police brought out a picture of Trayvon, dead, eyes rolled back in his head, drooling. I am having daymares thinking about how absolutely devastating that would be to a parent - it would always be burned in your mind. You mentioned tattoos, which Trayvon had - it seems to me they would have looked at the picture Tracy showed them from his phone, and then follow up with, "did he have a tattoo?" and if so, what kind.

Thank you for answering. If Tracy's version of this story is true, and this is out of the ordinary, those officers should be brought up on cruelty charges.
 
uvamerica said:
"ZIMMERMAN: Off of that sidewalk there's another sidewalk that goes between two rows of townhomes. It's my understanding that Trayvon went between the two rows of townhomes, and George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going."

"He continued walking down that sidewalk to the next street. He wanted an address. All he could see was the back of the townhomes and he could not see an address. So he asked the dispatcher to have the responding unit call him, and he could tell him the address."


"George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going."

"He continued walking down that sidewalk to the next street. He wanted an address. All he could see was the back of the town homes and he could not see an address."

How could GZ be on the sidewalk of the main street, and only see the back of homes ? Aren't the homes on the main street facing the road ? with the numbers on the front ?
:waitasec:

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hanni...-trayvon-martin-shooting?page=2#ixzz1rItzfRUG
Click to expand...

I know? It makes no sense? Was he looking for a building number? I would think with him being neighborhood watch, he would have a map showing all the buildings and the building numbers? I'm not even neighborhood watch and I have one?

He says Trayvon was inbetween the houses, yet he was on the main sidewalk, but he could only see the back of the townhouses? That would put him on that back sidewalk, right?
 
Dr.Fessel said:
Mr. Zimmerman’s father provided a different account, based on his conversations with his son. He said that George Zimmerman had lost sight of the hooded figure and was beginning to walk back to his vehicle when Trayvon appeared from his rear left side. He also described a conversation that began far differently than the one recalled by the girl on the phone.

“He did not see Trayvon until he was right there,” he said, at which point, Trayvon, cursing, asked if George Zimmerman had “a problem.”

“And George said, ‘No, I don’t have a problem,’ or ‘No, there is no problem.’ And Trayvon said, ‘You do now,’ and he punched George in the nose.”

Here even Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that there is some confusion. He told an Orlando news station that George was reaching for his cellphone when Trayvon punched him. But, in a later interview with The New York Times, he said that he was unsure whether his son made that movement and that he might have conflated news media reports with what he thought his son may have told him.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/u...-a-review-of-ideals.html?pagewanted=5&_r=2&hp

So Mr. Zimmerman is backing away now from George telling him he backed up to reach for his phone and call police when Martin punched him.

My gut tells me he is backing away from that statement because George carries his cell phone on his belt right by his gun I bet. IMO
Click to expand...
I don't know. Most people carry their "accessories" on the opposite side from their weapon. Not only is it an issue of "balance", most people also think about potential encounters with police. If your cell phone is next to your gun, and you go to grab your phone... Things end badly. Since I carry my weapon around 4-5:00, I keep my wallet in my back left pocket just so there is no confusion about what I may be reaching for.

I cannot say if Zimmerman actually practiced this, but I would find it likely that he did.

JMO
 
LolaMoon08 said:
So the 7-11 has the tape, but they didn't say that LE had been there to look at it? I wonder if LE has taken the tape and made copies? But then why would the tape need to be at 7-11 headquarters? You can erase/tape over the tape after LE has made copies?
Click to expand...

I would think the Higher ups of the franchise probably have some policy about keeping tapes for legal reasons. Especially with a huge national uproar. JMO IMO & MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 260 more.
Total: 4,191 (members: 261, guests: 3,930)

Online statistics

Members online
261
Guests online
3,930
Total visitors
4,191
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,557
Messages
17,955,048
Members
228,535
Latest member
galluvstrucrime
Back
Top