Martin/Zimmerman: humble opinions and speculation thread

[monstro]

@Magiver

EVERYTHING backs up what Zimmerman said. It’s not like it’s a mishmash of contradictions and reinforcements.

You haven’t been paying attention if you don’t think there are any major WTFs! to George Zimmerman’s story. This thread wouldn’t be infinitely long if the case was so open and shut. We can quibble over the importance that any one discrepancy or implausibility will have in the trial. But it is insulting to the lurking audience’s intelligence to assert that Zimmerman’s position is unassailable. If this were true, he would have been granted immunity a long time ago.

But there’s a problem you keep downplaying. Zimmerman’s going to have to testify if we’re to hear his side of the story. And the intricacies of his story–the reason why he got out of his truck, his state of mind when he encountered Martin, the words that Martin supposedly uttered–all of these details will be pulled out of him by both sides. If he doesn’t testify, how is the jury supposed to know why he was so fearful?

I sure can’t wait to hear Zimmerman’s testimony. It will be riveting.

It doesn’t prove he couldn’t have committed a crime but there is nothing to suggest he did.

He was arrested with probable cause. His case hasn’t been thrown out. And it’s clear his defense is sweaty and desperate, stinking up the whole place. If there was nothing to suggest wrong-doing, Zimmerman would not be in the situation he is in. Arguing otherwise is ignoring reality.

It’s morally repugnant to base a conviction on anything other than the evidence at hand. If the evidence at hand doesn’t prove him false without reasonable doubt then he is innocent.

So it’s a good thing that he will have his day in court. He will have plenty of opportunity to stand before the jury and make his case. I’m sure he and his lawyers will do a stand-up job and everything will work out just right for him.

[Steophan]

@monstro

But there’s a problem you keep downplaying. Zimmerman’s going to have to testify if we’re to hear his side of the story. And the intricacies of his story–the reason why he got out of his truck, his state of mind when he encountered Martin, the words that Martin supposedly uttered–all of these details will be pulled out of him by both sides. If he doesn’t testify, how is the jury supposed to know why he was so fearful?

Whilst he probably will testify, he’s not required to. If the prosecution’s case is insufficient, it won’t even reach that stage, and if the defence feel they can refute it without him testifying he won’t. To take your example, one look at the pictures of his face after the beating he took will show why he was in fear - or, more precisely, cast doubt on the claim that he was definitely not in fear.

I’m still not sure what you think the reason he left his truck, or his state of mind before Martin attacked him, have to do with the case. They have no bearing on whether it was legitimate self defence or not.

[monstro]

@Steophan

Whilst he probably will testify, he’s not required to. If the prosecution’s case is insufficient, it won’t even reach that stage, and if the defence feel they can refute it without him testifying he won’t. To take your example, one look at the pictures of his face after the beating he took will show why he was in fear - or, more precisely, cast doubt on the claim that he was definitely not in fear.

Do you really think the prosecution is worried about the jury seeing this?

[Magiver]

@monstro

You haven’t been paying attention if you don’t think there are any major WTFs! to George Zimmerman’s story. This thread wouldn’t be infinitely long if the case was so open and shut. We can quibble over the importance that any one discrepancy or implausibility will have in the trial. But it is insulting to the lurking audience’s intelligence to assert that Zimmerman’s position is unassailable. If this were true, he would have been granted immunity a long time ago.

as it stands now, there is no evidence that contradicts his account. Maybe the Prosecution has something new.

@monstro

But there’s a problem you keep downplaying. Zimmerman’s going to have to testify if we’re to hear his side of the story. And the intricacies of his story–the reason why he got out of his truck, his state of mind when he encountered Martin, the words that Martin supposedly uttered–all of these details will be pulled out of him by both sides. If he doesn’t testify, how is the jury supposed to know why he was so fearful?
I sure can’t wait to hear Zimmerman’s testimony. It will be riveting.

I’ve already cited that both he and his lawyer WANT him to testify.

@monstro

So it’s a good thing that he will have his day in court. He will have plenty of opportunity to stand before the jury and make his case. I’m sure he and his lawyers will do a stand-up job and everything will work out just right for him.

Yes, too bad they couldn’t be bothered with a Grand Jury. It never should have gotten this far.

[Magiver]

@monstro

Do you really think the prosecution is worried about the jury seeing this?

No but thanks for posting a picture of him cleaned up. Thisis the picture of him cleaned up at the scene showing his swollen nose. The police described his face as covered in blood. Thisis the picture taken of the back of his head.

And since you brought it up, THISis the picture the prosecution originally sent the defense team as part of the discovery process.

[monstro]

Sorry to break this to you, but a picture of a bloody nose is not going to make anyone to gasp in horror. And it’s not going to convince anyone that Zimmerman was justified in fearing for his life. He’s going to have to do that with his own words.

[Steophan]

@monstro

Do you really think the prosecution is worried about the jury seeing this?

No doubt the prosecution will show that image. The defence is more likely to use this and this. Both of which, as the headlines suggest, create doubt that Zimmerman was not in fear of serious injury.

So, lets look at the evidence we have. One photo that makes him look basically uninjured, one with what looks like a seriously injured nose, and one showing more than one injury to the back of the head, the severity of which is hard to estimate. Do these photos, taken together, prove beyond reasonable doubt that Zimmerman was not in reasonable fear of death or serious injury? If not, then he gets the benefit of the doubt, and is considered not guilty.

That is the test that must be applied to all the evidence in this case. Not “is it likely he’s guilty”. Not “the evidence discredits part of his statement”. It must show, to the point that no reasonable person could think anything else, that Zimmerman murdered Martin, and specifically, as this is the only element of the crime that’s in question, that he did not act in legitimate self defence.

I’ve already provided enough evidence to cast doubt on that, with those two photos. Were this a trial, it would now be up to you to prove that either those injuries were not inflicted at the time I claim - that is, in the minutes leading up to the shooting, or that those injuries could not suggest the level of fear required to kill in self defence.

[Steophan]

@monstro

Sorry to break this to you, but a picture of a bloody nose is not going to make anyone to gasp in horror. And it’s not going to convince anyone that Zimmerman was justified in fearing for his life. He’s going to have to do that with his own words.

He doesn’t have to convince anyone of that. How many times will you have to be told that before you understand that? He has to claim it, then the burden is solely on the prosecution to prove otherwise. Please note carefully prove, not suggest, or insinuate, or otherwise address the probability thereof.

[you_with_the_face]

@Steophan

He has to claim it, then the burden is solely on the prosecution to prove otherwise.

If he doesn’t take the stand, how do you think he’s going to be able to claim it? Just like any defense offered by the accused, this has to be presented somehow. Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense will not magically spring out of ether.

I think you’re imagining a situation in which Zimmerman can refuse to testify while O’Mara gets up there and dazzles the jury with pictures of his bloody nose. But the jury can’t infer self-defense from pictures alone.

What other evidence, outside of Zimmerman’s own testimony, do you think the defense can offer up to support their claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman uprovoked, beat him unrelentlessly, and then threatened to kill him? No other witnesses can speak to this. The forsensic evidence doesn’t support it. They don’t have any experts who will say Martin can be heard issuing threats on the 911 tapes. So what else is there?

[Steophan]

@you_with_the_face

If he doesn’t take the stand, how do you think he’s going to be able to claim it? Just like any defense offered by the accused, this has to be presented somehow. Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense will not magically spring out of ether.

I don’t know the exact details of how it will be presented, but the law unambiguously says that all the defendant need do is claim self defence, and the prosecution need to prove otherwise.

I think you’re imagining a situation in which Zimmerman can refuse to testify while O’Mara gets up there and dazzles the jury with pictures of his bloody nose. But the jury can’t infer self-defense from pictures alone.

They do not need to infer self defence, they need to presume it until it’s proven otherwise. Zimmerman is presumed innocent. What about that do you still not understand?

What other evidence, outside of Zimmerman’s own testimony, do you think the defense can offer up to support their claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman uprovoked, beat him unrelentlessly, and then threatened to kill him? No other witnesses can speak to this. The forsensic evidence doesn’t support it. They don’t have any experts who will say Martin can be heard issuing threats on the 911 tapes. So what else is there?

They do not need to support this claim, they need to show that there is doubt on the prosecution’s claim that it didn’t happen that way. The injuries cast doubt on it. The witnesses to the fight cast doubt on it. The phone call with the dispatcher, and Martin’s with DeeDee, cast doubt on it. The physical evidence - which shows that Zimmerman was on his back - combined with witness statements that there was a fight with one man on top, beating the other, cast doubt on it.

The defence do not need to prove anything. Do you understand this yet?

If they feel they can cast doubt on the prosecution’s case without Zimmerman testifying, they will. Until the prosecution makes it’s case, it’s impossible to say whether they will go down this route - or even if they’ll need to, as the case could theoretically be thrown out before that point. If I had to guess, I’d say it’s more likely he will testify, though, as I suspect he will want to clear his name to the public.

Perhaps you can answer the question that the defence will surely ask - if Martin did not inflict those injuries, who did? And, more importantly, how can you prove it?

[Human_Action]

Attorney: Not sure yet if George Zimmerman will testify in murder trial

George Zimmerman’s attorney said he doesn’t know yet if Zimmerman will testify in his upcoming murder trial, despite a report from RadarOnline.com that claimed Zimmerman wants to.

“That story didn’t come from George or from me,” said attorney Mark O’Mara.

@you with the face

If he doesn’t take the stand, how do you think he’s going to be able to claim it? Just like any defense offered by the accused, this has to be presented somehow. Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense will not magically spring out of ether.

Not a lawyer, but isn’t the opening statement a mechanism for this? The counsel can state what they expect the evidence to show. Something like “We will show that George Zimmerman acted in self defense that night” would do it, I’d think, given the weakness of the prosecution’s case.

[Bricker]

@Human_Action

Attorney: Not sure yet if George Zimmerman will testify in murder trial

Not a lawyer, but isn’t the opening statement a mechanism for this? The counsel can state what they expect the evidence to show. Something like “We will show that George Zimmerman acted in self defense that night” would do it, I’d think, given the weakness of the prosecution’s case.

Nope. Opening statements are not evidence.

He doesn’t have to supply much evidence, but it has to be something more than a mere scintilla.

[Shodan]

@you_with_the_face

I But the jury can’t infer self-defense from pictures alone.

Let’s see a cite that a jury may not acquit based on a claim of self-defense unless the defendant testifies.

What other evidence, outside of Zimmerman’s own testimony, do you think the defense can offer up to support their claim that Martin attacked Zimmerman uprovoked, beat him unrelentlessly, and then threatened to kill him?

As has been explained to you over and over again, the defense does not have to support anything. The prosecution has to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Zimmerman attacked Martin. The entire burden of proof rests on the prosecution.

No other witnesses can speak to this. The forsensic evidence doesn’t support it. They don’t have any experts who will say Martin can be heard issuing threats on the 911 tapes.

There are two things wrong with this.
[list=A][li]It’s false. There are witnesses who can speak to it, the forensic evidence does back up Zimmerman’s story, and the defense does have evidence and witnesses who identify Zimmerman on the recording.[/li][li]It’s irrelevant. The prosecution has the burden of proof of proving that Zimmerman attacked Martin. And there are not witnesses who can speak to that, the forensic evidence does not back it up, and the prosecution does not have any experts who can establish beyond a reasonable doubt that Martin was screaming for help on the tapes.[/list][/li]

So what else is there?

The presumption of innocence, evidence, and logic. All of which back up Zimmerman, at least based on the evidence to date, and none of which establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Regards,
Shodan

[Human_Action]

@Bricker

Nope. Opening statements are not evidence.

He doesn’t have to supply much evidence, but it has to be something more than a mere scintilla.

But the claim of self defense itself isn’t evidence, is it?

[Human_Action]

To clarify: can the defense attorney include a claim of self defense in the opening statement, as long as that’s a reasonable outcome of what the evidence might show? Or does that cross the line into drawing inferences?

[you_with_the_face]

@Steophan

I don’t know the exact details of how it will be presented…

At this late date, you should have asked yourself at least 100 times how in the hell Zimmerman is going to claim self-defense without taking the stand. Believe it or not, it’s not a trifle detail.

They do not need to infer self defence, they need to presume it until it’s proven otherwise. Zimmerman is presumed innocent. What about that do you still not understand?

If Zimmerman doesn’t claim self defense, the prosecution’s case is simple. All they have to do is prove the elements of the crime they’ve charged him with.

Zimmerman has confessed to killing Martin in the state of Florida. So what should be the hardest part to be prove is actually the easiest.

For 2nd degree murder, they have to also prove he killed Martin with ill will, a depraved mind, and reckless disregard for life. Since he called the kid a punk and an asshole minutes before killing him, and asserted that he’s “up to no good” despite there being no reasonable basis for him saying that, there’s your ill will right there.

Depraved mind is evident in the killing of a person pleading for his life, as supported by multiple expert and ear witness testimony (plus Zimmerman denied he’d been yelling during his interrogation…this nugget of evidence is probably more compelling that anyone else’s claims).

Reckless disregard for life is exiting his truck to take after a person running after him fearfully, while carrying a loaded weapon.

The witnesses to the fight cast doubt on it.

There are no witnesses. If they put John on the stand, the prosecution will promptly reveal to the jury on cross-examination that he is an unreliable witness.

The phone call with the dispatcher, and Martin’s with DeeDee, cast doubt on it.

These sources of evidence only hurt Zimmerman. At any rate, they can not be offered up by the defense as mouthpieces for Zimmerman because they constitute hearsay.

The physical evidence - which shows that Zimmerman was on his back -

We know he didn’t stay on his back (the blood on his head tells us that). At any rate, him merely being on his back at one point in the conflict doesn’t allow the jury to infer he was in reasonable fear of imminent harm.

The defence do not need to prove anything. Do you understand this yet?

You’re the only one jabbering about proof. What you still can’t grasp is that the defense’s case becomes nigh impossible if Zimmerman doesn’t take the stand.

[Steophan]

@Bricker

Nope. Opening statements are not evidence.

He doesn’t have to supply much evidence, but it has to be something more than a mere scintilla.

This cite says that it is, in fact, a mere scintilla.

Where the defendant in a Florida criminal case presents any evidence of self-defense, the State must overcome the claim of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

The defendant is entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense in Florida when there is any evidence to support the claim. This is a low standard and even a “scintilla” of evidence will be sufficient, even if the self-defense theory is extremely weak or improbable. Self-defense may even be inferred from the State’s evidence without the Defendant or a defense witness ever taking the stand.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this cite, but it appears to be from a law firm in Florida, and it links to the actual statutes. If it’s correct, then if the defence provides *any *evidence, no matter how minor, that it was self defence, then the prosecution have to prove it was not - not merely disproving the slight evidence that the defence provide, but proving beyond reasonable doubt that it definitely was not self defence. Further, even if they do not so claim, the jury is still entitled to find the defendant not guilty if they consider that the prosecution’s evidence suggests self defence.

If I’ve interpreted any of this wrongly, I’d appreciate you clarifying it.

[Bricker]

@Human_Action

To clarify: can the defense attorney include a claim of self defense in the opening statement, as long as that’s a reasonable outcome of what the evidence might show? Or does that cross the line into drawing inferences?

He is free to say, in his opening statement, “The evidence we present will show self-defense…” – but only if he is going to actually present that evidence.

If the prosecution is worried about possible double-dealing – the defense using the opening statement to claim self-defense and then failing to actually present that evidence – he might ask for a ruling ahead of time, perhaps requiring the defense to proffer his evidence.

[Steophan]

@you_with_the_face

At this late date, you should have asked yourself at least 100 times how in the hell Zimmerman is going to claim self-defense without taking the stand. Believe it or not, it’s not a trifle detail.

See my reply to Bricker above. If you still don’t get it, remember that Zimmerman will not be representing himself at trial, but will have someone to do it. You should know this, you’ve talked about O’Mara enough.

If Zimmerman doesn’t claim self defense, the prosecution’s case is simple. All they have to do is prove the elements of the crime they’ve charged him with.

That’s not quite true, again see my reply to Bricker.

Zimmerman has confessed to killing Martin in the state of Florida. So what should be the hardest part to be prove is actually the easiest.

Correct.

For 2nd degree murder, they have to also prove he killed Martin with ill will, a depraved mind, and reckless disregard for life. Since he called the kid a punk and an asshole minutes before killing him, and asserted that he’s “up to no good” despite there being no reasonable basis for him saying that, there’s your ill will right there.

False, this was discussed earlier in the thread. There was plenty of reason for him to be suspicious of Martin, and that suspicion, or his derogatory comments, are in no way evidence that he wished harm on him.

Depraved mind is evident in the killing of a person pleading for his life, as supported by multiple expert and ear witness testimony (plus Zimmerman denied he’d been yelling during his interrogation…this nugget of evidence is probably more compelling that anyone else’s claims).

No-one’s been able to identify Martin as the one screaming, and indeed the actual experts say it most likely wasn’t.

Reckless disregard for life is exiting his truck to take after a person running after him fearfully, while carrying a loaded weapon.

Except, that completely mischaracterises what happened. The loaded gun was legal, and hence irrelevant. “Take after” is a loaded term, and one that does not accurately describe Zimmerman’s action, as heard on the phone call to the dispatcher.

There are no witnesses. If they put John on the stand, the prosecution will promptly reveal to the jury on cross-examination that he is an unreliable witness.

Lack of witnesses can only help Zimmerman

These sources of evidence only hurt Zimmerman. At any rate, they can not be offered up by the defense as mouthpieces for Zimmerman because they constitute hearsay.

False on both counts, as has been explained to you multiple times.

We know he didn’t stay on his back (the blood on his head tells us that). At any rate, him merely being on his back at one point in the conflict doesn’t allow the jury to infer he was in reasonable fear of imminent harm.

Yes, we know he stood up after shooting Martin. And again, the jury does not have to infer he was in fear (unless no claim of self defence is made) - the prosecution must prove it was not true. Anything that suggests it may have been true, that cannot be refuted, will suffice to show self defence.

You’re the only one jabbering about proof. What you still can’t grasp is that the defense’s case becomes nigh impossible if Zimmerman doesn’t take the stand.

That depends entirely on what case the state makes. It’s entirely possible there will not be enough of a case there for the defence to need to do anything. Once again, it is not the defence’s responsibility to make a case. I’ll ask again, what about the presumption of innocence do you not understand? What about the State’s responsibility to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt do you still not grasp?

And, most importantly, why do you continue to insist Zimmerman must prove his innocence?

[Bricker]

@Steophan

This cite says that it is, in fact, a mere scintilla.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of this cite, but it appears to be from a law firm in Florida, and it links to the actual statutes. If it’s correct, then if the defence provides *any *evidence, no matter how minor, that it was self defence, then the prosecution have to prove it was not - not merely disproving the slight evidence that the defence provide, but proving beyond reasonable doubt that it definitely was not self defence. Further, even if they do not so claim, the jury is still entitled to find the defendant not guilty if they consider that the prosecution’s evidence suggests self defence.

If I’ve interpreted any of this wrongly, I’d appreciate you clarifying it.

Nope, you’re right. I misspoke. A mere scintilla is sufficient.

But the main point remains: opening statements are not evidence.