Eyes for LiesSM
An expert in deception


The Science
Scientists have identified 50 individuals who are able to spot deception with great accuracy after testing more than 15,000 people. Eyes for Lies is one of the 50 people. More 

Eyes kept score on her blog for 7.5 years and had an accuracy rate of 95% after identifying truth and deception in 38/40 people before the truth was known by watching media clips. A record comparable to none. Eyes for Lies is not psychic.


 



Friday, June 22, 2012

 George Zimmerman's Written Statement
  by Eyes at 2:56 PM


Click to see

Yesterday I analyzedGeorge Zimmerman's video reenactment of what happened between him and Trayvon Martin.  I found a lot of inconsistencies in his version of events, which leads me not to believe Zimmerman is telling us what he knows actually happened.  When I look at Zimmerman's written statement, I see more oddities and inconsistencies that stand out to me again.

I find it very odd that Zimmerman says Trayvon supposedly disappears and then reappears out of the darkness at which time he circled Zimmerman's car. Oddly in the 911 call here we don't hear him talk about this at all.  Do I have the complete 911 call?

Who circles a car without provocation?   It's ridiculous.

I do not believe that Martin just circled a strange guy sitting in a car without some contact with him.  This is illogical. The more logical scenario is something happened first that we haven't been told about. It is strongly suggestive that Zimmerman yelled something out of his car to provoke Martin before calling the police, but hasn't told us about it.  This would make a lot more sense to the entire scenario and why things escalated.

Here is another oddity.  In Zimmerman's written statement, he says, "The dispatcher once again asked me for my exact location. I could not remember the name of the street so I got out of my car to look for a street sign. The dispatcher asked me for a description and direction the suspect went.   I told the dispatcher I did not know but I was out of my vehicle looking for a street sign and the direction the suspect was.  The dispatcher told me not to follow the suspect."

In his written statement, he was looking for a street sign yet in the reenactment video, he wasn't looking for a street sign.  He was cutting through houses to get to another street:

"...I could go straight through that-- that is Retreat View Circle, and I could give him an address because he said just give me the address of the house in you are in front of and there are no addresses because these are the back of the houses."

His story changes dramatically.  Looking for a street sign is very different from looking for an address on a building.  This is critical.

His story changes because he wasn't focused on getting the address as he says he was.  That was his second goal. His first goal was hunting down Martin, but he doesn't want us to know that--that he was in hot pursuit still as I believe that information would hurt his self-defense claim. That's why he never did give the police an address because the address wasn't his goal--getting to Martin was.  That's why he told the police to meet him back at his car, or to call him when they got there!

In Zimmerman's written statement, he was sure he fell backwards when allegedly punched by Martin.  He says, "I fell backwards on to my back," yet in the reenactment he can't remember oddly.
Zimmerman says:

"To be honest, I don’t remember exactly...um... I think I stumbled and I... fell down, or he pushed me down and somehow he got on top of me."

Notice the afterthought:   "Or he pushed me down." The timing is telling...

These statements were taken probably within 24-48 hours of each other.  Why is his memory fuzzy from one to the next?

In his written statement, Zimmerman claims that Trayvon covered his mouth and nose, as he said in his reenactment, but in the written statement he says he "stopped my breathing." That's huge.  Why would he leave that out in the reenactment?  That's life or death, if it happened, which by the fact he quickly forgot by the reenactment, I seriously question the integrity of that statement.  That is not something you would forget.

In the written statement, Zimmerman writes, "I felt the suspect reach for my now exposed firearm and say, "You're gonna die tonight MF."  Zimmerman continues, "I unholstered my firearm in fear for my life as I was sure he was going to kill me and fired one shot into his torso."

I find this statement fascinating on many levels.

If Trayvon was going for the gun, why doesn't Zimmerman talk about or remember a struggle?

There seems to be no struggle between these two yet both were going for the gun. How does that happen?
 
Zimmerman just magically got his weapon unholstered and fired it without any struggle.  Imagine that?

And got perfect aim into "the torso" and could see it happen, obviously.

It's ridiculously unbelievable that Martin would just sit on top of him and watch the whole thing happened, not doing anything to fight back.  This is a fantasy, if you ask me.  Pure rubbish.  His story is flat out inconsistent on every level.

In his reenactment Zimmerman is inconsistent again.  He tells us he didn't think he shot Trayvon.   

Really?

Yet you just read in the written statement he has no doubt and knows exactly where he shot him!!   I think anyone can see the truth here, when you compare statements.

From the reenactment:

...I felt like his arm going down to my side and I grabbed it, and I just grabbed my firearm and shot it one time...I shot him and I didn’t think I hit him because he sat up and said, “okay, you got me. You got it, you got it"…something like that.  So I thought he was just saying, “I know you have a gun now, I heard it…I’m giving up.”

In the written statement, the timing of the onlooker is different, too.

Honest people don't have all these inconsistencies, folks.

After he shot Trayvon in the torso, Zimmerman says, "At this point, I slid out from underneath him and got on top of the suspect holding his hands away from the body.  An onlooker appeared and asked me if I was okay.  I said "no." He said "I'm calling 911.  I said I don't need you to call..."

Yet in his reenactment, we hear Zimmerman say the following. Notice the timing is different:

"... and he said “Shut the fuck up.”  And um…..then I tried squirming again because all I could think about was…when he was hitting my head against…it felt like it was going to explode.  I thought I was going to lose consciousness so I tried to squirm, so I could get…he only had a small portion of my head on the concrete so I tried to squirm off the concrete, and when I did that, somebody here opened the door and I said, “Help me, help me” and they said, “I’ll call 911.”  And I said, “No help me”.  I need help."

Why can't George keep his facts straight?  In his written statement, an onlooker doesn't appear until after George shoots Trayvon.  In his reenactment, the onlooker appears BEFORE!  Which is it?  Why aren't his stories consistent?  I can forgive one or two inconsistencies, but we have many, many more.

In listening to the 911 call again, I also hear George's voice drop in volume noticeably when he tells the police officer instead of meeting him-- to call him when he gets there.  It's clear he is still "in pursuit" and doesn't know where George is, and he's looking for him, and in case he is close, Zimmerman dropped his voice so he couldn't be heard. That gives me the chills.

Labels: , , , ,

Facebook Favit Digg it Google Buzz Google Technorati Twitter MySpace Reddit Yahoo! My Web del.icio.us Stumbleupon Gmail Windows Live
Social Bookmarking Links  Older Posts



Copyright Notice 2004-2013
The content of this blog cannot in any way be reproduced, replicated, copied, duplicated or performed in any manner without express written permission from Eyes for Lies. You don't want to get caught in a lie, do you? Ask first. 

 

Home       About       Services       Blog       Articles       Comments       Contact       Track Record       Suggestions

COPYRIGHT 2004-2013