<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>Thanks Scott. If you read the news reports or transcripts the testimonies are less definitive than you claim. But that's a relatively small disagreement between us. Joe</div><div><br>On Aug 26, 2013, at 4:53 PM, Scott Dredge <<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div><span></span></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 12pt;
font-family:Calibri
}
--></style>
<div dir="ltr">Just a couple of rebuttal points and then 'nuff said by me on this thread.<br><br>John Good was an eyewitness called by the PROSECUTION and he testified
that Martin was on top of Zimmerman and beating him as Zimmerman was
lying on the ground.<br><br>If Saundra is truly
saying 'that there is room for doubt and interpretation', then that
hampers the prosecution and plays right into the hands of the defense.
She also goes on to say that there is something wrong with Florida
laws. I agree with her on that one. I don't think Zimmerman
should have gotten off Scott Free and he should have some black mark on
his
record.<br><br>I don't disagree that Martin was provoked. He knew he
was being followed by a 'crazy ass cracker'. The only injuries cited on
Martin's autopsy report were the gunshot and a
small abrasion on his left ring finger below the knuckle. At issue is
that once the two of them had been fighting for some time (45 seconds
minimum since that's the only duration that can be firmly established)
during which George Zimmerman is being beating (according to the
prosecution witness and Zimmerman's injuries) and yelling 'Help! Help!'
(according to two 911 calls and the prosecution witness) before he fires
his gun, is it reasonable to conclude he was acting in self defense? <br><br>-Scott<br><br><div><hr id="stopSpelling">Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 16:00:45 -0700<br>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Zimmy beams as he tours gun factory<br>From: <a href="mailto:philosopher.joe@gmail.com">philosopher.joe@gmail.com</a><br>To: <a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a><br><br><div dir="ltr"><div>The witnesses (plural) did not say anything definitively; nothing. All of their comments were qualified: "I think ..." etc. No one KNOWS what happened other than Zimmerman. Some folks choose to believe Zimmerman and some don't. There is room for doubt and interpretation -- and that is all that Sandra was saying.<br>
<br>Besides, suppose you follow someone for a length of time, first in a car then on foot. You get in shouting match with the person and it escalates into a fight. You think you then have the right to kill him in "self-defense"? That sounds wrong to me. Calling it "self-defense" sounds wrong since stalking someone is a kind of provocation. (I know that you accept some of this Scott; I generally agree with your take on the issue -- just not all of it.)<br>
<br></div>Lastly, we never saw pictures of Martin's face, did we? Hard to say who was beating on whom -- which again was the main point that Saundra was trying to make. Nothing cut and dry about this case at all.<br></div>
<div class="ecxgmail_extra"><br><br><div class="ecxgmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Scott Dredge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="ecxgmail_quote" style="border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div dir="ltr">BTW, regarding your statement:<br><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;">'Further, having had the most unfortunate experience of having had to <b>literally fight for my life</b>,
neither Zimmerman’s nor Trayvon’s injuries are consistent with your
interpretation of Trayvon beating Zimmerman for “at least 45 seconds.”
They just aren’t, and that’s something that’s pretty indisputable, pure
and simple.</span>'<br><br>I can't establish a timeline of 45 seconds
based on Zimmerman's bloody, swollen, broken nose, and cuts to the back
of his head. I'm basing the 45 seconds on the start of the first 911
disturbance cal, through all the screams of 'help', and up to the
recorded gunshot on the call. The 45 seconds of the beating of
Zimmerman by Martin is what is recorded in that the call and assumes
that the call was placed and connected IMMEDIATELY with 911 operator at
the very start of the disturbance. If you want to extend the beating
by several more seconds due to the lag of the caller realizing that
there was in fact a disturbance, a lag for her to get to a phone, a lag
for her to dial it, a lag for the call to connect, and then a lag for
the 911 operator to answer, then I think that's reasonable, but not
measurable, so we're stuck with the 45 seconds at the start of the call being picked up,
through the screams of help, up to the gunshot. And the only eyewitness
testified that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating. The eyewitness
claims that Zimmerman was yelling 'Help! Help!' The eyewitness claims
to have yelled to Martin to 'stop' and that he was 'calling 911'. The police are on the scene within 2 minutes of the shooting, handcuff Zimmerman, photograph Zimmerman with a bloody nose, take him down to the station, and photograph him again with cuts on the back of his head.<br>
<br>If
you want to say that Zimmerman's injuries are too minor for him to have
been beaten on for 45 seconds, I can't dispute that because I can't determine a timeline bases on those injuries. If Zimmerman were
lying on the ground in a completely defenseless position with Martin
reigning blows on his face, I'd expect more damage. But I don't have
any information if Zimmerman was defenseless or if he was trying to
block any of Martin's blows. I'm not going by extent of injuries, I'm only going by the 911 timestamping
which records screams for 'help' and 45 seconds later records a
gunshot. That coupled with Zimmerman's injuries (bloody nose, cuts),
eyewitness testimony, and the fact that the shot was fired at very close
range pretty much destroys any theory that Zimmerman was in a 3 point
stance taking aim at Martin's kill zone.<br><br>The defense had a relatively easy task displaying 'reasonable doubt'.<br><br><div><hr>From: <a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a><br>
To: <a href="mailto:v2020@ssl1.fastmail.fm" target="_blank">v2020@ssl1.fastmail.fm</a><br>Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 15:38:02 -0600<div><div class="h5"><br>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Zimmy beams as he tours gun factory<br><br>
<div dir="ltr">The irrefutable timeline, evidence, and witness testimony I was referring to was:<br><ul><li>Zimmerman hangs up on a recorded / timestamped phone call after talking with the police dispatcher for more than 4 minutes.</li>
</ul><ul><li>2.5 minutes later, a recorded / timestamped 911 call is made reporting a disturbance with screams of 'help' in the background.</li><li>30
seconds later another recorded / timestamped 911 call is made reporting
reporting a disturbance with screams in the background.</li><li>14 seconds later (and 45 seconds after the first 911 disturbance call), a gunshot is recorded / timestamped.</li><li>2 minutes after the gunshot police arrive on the scene.</li>
<li>Zimmerman has a bloody, swollen, broken nose and cuts on the back of his head. Martin has been shot dead at very close range.<br></li><li>The
only eyewitness of the account (not including Zimmerman) is that Martin
was on top of Zimmerman punching him while Zimmerman is call for help.</li></ul><br><br>Note
that I don't even mention George Zimmerman's statement in the above.
The least unreliable of the above is the eyewitness testimony, so throw
that out if you wish. You still have 911 calls recording &
timestamping calls for help, a delay, a gunshot, and then police
arriving 2 minutes later finding a bloodied George Zimmerman smacked in
the nose and head and a dead Trayvon Martin. Concoct your own story if
you wish, but if you want to convince a jury, you'd best have compelling
evidence to back it up. And as for 'compelling DNA' evidence. What's
compelling about it? That this counters George Zimmerman's statement
that Martin's hand was on the gun and holster? This was was yet another
lie in a long string of lies from George Zimmerman because he's a lying
lyer and he's only full of lies. So why believe anything he says? Why
even believe that he was 'reaching' for something'???:<br><br><ul><li>'Truth' - he was 'reaching'. This is clearly established by Zimmerman's unreliable admission.</li><li>'Lie' - he was reaching for his phone.</li>
<li>'Truth' - he was reaching for his gun although there is no supporting evidence of this.</li><li>'Truth' - alternately he had already drawn his weapon although there is no supporting evidence for this.</li>
<li>Possible Credible Truth - Martin tackled Zimmerman causing all of his injuries in one fell swoop.<br></li><li>'Truth' - Zimmerman yelled for 'help' for at least 45 seconds while Martin just looked at his watch.</li>
<li>'Truth'
- Zimmerman having already drawn his weapon before being tackled waited
around for 45 seconds for the cobwebs to clear out of his head after
being tackle and then calmly placed his gun (which he had somehow
managed to hold on to after being tackled) in the chest of Martin while
Martin just continued looking at his watch.</li><li>Undeniable Truth - Zimmerman pulled the trigger.</li></ul><br><br>Which
version do you think the jury is going to believe? The one that is
backed by recorded / timestamped 911 calls & evidence corroborated
by eyewitness testimony? Or the one that is full of speculation and has
absolutely zero evidence and witness testimony backing it? If you can
refute anything whatsoever in the topmost story, have at it. Keep in
mind that the 911 calls are recorded and timestamped as I've already
mentioned a number of times. But if you don't find 911 calls to be
reliable, then that defense strategy completely falls apart. And
admittedly, I'm putting a lot of weight on the 911 so-called 'evidence'.<br><br><br><br>-Scott<br><br><br><br><div><hr>From: <a href="mailto:v2020@ssl1.fastmail.fm" target="_blank">v2020@ssl1.fastmail.fm</a><br>
To: <a href="mailto:scooterd408@hotmail.com" target="_blank">scooterd408@hotmail.com</a><br>CC: <a href="mailto:vision2020@moscow.com" target="_blank">vision2020@moscow.com</a><br>Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Zimmy beams as he tours gun factory<br>
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2013 11:53:31 -0700<br><br><div><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;">In part, Scott wrote:</span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;">“</span><span style="font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";">Based
on photographic evidence, audio evidence, the measurable timeline, GZ's
medical report, TM's autopsy report combined with corroborating witness
testimony, it's difficult to draw any conclusion other than TM being on
top of GZ and hitting him for at least 45 seconds prior to the fatal
and only shot.”</span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;"></span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;"> </span><br>
<span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;">Here’s the thing, Scott: it really <b>isn’t</b> difficult to draw a conclusion different than what <u>you</u> think. Some people smarter than you & I agree with your interpretation, but some people smarter than you & I <b>don’t</b> agree with your interpretation. For instance, I found the DNA evidence to be pretty compelling, and it absolutely did <b>not</b>
support Zimmerman’s little one-sided tale. You apparently think
differently, or perhaps gave greater weight to other things I found less
compelling.</span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;"> </span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;">I
don’t know what “measurable timeline” you like, but the timeline I’m
aware of absolutely supports that fact that an armed Zimmerman stalked
Trayvon, and that Trayvon attempted to escape his stalker, unfortunately
unsuccessfully, on at least one occasion. Actually, I think it
accurate to say he aggressively tracked and hunted Trayvon, but I’m
content to call it stalking.</span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;"> </span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;">My
interpretation of the evidence is that when Trayvon was unable to lose
his stalker, he verbally confronted Zimmerman, who in his own statement
admits that he (Zimmerman) started reaching for something. Zimmerman
“claims” he was reaching for the cell phone in his pocket, which I find
to be utter rot & just another of his many lies – he was going for
his firearm. Regardless of whether Zimmerman was reaching for his cell
phone or his firearm, anyone with connected brain cells – particularly
after having been stalked for <b>several</b> minutes and having tried
unsuccessfully to escape the stalker – would reasonably assume that
Zimmerman was going for a gun. (Actually, for all you or I know,
Zimmerman had already drawn down on Trayvon at that point.) Besides,
isn’t that the reaction all the gun nuts want us to have? That’s the
mindset they think will make society safer: “Don’t mess with me because
for all you know, I’m packing heat & I’ll shoot you dead.” It
would be funny if it weren’t so tragic.</span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;"> </span><br><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1f497d;">Anyway, unable to outrun a bullet, Trayvon took the <b>only option</b>
available to him, and that was to make a running tackle at the goon
with the gun before he could fire. And, Zimmerman was as lame in the
confrontation he initiated as he’s been in life: Trayvon tackles
Zimmerman before Zimmerman can get off a shot. Having watched my share
of football in my youn</span></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></body></html>