A COMPREHENSIVE list of GZ’s falsehoods and inconsistencies

V

whonoze

(in progress, incomplete for now, check back for updates)

By establishing just how thorough George Zimmerman’s falsehoods and inconsistencies have been, we can establish just how thorough the failure of our social institutions were in this case. This page is meant to be a one stop resource for all the revelations about GZ’s credibility that are currently scattered in various spots over the web, to be used as a tool by researchers in academia, the media, and the general public.

I have made a page for text files of Zimmerman’s statements.

By my count, there are no less than 9 versions of Zimmerman’s story:

A. NEN call

B. Written statement

C. Initial interview with Singleton

D. Initial interview with Serino

E. Walk-through “re-enactment”

F. CVSA recording

G. ‘Challenge’ interview with Serino and Singleton

H. Hannity interview

I. As told to Mark Osterman

I think it makes sense to divide this…

View original post 4,290 more words

DOJ SHOULD INVESTIGATE JOHN GOOD

John Good. That is one name Zimmerman supporters regularly use to justify their decision to believe Zimmerman’s story. The truth is if the DOJ are serious about looking into charging Zimmerman with a hate crime then it will be another failed investigation if if they do not look into John Good and the police handling of this very strange witness.

Why is Good such a strange witness? Well, first of all, he is the only witness that was able to look into total darkness and see skin color. Not only was he the only one able to see skin but he could also make out two different types of colors of clothing in the dark. Yet they would ask him other questions and he would answer “it was too dark.” For instance, they asked if Martin had his hoodie over his head while he was on top of Zimmerman. Good said it was too dark. So then the next logical question is did you see the side of his face? Good does not remember. Did you see their hands? No. Did you see their mouths to determine who was screaming? No, it was too dark said Good. I’m still wondering why they never asked which part of Martin and Zimmerman’s skin he could see if he couldn’t see their faces, both were covered in clothes. The only thing he should have seen were hands per his story and yet he couldn’t see if they had anything in their hands nor did he describe what the person on the bottom was doing with his hands so that they were visible. His story is strange because he is the only witness who saw a struggle on the concrete. He is the only witness who described seeing a moving struggle with Martin on top the entire time. He is the only witness who allowed Detective Serino to help embellish his story and he originally claimed to have seen one person raining down blows on the other. His story is strange because he saw all of this within 10 seconds. He later changed his story to say he never saw an MMA style beating. Didn’t he know he didn’t see that the first time he was asked? Two witnesses saw him come to his door, say something briefly and then leave and they continued to watch longer than he did and yet they saw none of what he saw. According to all of the other witnesses there was no fight and the struggle took place in the grass the entire time. And then there is Jane Surdyka who watched it from the time they were on the ground initially until the time the shot was fired and she confirmed they were on the grass the entire time, as did Jeanee Manalo. How are witnesses who saw the encounter for more than 10 seconds less credible than Good? How could Good see well enough to see skin color but he didn’t notice they were never on the sidewalk? That doesn’t make sense. Why did Good describe something no one else saw and when did he come up with this story?

I went to axiomamnesia.com and I looked up John Good’s original interview with police and it was very odd. Here is the link to the website http://trayvon.axiomamnesia.com/?s=john+good Scroll to the middle of the page and listen to his audio file with Sanford Police Department dated February 26, 2012.

First, unlike the other interviews conducted Serino did not announce both the date and time at the beginning of the interview. I also noticed that Serino was very comfortable with Good as if they were very familiar with each other by the time the tape was started. I also find it odd that if they conducted this interview the night of the incident why did they do it outside in the rain? You can clearly tell it was conducted outside because the interview was interrupted by an airplane flying overhead. When CSI Diana Smith started snapping photos of the crime scene it was pouring rain in several of the pics. On that nasty night in February why was the interview conducted outside? Did Good really give his first statement the night of the murder? Can you really trust the SPD?

It is clear from Good’s 911 call that he was just discovering Martin’s race as he looked outside and saw Manalo flashing a light on the dead teen. It was at that time that he could also see clothing and the identity of the shooter. Did Good decide Martin was on top after he saw he was black? Isnt it possible that Good only made out clothes and skin with the benefit of light but he pretended he had noticed it after watching for 10 seconds in the dark? Why did no one ever ask Good how Martin and Zimmerman moved from the grass to the sidewalk? He said at least one person was screaming so they were an unwilling participant. How did the unwilling person move from the grass to the concrete? He says Martin remained on top even when they moved to the sidewalk HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE? Can you picture it? I can’t because it never happened. We know that the location of the body in grass and the fact that no one saw Martin move from the sidewalk to the grass after he was shot proves that Good lied about them ever being on the sidewalk. But how did Good know to tell a lie about them moving to the sidewalk? Could it have something to do with the mysterious outdoor in the rain interview with Serino? It’s clear that Good was at the window looking outside when he was talking to the 911 operaror. So when did Good start looking out of the window when he went inside? The shot had been fired and according to Good’s last view of the encounter the two were on the sidewalk. Did he see how they made it from the sidewalk back to the grass where Martin died and where Zimmerman was seen immediately over his body? I don’t believe Good only decided to look out the window once he was connected with 911 so what else did he see? There is no way Good can tell us what else he saw without admitting that what he claims he saw the first time was a lie. There would be no way he could explain where Martin eventually ended up without admitting that Zimmerman was not having his head smashed on concrete when the shot was fired.

Since we know they were never on the sidewalk, how did Good come to be instrumental in aiding to the clear lie that Zimmerman was having his head bashed on cement? In his first interview with Serino he said, “I don’t know if you’ve ever had your head bashed on concrete but it hurts.” And he said what prompted him to call police is when they moved to the sidewalk because that’s when he knew it was serious. The cries for help didn’t make it serious? But more importantly, the physical evidence found at the scene including belongings of both the participants and the shell casing says this encounter happened in grass. John Good made up a lie to help bolster Zimmerman’s story. When, where and how? That is a question for the D.O.J.

The State Prosecutors clearly believed John Good. Hopefully the DOJ investigators are much smarter than Angela Corey’s Motley Crue.

Five Questions for the Florida Prosecutors Who Tried George Zimmerman

1. Was it your decision to fail to highlight the botched investigation by the Sanford Police Department? You had Chris Serino on the stand and failed to remind him that he suggested that Zimmerman be arrested for Manslaughter. Subsequently, O’Mara was allowed to lead the jury to believe Zimmerman was trustworthy in the eyes of Serino. You also failed to call witnesses that were told by Serino that he was skeptical about Zimmerman’s story. Who made this decision and why?

2. Why did you push the meme that Martin was fighting Zimmerman? Not a single witness recalled seeing a fight but rather, a struggle, yet time and again you used the word “fight” to describe what happened that night. You even put on the Pathologist, Dr. Rao, who balled up her fist and mimicked punching herself in the face to explain how Martin could have hit Zimmerman and caused his injuries. In light of your own DNA evidence, there was no fight. Why did you lie on your dead client?

3. Why did you fail to see the importance of the testimony from your own witnesses? Jayne Surdyka and Jeanee Manalo testified that they were immediately drawn to their window when they heard a distinct howl or yelp. Both of those witnesses live at the T, where Zimmerman claims the altercation started. Neither of them saw Zimmerman or Martin fighting at the T although they were drawn to their window because of distinctive distress cries. Later they were drawn to their window a second and even third time when they heard distinctive cries for help and at that time they looked outside again and they saw the two individuals on the ground and they still were not directly at the T. Their testimony is important because it proves that Zimmerman lied about not following Martin down that pathway and he lied about Martin hitting him at the T and then stumbling forward to where the body was eventually found. In your opening argument you said that Zimmerman had followed and confronted Martin. Why did you fail to tell the jury that at least two witnesses, in addition to Rachel Jeantel, prove that Zimmerman fabricated the story of the encounter at the T to mask the fact that he was much further down that sidewalk than he should have been if he parked his car where he said he parked it?

4. Why did you mention time and again that Zimmerman had lied about extending Martin’s hands after he shot the teen without telling the jury why that lie was significant? Why did you fail to mention that Zimmerman had also lied about asking for help to restrain the dead teen? Zimmerman stated one reason and one alone for being caught on top of the teen’s dead body immediately after the shot was fired. His excuse was that he did not think he had shot the teen and because he was still moving he felt the teen needed to be restrained so he spread his arms apart to make sure Martin was not armed. Martin’s arms were found underneath his body. After he was seen on top of the teen, Zimmerman got up and walked away and left the dead teen face down in the grass. He walked back towards the T where he encountered John Manalo. He never asked Manalo to help him restrain Martin, which would have been useless at that point considering Martin had not moved. Zimmerman never told police he had walked away and left the teen lying there but he told them he was near the teens’ body the entire time. He wanted to give the police the impression that he was concerned about Martin being alive and or fleeing when the truth is he never sought to restrain Martin, he knew he was dead. The only reason Zimmerman would lie about why he was on the dead teen is because he was on the dead teen BEFORE the shot was fired. I have written a blog about Jane/Jayne Surdyka who placed Zimmerman on top of Martin BEFORE the shot was fired. He knew Selma Mora saw him on Martin. What he didn’t know is that Jeanee Manalo and Jayne Surdyka had also seen him on Martin. The evidence shows there was NO REASON for Zimmerman to be on the teen to “restrain” him after the shot was fired because he clearly knew he was dead, that’s why he walked away and left him lying there. Later at the police station he pretended he didn’t know Martin had died. This means he was conscious of the fact that he needed an excuse for being on the teen when the shot was fired. Why did the Prosecutor ask questions but then fail to give answers? It seems they wanted to put the pieces together but were afraid to do so. Meanwhile, the Defense painted their version of what really happened and even brought a block of concrete into the courtroom to drive their point home. I have never seen a case where the Prosecution fails to put together a coherent picture of what really happened while allowing the Defense to do just that. The Prosecution did not want to win this case.

5. Why did John Guy place Martin on top of Zimmerman up until the time the shot went off and why did he insist Martin never saw the gun? Wouldn’t that mean that Martin was the aggressor until the very end and would not have been screaming? So when the State finally did put together a theory, it was one that was NOT FAVORABLE to Trayvon Martin. When BDLR and Angela Corey were interviewed after the trial, BDLR says he believed Zimmerman had his gun out because he was intent on preventing Martin from “escaping thru the back gate.” Isn’t that interesting? The State DID have a theory of what happened. So if BDLR believes Zimmerman had his gun out early then wouldn’t Martin have seen it before Zimmerman pulled the trigger? If that’s the case, why did John Guy present a theory that was opposite of what BDLR believed?

In light of this information do you believe the State did all they could to convict George Zimmerman? I wonder if the Martin family secretly feels betrayed by the State Prosecutors. I feel betrayed and Martin was not my son.