“Did you hear anyone say ‘You’re gonna die tonight motherfucker?’” “No.”
There, she helped the prosecution. Happy?
ya’ll didn’t mention that she couldn’t READ the letter. It’s not a function of poor penmanship.
She can’t read cursive which means she can’t write it. Why didn’t she just type it.
Don’t jump down my throat. You’re the one who said the witness wasn’t useful to either side. I guess you’ve changed your mind.
I said I didn’t hear anything particularly useful. The prosecution had to call her, she was a witness and she was important in recreating the scene. That she didn’t single-handedly win the case is no reason for people like Steophan to say “[The prosecution] should probably give up now.”
Sorry to jump down your throat, though.
I guess my point is that I’ve been following this for almost 4 days now and I haven’t heard anything that hasn’t been introduced to the media at some point over the past 16 months. There’s still no case for murder in my opinion, but I still haven’t heard anything that unilaterally clears Zimmerman. It’s all been by the numbers and relatively boring, and yet there’s a lot of spin on both sides about how much their side is winning.
There doesn’t have to be anything that clears Zimmerman. If the prosecution don’t have anything that shows he’s guilty of murder - and none of the witnesses so far have come close to that - he can’t be found guilty.
Analysts on wftv have been discussing O’Mara opening the door on Zimmerman’s prior conduct. Especially the restraining order by a gf and a misdemeanor charge for battery on a cop (later dismissed).
All that because O’Mara screwed up and asked Lauer if Z had a temper or anger issues.
So far this was in proffer. But Z’s past may get in front of the jury now.
So they should just end the trial now? No sense in calling the rest of the witnesses?
My honest opinion is that, based on the evidence, it should never have gone to trial in the first place, and the whole thing is a politically motivated farce. So, yes, unless the prosecution have something devastating to pull out, they are wasting their time, and it would be better for everyone if it was over as soon as possible.
Well let’s assume that they do have some devastating evidence that they’re going to pull out. Should they have done that on day one just to make you happy? Or should they do it when it makes the most sense, which may be late next week?
I still love you. Let’s never fight again! 
Mora, the Hispanic lady seems to be the first witness that actually went outside and saw Zimmerman on top of Trayvon. It must have been within seconds of the gunshot.
She was a good witness. Very composed and precise in her testimony.
It’s a shame George’s parents were kicked out of court. All because his dad is on the witness list. I can’t imagine why. He was home in another city when the shooting occurred. The father had no direct involvement in the case until afterward.
George may have confessed to him. Wasn’t it George’s father who came out with the ridiculous “You got me!” story?
His father has written a book about the case, claiming his son is innocent. Whilst it’s correct for witnesses to be kept from the court before they’re called, I’d be astonished if someone with Zimmerman Sr’s legal background reveals any confession his son may have made.
Ah yes, the hand-waving we’ve come to know and expect. He does -not- get out of the truck to look for a street sign to give to the NEN dispatcher. That’s the story Zimmerman gave afterwards - for example, at 07:00 into his video walkthrough the very next day: here, where he insists that the dispatch asked him for an address, he says he didn’t remember the name of the street, and only got out of the car after thinking that he could walk through the cut-through.
But the NEN dispatcher doesn’t ask for the address he’s parked in front of until well after Martin ran and long after George had exited the truck. Now, there were only three streets in the entire compound, and he’d previously correctly identified the street name in other NEN calls. So the idea that he didn’t remember the street name is just stupid.
And note: Zimmerman says nothing about not knowing the -street- he’s on, he says he doesn’t know the address he’s in front of, because it’s a cut-through. This is true: he’s not by his truck, he’s walking around the cut-through, looking at the back of the houses.
But he didn’t go to the other end of the cut-through either - it’s only a few seconds’ walk to the other side of the cut-through, but does he tell the dispatcher what address he got? Does he say, ‘hold on, I’ll get you an address’? No, he doesn’t. And of course he didn’t need to walk through the cut-through either - right in front of his truck was the front of the corner house with the address lit up and everything; NEN doesn’t need a specific street address; they got Google maps and such, and they’d already identified the clubhouse over the phone.
It’s a flat-out lie. He didn’t mis-speak, he didn’t misremember. He lied.
And this is one of the ugly part I see in some (not all) of the Team Zimmerman camp that I simply do not understand. An unarmed kid is dead, George’s injuries don’t look nearly severe enough to be even remotely life-threatening, and George created and escalated the situation with a loaded gun. Sorry, but when you carry a gun and someone ends up dead, your ass should end up in court. Given the multitude of options available to the guy carrying a loaded weapon that would have ended up without a dead, unarmed kid, at the very least he should pay a price for his poor judgement.
Do you still not understand that killing someone is not, in itself, illegal, and if there’s insufficient evidence that something illegal actually happened, there should be no trial.
Killing someone in self defence, if they attack you and put you in fear of serious injury, is not a crime in Florida. This isn’t about whether Zimmerman’s actions were right, or moral, or sensible, or the best option - or for that matter, the worst option. It’s about whether they can be shown to be illegal.
I still don’t get the continuing hysteria about “he had a loaded gun”. So what? It is legal for him to carry a gun in Florida, and legal for him to go about his business carrying a loaded gun - even if said business involves asking people what they are doing. Unless you have evidence he used that gun improperly, it has no bearing on the legality of what he did. Using a gun to kill someone who’s attacking you is pretty much a definition of proper use.
And, if it were legal, he absolutely should not pay a price for it. This is made very clear in Florida law, where people who defend themselves are exempted from legal proceedings. I suspect, if he is found not guilty, he will be able to use the Stand Your Ground law to become very rich when he sues for unlawful arrest and trial, or whatever it’s called. Something to think about for those who think he should suffer for doing only what he had the right to do.
I notice also that you are still clinging to the unproven claim that Zimmerman created and escalated this situation. What evidence do you have for that? He lost sight of Martin. Martin went home. At some point later, Martin attacked Zimmerman. Please explain how that can possibly be Zimmerman creating the situation. Not that it matters, as Zimmerman had no other option but to defend himself - it’s not like he could run away when Martin had him pinned to the ground.
what hand waving? Nobody is denying he looked for a street sign. Nobody is denying he ran after Martin. Where is the lie? Do you have evidence that he didn’t look for a street sign or run after Martin?
It’s crystal clear by the phone call that he DOESN’T remember the name of the street. Are you suggesting he deliberately lied that he didn’t know the name of the street that he was struggling to direct the police to?
so to recap, you think he’s making up a deliberate story over the phone, while it’s happening so that he can shoot Martin?
He clearly doesn’t know the name of the street. The conversation was recorded. This is not up for debate. If he doesn’t remember the name of the street then the address is meaningless. His truck becomes the address for the police to respond to. The dispatcher asks him if he wants to meet them by his truck and he says yes and to call him when they get there.
what’s a lie exactly? He gave the dispatcher directions to his truck as he’s walking to the other street. He agrees to meet at the truck and asks the police to call when they arrive.
You keep forgetting the unarmed kid beat the fuck out of a stranger and there is no evidence at all that justifies this. There was no sign Martin intended to stop and only a fool would think getting your head pounded into cement is not a serious event.
If Martin didn’t beat Zimmerman he would be alive today That is the direct cause of the events. By the evidence at hand he went out of his way to confront someone he called a nigger and a cracker. The evidence shows he was a troubled kid on suspension who his mother couldn’t control and his girlfriend thought would end up with a bullet in his chest. What does his mother and girlfriend know that you don’t.
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.
Yes, when I can’t remember the name of the street I’m on I find it very helpful to look for a street sign on a completely different street very far away from the point that those streets intersect.
CMC fnord!
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.