Hi clo,
Evidence: [let's take a look at the things you believe are evidential one by one]
right handed Trayvon has NO marks on the hand that Zimmerman claimed slammed him again & again. [evidence, but not terribly strong evidence given we can see the other side of the transaction - in the photos of Z's bloodied head with a broken nose, welts and abrasions. these didn't appear by magic. they occurred at the hands of M. evidence that is not in dispute]
Trayvon's mother identifies his voice. [incomplete evidence, when not taking account of the fact that others identified Z]
As the call shows, once shot, Trayvon no longer cried for help [the call doesn't "show" M crying for help at all - it is a matter of disputed opinion].
If it was Zimmerman, he would have continued, since he claimed he was still in fear, since he also claimed he didn't know he hit Trayvon [supposition and not evidence].
His brother took the stand. Looking a lot like an older version of Trayvon. Well dressed, soft spoken, attending college. [not evidence - M's brother is not on trial. Z is]
Judge Debra Nelson denied the acquittal bid. [not evidence and of no significance]
The Defense is putting on a case [not evidence].
If they believed the state didn't make the case, they wouldn't. [supposition and not evidence]
Trayvon's family is getting justice, they have a trial. [not evidence, but i am glad they will learn what occurred]
Is it possible you are struggling with the difference between the concepts of evidence and inference?
They are very different things.
When you purge your mind of inference, the totality of the evidence paints a very different picture.
Questions
What makes you think slamming someone's head on concrete would create marks on M's hand?
Do you think your preference for the evidence of M's mother over that of Z's mother reveals your bias in general?
Do you think it reveals a preference that you always describe M by his first name and Z by his last?
What do you think of the fact that M's father and brother were both initially unsure the voice crying for help was M's and that Z's uncle was certain the voice was Z's the moment he heard it?
Given the advantage of proximity, what do you make of the fact the witness who stood within 3 body lengths of the fight and who had an exchange with M and Z during it thought that it was Z who was calling for help?
Why would someone who was crying for help when he was being repeatedly beaten while underneath his assailant continue to cry for help when the beating stopped and he was no longer vulnerable?
Are there circumstances you can imagine in which a defence team would not make a defence of their client?
Do you know that the presumption of innocence, an action in self-defence and equal-handed justice are things that the defendant has a right to?
Given that you ignore any evidence except that which promotes the narrative that Z was a malevolent hunter bent upon the killing of a harmless teen, do you think your posts conform to these principles?
What do you make of the following evidence?
Z's head had 4-7 painful lumps on it, a broken nose, numerous abrasions and was dizzy after the fight.
M's autopsy showed that he was not hit once during the beating he gave to Z.
| 