No, Zimmerman/Martin Thread, I* think* that post starts it, pics scattered through the following posts. (But those are the same pics.) The larger point being folks extrapolating meaning from physical evidence that isn’t there.
Physical evidence tells you what, very often it tells nothing about how or why.
They certainly want certainty with, say, how Z’s keys came to be where they were found. Pretty bad if the jury believes, say, that they weren’t dropped because that’s where the fight started but that is where Z dropped them when he spotted M and went for his gun. (That’s completely hypothetical since unlike others I don’t know what where the keys were found means.)
The keys, and the location they were found, will certainly be entered as evidence during the prosecution’s case in chief. The witness will only testify that they found that set of keys at that location. Who’s keys they were and what they were for (Z’s and Z’s car etc.) will only be entered in the record at that time if both parties agree to stipulate to that fact. It’ll sound like this, “Yes, at a later time I became aware that they were Mr. Zimmerman’s.” and that’s it. The, pretty certainly, only person that can testify as to how and why the keys came to be there is Z. If he doesn’t testify the how and why never comes before the jury. (Assuming none of his out of court statements that explain it are deemed sufficient (Maybe our lawyers can explain exactly why such statements are not sufficient when there is an examinable witness available to testify instead?))
So far as I understand things, you are correct. But, the jury can draw reasonable inferences from evidence presented. Once the keys are introduced, they can reason either that they were dropped there because Zimmerman was punched, or because Zimmerman needed that hand to go for his phone, or go for his gun, etc. They don’t have to be specifically told a theory about the keys to include them in their reasoning, once the fact that the keys were Zimmerman’s and where they were found has been presented to them.
i think you have a problem with skin color because there is no evidence than any of what you said happened. There is no evidence that Zimmerman harassed blacks or stalked them. There IS evidence that a kid matching the description of burglars caught very near this house with stolen goods. That’s what Zimmerman knew at the time. What YOU now know is that Martin was a troubled kid who liked drugs, was on suspension for stealing, liked street fighting so much his girlfriend thought he’d get shot, was actively trying to buy a gun, and was sent to his father’s house because his mother thought she couldn’t control him.
“Looking into houses” is suspicious activity. Doing it in the rain at dusk when nobody else is around adds to that. Doing it to a house thought to have been recently broken into adds to that. Doing it at a house that someone KNOWS isn’t the person doing the activity adds to that. I seriously don’t know how you can suggest the above is not suspicious activity.
Because the only evidence that it was happening is Zimmerman claiming it was, and Zimmerman is a known liar, and if any more than that is even really necessary, I find it ludicrous to believe that anyone would fill up their hands with candy and WATERMELON-EQUIVALENT ARTIFICIAL LIQUID BEVERAGE before trying to break into a house.
Zimmerman is a known liar so he must be a murderer and that’s all that’s really necessary? I find it difficult to believe you can even type that let alone hit send.
Zimmerman may well have been mistaken about Martin’s intentions - although Martin hardly acted in a rational manner that evening.
What relevance does that mistake have to this case?
For that matter, what relevance would it have to the case if, as you seem to think, Zimmerman maliciously called the police on Martin, for reasons intangible?
Oh, and while you’re at it, please explain how the jury will determine that Zimmerman is a “known liar”, and what relevance it has to the case if they do determine that.
I’ll give you a clue, in case you are struggling to answer - none of them suggest in any way that he murdered Martin, let alone prove it.
Not that the jury will hear this either, but perhaps you should remember that Zimmerman had previously called the police on someone who did turn out to be a burglar, so, far from being a “known liar” he’s known to be correct about these things.
Still predicting an acquittal, still think he did it. It happens. I believe in the justice system and the rights of defendants to due process and “better to let ten guilty men go free than imprison one innocent one” and all that. He’s gonna be one of the guilty who go free.
Not sure about the makeup of the jury–no blacks can only help Zimmerman, and the Hispanic may be a wild card. If her race enters into her thinking at all, I suppose she might be offended that a man who lived his whole life as white suddenly discovered his Peruvian heritage when it became convenient to deflect accusations of racism, but probably none of that will ever be allowed to come up at trial. All women means possibly more fear of the unknown Martin, or more sympathy for the 17-year-old who got shot–if any of them have a kid who they can picture being executed for walking past the wrong house, that could be an issue. Hard to say without knowing them individually, though.
Unless the prosecution has something very explosive hidden in the remaining evidence that has not been released yet (that is, in Zimmerman’s cellphone records), there is no way they can convict Zimmerman. There’s just no there there.
I second this motion. All in favor? I think I’ve posted a sum total of four times to this thread. I am truly undecided. I am an NRA member and CWP holder but I’m not sure that this was a “good shoot” though I don’t see how the state can prove it wasn’t. All the stuff that’s been leaked so far (by both sides) isn’t necessarily material to the trial so I think a new thread is in order, come 0900 Monday.
I’ve pretty well stated all these reasons in the past. It’s good to see a prosecutor agreeing with me. Unless there’s something that hasn’t been revealed yet,( doubtful), there’s no way to get a conviction.
I would love to see something from the other side, that actually deals in facts not speculation and defamation, laying out how the evidence shows he might be guilty. Preferably a theory that doesn’t rely on Zimmerman, several policemen, many witnesses, and Martin’s father all being liars.
