Really?
During the trial, I seem to remember your generally offering laudatory comments about how the prosecution was doing. Your analysis constantly highlighted defense problems and shortcomings. This was in contrast to my analysis and the vast weight of legal commentators in the media, all of whom thought the prosecution was getting its ass kicked.
It’s certainly a surprise to hear that you actually thought the prosecution botched their case.
Which of your posts below best highlights the prosecution’s botching you now describe? Or perhaps I’m cherry-picking – can you point me to other of your posts during the trial that capture that “botching” sense a bit better than these?
Yeah, I’m sure some of them are biased as all get out, and I wouldn’t put it past them to lapse into stupid when evaluating the evidence. But at this time, I’m not complaining. Zimmerman should be worried.
The other thing worth pointing out (and I’m sure the Zimmerman supporters will disagree with this, but they stay in denial so that ain’t surprising) is that there is a big difference in interpersonal skills between BLDR and O’Mara/West. Anyone who has tuned into the trial so far can see this starkly. Not to stereotype too much, but with an all-female jury, the defense definitely has a reason to worry about this. Body language, tone, and overall demeanor all go into building trust, and trust goes hand in hand with belief. I think women are more attuned to non-verbal communication than men are, and the prosecution is winning in that area.
O’Mara badgered the witness but didn’t succeed in getting her to recant these claims. In addition, witnesses can sign all the petitions they want and still be credible. Exercising one’s 5th amendment rights doesn’t suddenly turn someone into a liar. The fact that O’Mara had to grasp at such a straw should be another clue to the jury that the defense’s case is a shaky as a house of cards.
The defense is trying to make a big deal out of minutia. West tried to nail Rachel on whether she knew it was Martin’s voice who was screaming or whether she just thought it sounded like Martin. But, like, who the fuck cares? The defense just spent thousands of dollars arguing that it’s impossible to absolutely identify the yeller on the tape, so attempting to impeach Rachel on such a trivality is weak. They are boring the jury with this tactic, too. It’s easy to forget their experience is completely different than ours because they are forced to sit there and watch the lawyers perseverate on details that are of questionable relevance, while we watch entertaining snippets from the news.
While the defense attacks inconsequential bullshit, what is obvious is that all the prosecution witnesses are corroborating each other stories. And most importantly, there are certain things NOT showing up in their testimoney as well. Zimmerman’s narrative is inconsistent with what the witnesses are claiming, and the defense is busily trying to mask that fact by trying to convince the jury that they are all liars. Problem is, even the witnesses who are semi-hostile to the state are not claiming the same things Zimmerman claimed.
They don’t report any head slamming on the concrete. None have said they witnessed any extensive ground struggle or hearing “you gotta a problem, homie?”. They report hearing running and the sound of sneakers, which indicates there was a chase during the conflict. They don’t report hearing anyone say “tonight you’re gonna die mother fucker” or any threats. The sound of trampled grass is reported by multiple witnesses too. The grass thing is significant. Why would this be such a common theme among witnesses, if Zimmerman’s account was true? And most importantly, Zimmerman is consistently being identified as the person who was seen on top. Before and after the gun went off. No one has yet identified seeing Martin leaning on top of Zimmerman, smothering, or punching him.
What’s fascinating is watching the defense, in its attempt to rattle and confuse the witnesses, only really succeed in driving home the prosecution’s key messages to the jury. “Zimmerman followed Martin first by truck then on foot” was today’s take home message, brought to you courtesy of West himself. Not only did he not dispute the idea of Zimmerman pursuing the kid at length, he kept emphasizing it, and he kept eliciting this from Rachel too. Forget about not knowing street names. The defense isn’t even using that to excuse Zimmerman’s behavior at the point. The jury knows he went after Martin in his truck and then got out to follow him. And worse (for the defense), it’s indisputable that Martin knew he was being followed and that he ran away.
I have to wonder what the jury is thinking when witnesses are asked to relive what they saw and they break down in tears when they talk about the killing, and they see Martin’s parents crying too, and then the graphic pictures of Martin’s body and the 911 tape being played over and over again…and all the while, Zimmerman sits across from them completely expressionless. He doesn’t even have it in him to pretend like he is emotionally present, and yet O’Mara and West are doing their best to make the room think he was the one yelling for help like that.
And about Rachel: she came across as unsophisticated and slow, but these same traits go to her credibility as well. If she’d had an agenda to make Trayvon look saintly, it would have made little sense for her to have attributed “creepy-ass cracker” to him. The reasons she lied about her age and about not attending the funeral are plausible as well, not to mention wholly irrelevant to what she heard that night. West had her on that stand for 5+ hours, which was overkill for what little she had to say. And even still, the basics of her testimony–the stuff that damns Zimmerman as the aggressor–were not successfully challenged by West. He had to put in a lot of work to make her look bad, and in the process, he got her to drill into the jury’s head that Zimmerman went after Martin. Not the other way around.
When Rachel said she told Martin to run because Zimmerman could be a rapist, the ears of that all-female jury (with 5 out of 6 mothers) should have perked up. What better way to get this jury to see that Martin was the vulnerable victim than to remind them of how vulnerable a woman would be if they’d been in his shoes.
I disagree. Even though we’ve had their statements for a while, their live testimony is bringing out points that clearly contradict the line of bull Zimmerman has tried to feed the masses. The teacher has been the strongest eye witness so far, IMO. In the early days, people discounted what she said because of Serino’s underhandedness and her emotional state on the 911 call. But she turned in a devastating performance. The jury may discount Rachel and some of the other browner witnesses, but they’ll have a hard time ignoring her.