Witness accounts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm pretty sure there's a witness out there who can back GZ up that he did put the flyers out. A witness named Sherman Ware. JMO

Wasn't Ms. Jackson Sherman's attorney. How ironic.... Seems strange.. If GZ lied to his mother about the "award" do you suppose he lied about the flyers also. jmo
 
If he doesn't want to get himself into deeper chit then he's already in, he tells the guy what he's doing there. It's that simple. I don't care about his "subservient" issues.

It has nothing to do with whether or not you or anyone else doesn't care about his subservient issues, he has the same rights as anyone else, even GZ. He had the same right to stand his ground and defend himself. GZ was not LE. Trayvon owed a total stranger nothing, he was not in deep chit for walking to and from the store, and if he wanted to "look about' while he was doing it, he had the right to do that as well. George Zimmerman, a nobody, doesn't get to demand otherwise. And any rational adult would have diffused the situation by at least identifying himself.

It's that simple.
 
I can agree with you that George took the right stance in that instance, but I don't agree that based on this single act, he is a "man of honor." In fact, given everything else I have read /seen/ heard regarding GZ I feel he is just the opposite. '

Please forgive my going off subject here, and any repetition if you happened to read my previous comments regarding whether GZ is a "good man." But here's how I look at it. A man of honor would never put his hands on any woman. A man of honor would never pick a female up and throw her across a room. A man of honor, would never strike a woman once, let alone repeatedly

>> I don't believe he did this. IMHO >>


If a woman hit him first, a man of honor, armed with knowledge that he is heavier and stronger (GZ weighed 200 pounds at that time), would refuse to engage and walk away.

>>IMHO, he probably did.<<


A man of honor would not call his ex-fiance a "ho" no matter how things ended, and he would never do this on a public forum. A man of honor would not physically resist arrest, then brag about getting away with it. A man of honor would not commit crimes then allow buddies to "get pinched" for them, spending a year in prison for what he did.

<< GZ abandoned that page long ago because it was hacked. I do not believe he wrote that $hit on that MySpace page. GZ is extremely smart, and well-spoken, and his photos do not depict him as a wannabe. IMO that page was updated by whoever hacked it in the first place, and suddenly brought to light to make him look bad. How else would someone have found it, listed as JOE G..or onlytobekingagain?? ?? >>


A man of honor does not bully co-workers.

<< Trying to get co-workers to do their jobs right can be considered bullying to the folks who wanna get a paycheck just for showing up and standing around. JMO>>

A man of honor, after calling 911 would do as dispatched asked, waiting for the proper authorities to arrive.

<<They did NOT ask him to wait. He was told that he didn't have to follow him, but then they told him to "let them know if he does anything else." That sounds to me like it was not a direct order not to follow.">> JMO


A man of honor after shooting an unarmed teen would feel true remorse, he would not act non-chalant,

>> But a man in SHOCK would also be disoriented. Everything would be SURREAL to him, and his responses would be scattered, flat, and emotionless.>> IMHO.

he would not coldly go into CYA immediately, and assume it would just "blow over." A man of honor takes responsibility for his mistakes, as well as errors in judgment, and expects / accepts punishment when he does wrong. A man of honor would not try to blame a victim for his own death. A man of honor wouldn't create a website for donations to him/his defense and post photos of racist/bigoted supporter's actions there. A man of honor does not lie, he would never lie while on the witness stand, nor would he disingenuously address grieving parents there, feigning ignorance of his victim's young age in order to bolster his defense.

>>GZ DID take the blame for shooting Tray. He contends that he was attacked, and as of right now, NONE of us have any proof that he isn't being truthful, that he created that website, or that he lied on the witness stand. Sybrina Fulton stated 2 questions she would ask him, and said she wanted an apology, and GZ did that at his FIRST opportunity. IMO, he did what he thought was right, and if they didn't accept it, well that's just SAD for them, because it would be the beginning of getting some closure. As for the age thing, well, that is another story in itself, and I will refrain from discussing that at this time.>>

All of this is strictly my opinion!

ETA: I tried to fix my answers to be in a different color, failing that I surrounded them with << >> throughout the page.
 
Originally Posted by liedetector, replies in italics by mommakk51 IBM:

I can agree with you that George took the right stance in that instance, but I don't agree that based on this single act, he is a "man of honor." In fact, given everything else I have read /seen/ heard regarding GZ I feel he is just the opposite. '

Please forgive my going off subject here, and any repetition if you happened to read my previous comments regarding whether GZ is a "good man." But here's how I look at it. A man of honor would never put his hands on any woman. A man of honor would never pick a female up and throw her across a room. A man of honor, would never strike a woman once, let alone repeatedly

>> I don't believe he did this. IMHO >>



If a woman hit him first, a man of honor, armed with knowledge that he is heavier and stronger (GZ weighed 200 pounds at that time), would refuse to engage and walk away.

>>IMHO, he probably did.<<


A man of honor would not call his ex-fiance a "ho" no matter how things ended, and he would never do this on a public forum. A man of honor would not physically resist arrest, then brag about getting away with it. A man of honor would not commit crimes then allow buddies to "get pinched" for them, spending a year in prison for what he did.

<< GZ abandoned that page long ago because it was hacked. I do not believe he wrote that $hit on that MySpace page. GZ is extremely smart, and well-spoken, and his photos do not depict him as a wannabe. IMO that page was updated by whoever hacked it in the first place, and suddenly brought to light to make him look bad. How else would someone have found it, listed as JOE G..or onlytobekingagain?? ?? >>


A man of honor does not bully co-workers.

<< Trying to get co-workers to do their jobs right can be considered bullying to the folks who wanna get a paycheck just for showing up and standing around. JMO>>

A man of honor, after calling 911 would do as dispatched asked, waiting for the proper authorities to arrive.

<<They did NOT ask him to wait. He was told that he didn't have to follow him, but then they told him to "let them know if he does anything else." That sounds to me like it was not a direct order not to follow.">> JMO


A man of honor after shooting an unarmed teen would feel true remorse, he would not act non-chalant,

>> But a man in SHOCK would also be disoriented. Everything would be SURREAL to him, and his responses would be scattered, flat, and emotionless.>> IMHO.

he would not coldly go into CYA immediately, and assume it would just "blow over." A man of honor takes responsibility for his mistakes, as well as errors in judgment, and expects / accepts punishment when he does wrong. A man of honor would not try to blame a victim for his own death. A man of honor wouldn't create a website for donations to him/his defense and post photos of racist/bigoted supporter's actions there. A man of honor does not lie, he would never lie while on the witness stand, nor would he disingenuously address grieving parents there, feigning ignorance of his victim's young age in order to bolster his defense.

>>GZ DID take the blame for shooting Tray. He contends that he was attacked, and as of right now, NONE of us have any proof that he isn't being truthful, that he created that website, or that he lied on the witness stand. Sybrina Fulton stated 2 questions she would ask him, and said she wanted an apology, and GZ did that at his FIRST opportunity. IMO, he did what he thought was right, and if they didn't accept it, well that's just SAD for them, because it would be the beginning of getting some closure. As for the age thing, well, that is another story in itself, and I will refrain from discussing that at this time.>>

All of this is strictly my opinion! ETA: I tried to fix my answers to be in a different color, failing that I surrounded them with << >> throughout the page.

Wow. Suffice it to say that we are not only off thread topic here, but our viewpoints are so diametrically opposed in their entirety that I think it's best if I refrain from responding point / counterpoint. BBM
 
The autopsy report proves GZ isn't being truthful...not anywhere in that report does it state TM has bruises on all his knuckles, just one little bruise on the ring finger of the left hand behind the knuckle proves to me that TM did not beat the crap out of GZ...or TM's predominant hand would have shown he threw punches..that's not the case...

I'm at a loss that folk are trying so hard to make GZ the hero here when in fact he was the aggressor...if he stayed in his vehicle and let LE handle this but he didn't have faith in LE, he didn't believe they would get there in time to 'detain' this suspicous character who he deemed up to no good..he took the law into his own hands and that is why he is facing the charges he faces..GZ tried to use self defense but the state saw he initiated this by not staying in his vehicle, had he, TM would be alive today...TM's death could have been avoided (as the state has that phrase on most documents), CSerino saw it too, he wanted manslaughter charges but Wolfinger caused this uproar by NOT taking the advice of his homicide detective...

People need to have a broad view and call an ace an ace...this is all GZ's fault, he caused the death of an innocent teen who was not in the commission of any crime.

When it comes down to the truth, I believe the evidence and not the word of a proven liar, GZ...
 
Has anyone heard about or have any information regarding Witnesses #4, #7 , #10. They are listed on the redacted witness list but I have yet to read anything about them. Thanks
 
The autopsy report proves GZ isn't being truthful...not anywhere in that report does it state TM has bruises on all his knuckles, just one little bruise on the ring finger of the left hand behind the knuckle proves to me that TM did not beat the crap out of GZ...or TM's predominant hand would have shown he threw punches..that's not the case...
I'm at a loss that folk are trying so hard to make GZ the hero here when in fact he was the aggressor...if he stayed in his vehicle and let LE handle this but he didn't have faith in LE, he didn't believe they would get there in time to 'detain' this suspicous character who he deemed up to no good..he took the law into his own hands and that is why he is facing the charges he faces..GZ tried to use self defense but the state saw he initiated this by not staying in his vehicle, had he, TM would be alive today...TM's death could have been avoided (as the state has that phrase on most documents), CSerino saw it too, he wanted manslaughter charges but Wolfinger caused this uproar by NOT taking the advice of his homicide detective...

People need to have a broad view and call an ace an ace...this is all GZ's fault, he caused the death of an innocent teen who was not in the commission of any crime.

When it comes down to the truth, I believe the evidence and not the word of a proven liar, GZ...

BBM - since he died very shortly after the fight, I think that may explain the lack of bruising on his hands.

JMO
 
TBH I don't see how the witnesses who changed their story (which seems to be the main witnesses who saw or heard anything) benefit either the state or the defense. Once you get a witness who changes what their initial statement was, a jury is going to question that. Especially in this case, where visibility was compromised to begin with.
 
TBH I don't see how the witnesses who changed their story (which seems to be the main witnesses who saw or heard anything) benefit either the state or the defense. Once you get a witness who changes what their initial statement was, a jury is going to question that. Especially in this case, where visibility was compromised to begin with.
I agree. It lessens the witness's credibility with the jury. Same thing for Sanford PD when I see information about how they did a lousy job investigating this case. That leaves very little for the prosecution to work with. JMO.
 
TBH I don't see how the witnesses who changed their story (which seems to be the main witnesses who saw or heard anything) benefit either the state or the defense. Once you get a witness who changes what their initial statement was, a jury is going to question that. Especially in this case, where visibility was compromised to begin with.

For me, it depends on how much they change their story. Couple examples:

Lady with the contacts - ignore everything she says.
"John" - He didn't really change his story, in my opinion. He did some minor detail changing but the story is essentially the same. Maybe he realized that he didn't really see punches being thrown, in his new statement he's not saying punches weren't thrown or couldn't have been thrown - just that he didn't see them. He also corrected himself by saying "ok, it was too dark to see whose lips were moving" but logically his statement would've made sense had he continued to say the person on bottom (regardless of who it was) was screaming for help. With that, I give him a good bit of credibility.
 
soooo only the pro gz witnesses are credible? k
 
soooo only the pro gz witnesses are credible? k

Stance doesn't matter in what I stated. In fact, my previous comments about the lady with contacts was that she wasn't a witness for the prosecution that we could tell because we don't know where she lived. If she lived north of the sidewalk and on the far west, for example, it would be logical for her to see two individuals going by her window.
 
Stance doesn't matter in what I stated. In fact, my previous comments about the lady with contacts was that she wasn't a witness for the prosecution that we could tell because we don't know where she lived. If she lived north of the sidewalk and on the far west, for example, it would be logical for her to see two individuals going by her window.

Because of the redacting, no witness address was visible so we really don't know where any of them lived. IMO Witness #6 completely discredited himself by retracting the MMA style of punching, and now he isn't sure there were any punches thrown. That's a huge change, IMO. Also from being certain that it was GZ yelling, he has gone to "I don't know." IMO he would have been wise to have said "I don't know," in the beginning. I believe he doesn't know and never did.
 
Because of the redacting, no witness address was visible so we really don't know where any of them lived. IMO Witness #6 completely discredited himself by retracting the MMA style of punching, and now he isn't sure there were any punches thrown. That's a huge change, IMO. Also from being certain that it was GZ yelling, he has gone to "I don't know." IMO he would have been wise to have said "I don't know," in the beginning. I believe he doesn't know and never did.

It's not really a big change, especially when you compare the changes in his story to the changes in others' stories. He's not really removing details, just saying "I'm not really sure if I actually saw -that-" but he's not saying "it DIDN'T happen at all!" He's just taking a more neutral ground based on his reflections of the events.
 
Because of the redacting, no witness address was visible so we really don't know where any of them lived. IMO Witness #6 completely discredited himself by retracting the MMA style of punching, and now he isn't sure there were any punches thrown. That's a huge change, IMO. Also from being certain that it was GZ yelling, he has gone to "I don't know." IMO he would have been wise to have said "I don't know," in the beginning. I believe he doesn't know and never did.

Problem is he is the only witness (it seems) that got close enough to the scuffle to see what was going on. He's the one that yelled out asking if he should call 911. No other witness was close enough to see what happened except him.
 
This thread is gettting long.
Why don't you guys break out the witness accounts into individual witnesses as you want to review their accounts?
Just create them as you want to discuss them. It will slow down this thread and then instead of creating thread #2 we can ultimately close this one out and have more in depth discussion on each account.
thanks.
 
The autopsy report proves GZ isn't being truthful...not anywhere in that report does it state TM has bruises on all his knuckles, just one little bruise on the ring finger of the left hand behind the knuckle proves to me that TM did not beat the crap out of GZ...or TM's predominant hand would have shown he threw punches..that's not the case...

I'm at a loss that folk are trying so hard to make GZ the hero here when in fact he was the aggressor...if he stayed in his vehicle and let LE handle this but he didn't have faith in LE, he didn't believe they would get there in time to 'detain' this suspicous character who he deemed up to no good..he took the law into his own hands and that is why he is facing the charges he faces..GZ tried to use self defense but the state saw he initiated this by not staying in his vehicle, had he, TM would be alive today...TM's death could have been avoided (as the state has that phrase on most documents), CSerino saw it too, he wanted manslaughter charges but Wolfinger caused this uproar by NOT taking the advice of his homicide detective...

People need to have a broad view and call an ace an ace...this is all GZ's fault, he caused the death of an innocent teen who was not in the commission of any crime.

When it comes down to the truth, I believe the evidence and not the word of a proven liar, GZ...

GZ claimed that TM punched him ONCE in the face, and held his head and naged it on the ground. ONE HIT (the cut on his hand) and banging his head on the ground (no marks from that). I appears the autopsy does NOT prove GZ lied.

As for LE telling him to stay in the car, one could easily state that LE gave him a request that MANDATED that he get out of the car. The dispatcher stated, " Just let me know if this guy does anything else."

Well, when the guy RAN OUT OF SIGHT, the ONLY way GZ could let the dispatcher know what the guy was doing was to FOLLOW him.
 
I agree. It lessens the witness's credibility with the jury. Same thing for Sanford PD when I see information about how they did a lousy job investigating this case. That leaves very little for the prosecution to work with. JMO.

It's possible this is why the witness statements are changing. Complaints by some of the witnesses that they were being lead to change their stories. And it appears that some witnesses were permitted to talk to GZ so how much did that impact on their statements now that they know TM really was not a criminal that GZ tracked down and killed. A witness' credibility would not be affected if SPD had a hand in the misinformation. jmo
 
GZ claimed that TM punched him ONCE in the face, and held his head and naged it on the ground. ONE HIT (the cut on his hand) and banging his head on the ground (no marks from that). I appears the autopsy does NOT prove GZ lied.

As for LE telling him to stay in the car, one could easily state that LE gave him a request that MANDATED that he get out of the car. The dispatcher stated, " Just let me know if this guy does anything else."

Well, when the guy RAN OUT OF SIGHT, the ONLY way GZ could let the dispatcher know what the guy was doing was to FOLLOW him.

I think that theory is grabbing at straws when it was pretty clear what LE was saying. Dispatch had no idea what TM was doing or where he was or what was visible to GZ. He was not giving GZ permission to get out of his car and track TM down. He was asking GZ to keep them abreast if he saw TM doing something else. Not that he should follow. Plus GZ knew better and you should never assume when it involves the safety of others. jmo
 
It's possible this is why the witness statements are changing. Complaints by some of the witnesses that they were being lead to change their stories. And it appears that some witnesses were permitted to talk to GZ so how much did that impact on their statements now that they know TM really was not a criminal that GZ tracked down and killed. A witness' credibility would not be affected if SPD had a hand in the misinformation. jmo

BBM

I don't see what that has to do with them changing their stories. No witness saw or heard GZ confront TM. No witness has a statement, whether initially or corrected that collaborates 'GZ tracked down and killed'. The one witness who saw two people running (which does not benefit GZ) backtracked on that. Are they changing their story because they really didn't see what they thought they saw or are they changing their story because they see how the case has exploded and what the public sentiment it?

If you are a witness, you report what you saw or heard. You then don't change your statement because you believe GZ tracked down and killed TM, despite the fact you never saw anything that preceded the confrontation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
139
Guests online
2,033
Total visitors
2,172

Forum statistics

Threads
590,019
Messages
17,929,078
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top