I’m using the term ‘stalking’ as in how one would stalk a deer - or other prey - not in the legal definition that requires ‘x amount of contact or days, etc’ . Putting myself in the mind of Martin.
What is interesting to me in these threads is that Martin has been given no ‘benefit of the doubt’ - as if he has already been convicted of being the aggressor here.
and I concede the rest of your post - the defense’s case should be interesting, although I do wonder how much of one there will be.
Martin is not on trial. Benefit of the doubt is applied to the defendant.
I used the word “could” to give an alternate narrative to the events - you assumed, and stated, “Martin threw the first punch” as a fact.
There is ALOT of reasonable doubt here - all the way around.
Talking about the thread - not the trial.
The thread is about the trial. See the title.
So, you are ignoring the part of your cite that refers to a “period of time”? Good, if predictable, show.
Zimmerman did not stalk Martin. He has not been accused or charged with stalking Martin. The prosecution in this case have not referred to him stalking Martin. None of the evidence suggests anything resembling stalking.
The only people who bring it up are people seeking deliberately inflammatory language, which they then attempt to plausibly deny, in an attempt to emotionally manipulate people against Zimmerman - a tactic they require as the evidence will not support a belief in his guilt based on reason.
Zimmerman’s buddy Osterman fucked up the defense by playing up the smothering claim. This is the one thing that is contradicted by the 911 tape (if we assign the voice to GZ), and O’Mara wasn’t able to hide or explain it away.
Later: So what about the blood flowing into the back of Zimmerman’s throat, O’Mara asks. Could that be why Martin’s hands were clean? he implores.
Well sure, boss. Too bad that is incompatible with the yelling on that tape as well. Just like there’s no muffled sounds on that tape there’s also no gurgling. The pipes on that tape were loud and clear.
What the prosecution is showing is that Zimmerman’s lies have the defense painted into corner. To believe his narrative(s), you have to accept not just one item of craziness but a whole package deal of craziness. Every time the State puts up a witness and O’Mara starts throwing out these cockamamie theories to explain away the apparent implausibilities, the absurdities actually become more obvious.
The ME testimony highlights the folly well. After she called ZImmerman’s injuries very insignificant and then O’Mara spent almost an hour trying unpersuasively to weasle agreement out of her that he could have been slammed at least 6 or 4 or 3 times, O’Mara actually then asserted out of the blue that the severity of Zimmerman’s injuries had nothing to do with his claim to self defense. But if that was the case, there would be no need for him to construe moles into contusions and the natural contours of GZ’s skull into massive hematomas. He would let the pics speak for themselves. The good Dr. summed it well: If he was badly injured, those injuries would be obvious and there would be no need to do all this squinting at shadows.
So perhaps the defense is expecting the jury to derive most of their “reasonable doubt” from the unsupported notion that Martin threatened to kill Zimmerman. Since that requires the jury to believe it is reasonable that it was Zimmerman (and not the unarmed kid who ran away from him) who was wailing for help at 100 decibles, I wouldn’t consider this a good position for the defense to be in. But O’Mara led the jury in this direction today.
Wow, you’ve decided that he was hunting him down like an animal, with intent to kill, based on - well, nothing, as far as I can tell. Frankly, it’d have been less unpleasant if you’d stuck to the legal meaning.
The other thing that sticks out this second week is the defense’s way of talking out of both sides of their mouth.
With one witness, they will elicit the opinion that there is nothing wrong with following a “suspect”. Then later, with another witness, they will press the idea that Zimmerman wasn’t following Trayvon but rather looking for an address or whatever.
If there is nothing wrong with following someone, as they insist, then it sends a “doth protest too much” impression when they argue that Zimmerman wasn’t doing that.
What I was wishing from the State today is for them to point out the 2 minutes gap between Zimmerman’s dispatcher convo and the estimated start of the fight. To me, that is the most compelling evidence that Zimmerman continued to pursue the kid. BLDR could have done a better job on re-direct pulling that out of Serino.
Very true! But even truer: we only know that Martin punched Zimmerman when the two were observed on the ground. That is the only Martin-punching-Zimmerman that has been corroborated. So it’s the only Martin-punching-Zimmerman that the jury has a duty to regard as more likely true than not.
The same cannot and should not be said of any Martin-punched-Zimmerman-first-and-started-the-whole-thing, and we especially cannot say Martin-punched-Zimmerman-first-without-provocation. Absolutely no corroborated evidence exists supporting such a thing, not within the legally allowed evidence presented, nor even in the real world where we can look at everything, including the history and dispositions of the two parties.
So if we are a juror, and we have concluded that Zimmerman is lying and his story isn’t making any sense to us, what other evidence do we have to look at to help us decide what the truth might be, and most critically, what inferences will we be legally permitted to draw from that evidence?
I’m not saying I know, because I don’t. But I’m inviting our counselors to take a shot at it.
Some very important reminders about inferences and jurors:
So lets say a juror infers that Zimmerman actually started the fight by doing what I suggested as a possibility earlier: reached for Martin to stop him from turning away and leaving, triggering a defensive physical response from Martin.
What is the evidence in the case that they could use to make such an inference? (As I’ve said, I haven’t been watching the trial, so if any of this has not been introduced yet, then obviously it can’t be counted. Also, I am speaking only from memory so the specifics may be inaccurate. I’m just offering examples and still leaving it to those with more info about the case and about the law to point out what wouldn’t work.)
[ul]
[li]GZ’s NEN phone call, wherein he makes clear two important things: his intention to follow Martin, and his irritation at what he has decided is an “asshole” “punk” “getting away”. It also demonstrates hostility and frustration, two things which could easily drive Zimmerman to act rashly. [/li]
[li]Racheal’s testimony, which showed that Martin was indeed afraid of Zimmerman, and that he asked Zimmerman why he was following him, (demonstrating a degree of reasonableness, as opposed to an inexplicable blitz attack on Zimmerman.) [/li]
[li]The testimony given describing running sounds, suggesting pursuit. Taken with the above, I infer Zimmerman pursuing Martin, vs. the reverse.[/li][/ul]
And so forth.
So that’s one inference and the evidence such inference would be based on: Zimmerman started it. That’s not a guilty verdict, but it’s an inference that can be reasonably arrived at by a juror via the evidence that can have an impact on that juror’s assessment of the whole incident.
It’s definitely sounding less like there’s no case to be made and more like the prosecution is doing a shit job of making it.
No, it makes it clear to the jury that, whichever way they decide on the issue, Zimmerman did nothing wrong.
How is that evidence that Zimmerman followed Martin? Especially, how is it in any way more evidence that he followed Martin than that Martin returned to him? That doesn’t make the slightest bit of sense.
In case I missed it, did the medical examiner Dr. Rao ever examine George Zimmerman in person? If so, how long after the incident?
If they focus on the 2 minutes, though, then they have to explain how the “pursuit” covered so little distance in that time. They may wish to avoid that complication.
Never did.
It would astonish me if the prosecution don’t find an expert as least as credible who can testify that Zimmerman’s injuries are consistent with an attack that would leave one in reasonable fear of death or serious injury.
What do you mean by saying that “benefit of the doubt is applied to the defendant”? I think you are confused about the meaning of a presumption of innocence, since I can’t find anything that gives the term “benefit of the doubt” any legal weight:
The words “mandatory inference favorable to the defendant” mean substantially the same thing as the idiom “benefit of the doubt”, and as you can see, the presumption of innocence does not require any such thing, per the US Supreme Court.
Her expert opinions were based on hi resolution photos. She even admitted the photos weren’t ideal because they didn’t show the whole head. I think these were taken by the crime tech at the police station? She testified early last week.
OK.
Credibility:= Credibility - 1
Which part of “reasonable doubt” is unclear to you?