Star Witness Against Zimmerman Tweeted About Case, Getting High, Her Court Nails

[Jack T. Cross]

The witness said her only heard Zimmerman screaming help me. This would also indicate if he had pulled the weapon, he didn't have control of it at this point.

When you have a moment, please link me with this.

[Roger Bacon]

Shut up Rob, you have no evidence to contradict zimmermans word about when the pistol came out. You already look like a total moron, just shut your mouth until the trial ends and save what little dignity you have left.

He feels really strongly about defending Martin and I have no clue why, lol

[240 is Back]

He feels really strongly about defending Martin and I have no clue why, lol

martin sounds like a lawbreaker that belongs in prison for drug use.

however...

Zimmerman doing what he did - then citing "Stand your ground" opened up bloomberg's national anti-gun campaign - and I'm predicting once he leaves office, that'll be his full time job.

So thank you, zimmerman, for becoming the asshat poster boy for bloomy's anti-gun fundraising for the next 5 years.

[Archer77]

When you have a moment, please link me with this.

Its been all over the news. Someone posted a link here.

[Straw Man]

Nor did you hear Zimmerman say he's trying to take my gun.  Logic would dictate the gun was involved after the witness, john good, went back into the house.

Logic would dictate that Zimm will make up a story that best suits his purposes

do you agree or disagree with that?

[Archer77]

Logic would dictate that Zimm will make up a story that best suits his purposes

do you agree or disagree with that?

"Make up" is putting it strongly.  Of course he would spin the story to put himself in the best possible light but I don't think he would make up a story.

[Straw Man]

"Make up" is putting it strongly.  Of course he would spin the story to put himself in the best possible light but I don't think he would make up a story.

you don't think a man who just shot an unarmed kid to death would make up a story?

are you serious?

[Archer77]

you don't think a man who just shot an unarmed kid to death would make up a story?

are you serious?

If he fired in self defense or felt he had to, why would he have to make up a story.  You're argument is predicated on the assumption Zimmerman didn't have legitimate grounds to shoot Martin.  You're actually presupposing his guilt.

[240 is Back]

"Make up" is putting it strongly.  Of course he would spin the story to put himself in the best possible light but I don't think he would make up a story.

WOAH -

ZImmerman has quite a history of lying.  I mean, google it.  Not even in this trial.  I mean, his wife was arrested for the two of them lying to the damn judge.  he lied when booked about his past record.  He lied when he said the 911 operator instructed him to follow trayvon.  he lied about a lot of things dude...

And THIS story is the difference between getting a hero's pat on the back, and 25 years in prison - AND YOU DONT THINK HE WOULD MAKE UP A STORY?


I think this is THE MOST MOTIVATION HE HAS EVER HAD, in his entire life, for lying his ass off. 

[240 is Back]

"Make up" is putting it strongly.  Of course he would spin the story to put himself in the best possible light but I don't think he would make up a story.

I have an idea.   If we end up learning of 1, 2, 3 or more lies that Zimmerman made to the police in his statement after shooting Trayvon - Will you THEN doubt his story & credibility on the circumstances of the shooting?

I guess what i'm saying is - people often admit zimmerman lied about little things, but can't believe he would lie about something as huge as, oh, 25 years to life lol...

[Archer77]

I have an idea.   If we end up learning of 1, 2, 3 or more lies that Zimmerman made to the police in his statement after shooting Trayvon - Will you THEN doubt his story & credibility on the circumstances of the shooting?

I guess what i'm saying is - people often admit zimmerman lied about little things, but can't believe he would lie about something as huge as, oh, 25 years to life lol...

Because someone lies about something or several things doesn't necessarily mean they lie about everything. 

[tonymctones]

If he fired in self defense or felt he had to, why would he have to make up a story.  You're argument is predicated on the assumption Zimmerman didn't have legitimate grounds to shoot Martin.  You're actually presupposing his guilt.

presupposing zimmermans guilt is what the retards whole case is built on...

these idiots arent looking at this objectively and trying to come to the right conclusion, they are forming their conclusion and looking for evidence and making assumptions to support it.

[Jack T. Cross]

Its been all over the news. Someone posted a link here.

Archer...

[240 is Back]

Because someone lies about something or several things doesn't necessarily mean they lie about everything.  

Do you believe that a person who lies on 3, 4, 5 or more details of a shooting - just might not be credible on his overall story?

Cause the lies are there - look them up - lots of "inconsistencies" which have been proven wrong by physical evidence.  I don't consider him to be a credible man.  He really hammed up what a threat trayvon was, from minute one.  I guess when someone exaggerates on a bunch of little things proven wrong, I have a hard time believing him on the big things like 25 years in prison.

I guess we should ask - WHY did zimmerman lie about so many of these little things.

[240 is Back]

presupposing zimmermans guilt is what the retards whole case is built on...

these idiots arent looking at this objectively and trying to come to the right conclusion, they are forming their conclusion and looking for evidence and making assumptions to support it.

that's beacuse zimmerman killed someone.  You can't just kill people.  He has to convince us why he felt his life was in danger - and his story was full of lies.  I think that'll be the last thing the jury hears from the prosecution - and in my opinion, I think it'll seal a conviction.

You can't just kill people and walk because "you can't PROVE I started the fight".  Particuarly when you admit you are chasing the motherfvcker, and that he's running.

[tonymctones]

so in your mind zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent 240?

[240 is Back]

so in your mind zimmerman is guilty until proven innocent 240?

all people are innocent until proven guilty. 

tony, if you listen to zimmerman's interview with police, you'll understand why I think zimmerman isn't credible - he keeps changing his story in his interview here.

http://www.wftv.com/videos/news/zimmerman-audio-interview-with-sanford-pd-on-feb/vcQzm/

Listen to it.  Zimmerman admits trayvon ran away and is hiding from him. 

"I wasn't following him - I was just going in the same direction he was"  - LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Archer77]

Do you believe that a person who lies on 3, 4, 5 or more details of a shooting - just might not be credible on his overall story?

Cause the lies are there - look them up - lots of "inconsistencies" which have been proven wrong by physical evidence.  I don't consider him to be a credible man.  He really hammed up what a threat trayvon was, from minute one.  I guess when someone exaggerates on a bunch of little things proven wrong, I have a hard time believing him on the big things like 25 years in prison.

I guess we should ask - WHY did zimmerman lie about so many of these little things.

In situations like this you have to take his testimony and compare it to other evidence such as witness testimony and forensics.  This one time Zimmerman might be telling the truth but if you presuppose he is a liar you might end up putting an innocent man in jail.

[240 is Back]

at 9:42, he is confronted with a lie he told to the police in an earlier interview.  He keeps changing why he got out of the car.  

at 10:54, he claims he is walking back to his car.   ZImm admits he is standing at a point closer to his vehicle than where trayvon was shot.  This is physically impossible, unless zimmerman dragged him 300 feet during the fight LOL.

84 seconds from the point he decides to walk back to his car.  
ZIMM ADMITS HE DIDN"T GET BACK IN HIS CAR NOW.

HE ADMITS he STOPPED because he didn't have a flashlight.

He ADMITS he can't account for those 84 seconds.   At 13:30, this is where the cop busts him and punches a hole in his story.  THIS is the smoking gun that I think we'll hear from prosecution.  

At 14:25, Zimmerman admits he was following trayvon.  Then claims he wasn't following him.   PLEASE listen to this - the 2 cops are shocked at his BS story.


At 15:10, cops accus him of trying to CATCH TRAYVON and that's why he took the flashlight.  TRYING TO CATCH HIM.  

Listen to him at 15:55... totally caught.  Totally making it up on the fly.  Your bullshit detectors shoudl be going off!!!!!!  LOL  the cops sure don't buy it.

at 16:45, Zimmerman hears a 911 call.  at 17:45 he claims he is being smothered - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HE IS SCREAMING.  That's kinda physically impossible.

The cop busts him at 18:20... zimmerman screams for a solid 25 seconds straight... there is no smothering - yet zimm keeps saying 'oh yeah, he was smothering me'.

"At what point did you fear suffocation"?   LMAO

At 19:20, the cop reminds zimm that NOBODY saw him being smothered.  Nobody can scream while being smothered.  "is he whisppering these threats to you?"

"Trayvon keeps saying all these things about killing me" - yet the recordings can't hear it lol.


I ask anyone who believes zimmerman to listen to this tape - this interview with police.  He's bullshitting them.  

[Straw Man]

If he fired in self defense or felt he had to, why would he have to make up a story.  You're argument is predicated on the assumption Zimmerman didn't have legitimate grounds to shoot Martin.  You're actually presupposing his guilt.

again, we don't know how the event transpired.  Let's assume at some point Martin was on top of Zimmerman (i.e per the testimony last week), that doesn't mean that Zimmerman didn't create the situation.  He could have tried to detain Martin or could have even started the fight. He could have had the gun out and they were fighting over that.  There are an abundance of reasons why Zimmerman would embellish the story and/or leave out salient details that would implicate himself or make himself not seem like an innocent victim.   The jury will have to decide that along with deciding whether deadly force was justified.  

[Archer77]

again, we don't know how the event transpired.  Let's assume at some point Martin was on top of Zimmerman
that doesn't mean that Zimmerman didn't create the situation.  He could have tried to detain Martin or could have even started the fight
He could have had the gun out and they were fighting over that.  There are an abundance of reasons why Zimmerman would embellish the story and/or leave out salient details that would implicate himself or make himself not seem like an innocent victim.   The jury will have to decide that along with deciding whether deadly force was justified. 

You say we don't know the facts then you start assuming.  The only thing we know is that Martin was on top and Zimmerman was screaming help me.  Neither of them mentioned a gun.  If the gun at been in play at that point it's likely one of the two would have mentioned it

It's highly likely Zimmerman would spin the story to place himself in the best possible light but that doesn't mean he lied about everything or that he is guilty of murder.  we can never know with 100 percent certainty who started the physical altercation and that leaves room for reasonable doubt.  As a juror I'd have to take this point into consideration.

[Straw Man]

You say we don't know the facts then you start assuming.  The only thing we know is that Martin was on top and Zimmerman was screaming help me.  Neither of them mentioned a gun.  If the gun at been in play at that point it's likely one of the two would have mentioned it

It's highly likely Zimmerman would spin the story to place himself in the best possible light but that doesn't mean he lied about everything or that he is guilty of murder.  we can never know with 100 percent certainty who started the physical altercation and that leaves room for reasonable doubt.  As a juror I'd have to take this point into consideration.

We only know (per the witness) that Martin was on top of Zimmerman

I gave you assumption to point of that there are a plethora of reasons why Zimmerman would alter (embellish or leave out) part of the story to save his own ass

when you say "neither mentioned the gun" I don't know what your'e talking about.  Are you referring to Zimmerman and Martin

How would we know what Martin said after the altercation started?   Regarding Zimmerman, as I mentioned he had many reason not to mention the gun if it makes him look bad

I find it a bit amusing that you think Zimmerman would have no reason to lie or that he just wouldn't do such a thing

[Archer77]

We only know (per the witness) that Martin was on top of Zimmerman

I gave you assumption to point of that there are a plethora of reasons why Zimmerman would alter (embellish or leave out) part of the story to save his own ass

when you say "neither mentioned the gun" I don't know what your'e talking about.  Are you referring to Zimmerman and Martin

How would we know what Martin said after the altercation started?   Regarding Zimmerman, as I mentioned he had many reason not to mention the gun if it makes him look bad

I find it a bit amusing that you think Zimmerman would have no reason to lie or that he just wouldn't do such a thing

I didn't mean he would have no reason to lie. Of course he would, if he were guilty of something but we can't presume he is.  My point is that we can't assume he's lying about everything.  We don't know what happened after the witness was out of ear shot.  This leaves a huge gap for reasonable doubt.

[Straw Man]

I didn't mean he would have no reason to lie. Of course he would, if he were guilty of something but we can't presume he is.  My point is that we can't assume he's lying about everything.  We don't know what happened after the witness was out of ear shot.  This leaves a huge gap for reasonable doubt.

I can presume he would lie because he has a history of lying

he lied to the judge at his bond hearing about his assets and his passport

Why wouldn't he lie about the altercation where he ended up shooting an unarmed kid to death?

[Archer77]

I can presume he would lie because he has a history of lying

he lied to the judge at his bond hearing about his assets and his passport

Why wouldn't he lie about the altercation where he ended up shooting an unarmed kid to death?

Which doesn't mean he lies all the time.  In a situation like this you have weigh the evidence against Zimmermans testimony.   Whether someone lied in another context not particular to the case is irrelevent.   I'm not defending Zimmerman as a person but I think this incident is more complicated than a lying evil Zimmerman killing a young innocent Martin.