I’m always impressed how quickly lawyers can formulate their rebuttal questions during testimony. O’Mara makes it so effortless. There may of been two hours witness testimony for the prosecution. O’Mara jumps right up with his yellow legal pad and rolls out a hour or more of rebuttal questions.
I realize their trained to do this and lawyers like O’Mara and West have over twenty years experience. But its still impressive that they can strategize that many questions while simultaneously listening as the witness testifies.
There’s a lot of planning that goes into it. Usually, you have a pretty decent idea what the witness is going to say and what you can get out of the witness on cross before the testimony ever happens. Only a fraction of those questions are crafted in response to unexpected answers.
If they define “consistent” as “agreeing with or possible”, Can they ask if the evidence is consistent with his testimony? It would be a dangerous question to ask by either side if it’s allowed.
And should the mention of the slim jim been allowed. It infers Martin stashed it unless they specifically said it was NOT part of the case.
that’s what I expected but the Prosecution at this point should be charging Zimmerman for their time. I don’t understand how they could be presenting witnesses so hostile to their own case. Dee Dee was a guaranteed trainwreck based on her earlier statements and the train ran over a cliff in court. Is it because the Defense would have called her anyway?
Quoting Martinez v. State, 761 So. 2d 1074 (Fl. 2000)
Of course, in this case, the danger was to the prosecution, that the officer’s opinion supports the defendant’s innocence. Either side is entitled to have the issues of ultimate fact decided by the jury, and not the witnesses.
Those two accounts do not, as you have described them here, contradict each other at any point. Each contains details that the other does not, but at every point where they coincide they say the same thing.
Another gift from the prosecution. They’re playing the Fox interview. George gets to tell his story again in a very positive way. Neatly dressed, hair cut, makeup, Great lighting. It’s like George is testifying without having to face cross examination. Plus we’re hearing George talk about God and how this effects him.
The details are not much different from his police statement. O’Mara is right there next to him and making sure what George says is ok.
This is a prosecution choice? Wow. Yes George says skip instead of run. Big frigging deal. This is such a gift to the defense.
This Serino dude is a shining example of how cops ought to be:
O’Mara: If you were driving a unmarked car and you saw a man standing between two homes in the rain, in the dark, not moving, would you have stopped and talked to him?
Serino: <shakes his head> Not just based on his presence, no I would not.
O’Mara: And why not?
Serino: Because he may live there.
O’Mara: Would you stop and asked him?
Serino: Not just based on what you’ve observed.
This is what you call common sense folks. When he says “Because he may live there” that was absolutely the correct answer. In contrast to Serino, if Zimmerman was using common sense, he would have realized that he doesn’t know the hundreds of people who live at Retreat at Twin Lakes nor does he have a running tally of those guests that residing in those households and for how long at any given time; therefore, he has no basis to assume who may or many not belong there. Or, in other words, he’s profiling.
They do. You’re missing where Trayvon’s arms were spread out eagle-style by a mounted Zimmerman as Manalo arrived. Compared to Manalo who saw Zimmerman standing and Trayvon’s corpse on the ground with his arms tucked inside toward his chest.
Do you have a cite on that personal relationship he had with the owners and residents of those two homes? Did he have deep enough relationship that these owners would provide Zimmerman with a list of visitors, guests, and family along with arrival and departure dates?
The prosecutors aren’t stupid. I do not believe that the prosecutors are the parties that decided to move forward with this case. This case was foisted on them by the politicians. A decision was made that the riots associated with a “not guilty” verdict after a lot of time has passed would hopefully be less damaging to the community and their political careers than the riots that would have broken out over a year ago for failure to prosecute. This way the ire could be more directed at the jury as opposed to the community leaders.
Sure, 33:40-34:16 in fact, I take that back, he didn’t say, away from the body, instead, Zimmerman says he held Trayvon’s hands up. LOL. This contradicts pictures from the witness showing trayvons arms tucked inside his chest.
Show me the part in your post where you claim Manalo saw Martin with his arms under his body, or the part in your post where you claim Manalo saw Zimmerman standing when he arrived.
Look, this is what you (and others) have been doing all along. You claim one thing, have it firmly refuted, then claim we haven’t refuted it because we haven’t refuted something entirely different.
Of all the lies he told, I think this is the most meaningful, as well as the most obvious. He has invented a story to explain something he did that was out of line. And the prosecution has completely blown all attempts at determining what it was, apparently.
Not offhand. It’s not something I spend time thinking about.
