When I wrote that, I did not realize I was watching the defense attorney, the white haired skeletal guy. I have thought all along he was the prosecutor for some reason, Which made his questioning, at the time, very bizarre. Then I realized he was the defense attorney. So at that moment, it was a net positive for the prosecution, because the defense guy was unbelievably irritating. It seemed as though every question was asked five times the same exact way, then a few words shifted, then a couple more times, then a bench conference, then a rewind…FUCK… It came across to me as though he believed the jury was made up of six mentally challenged people.
A meta-question:
I think many would agree that, given “reasonable doubt” and “self-defence,” it will be impossible to convict Zimmerman unless jury makes an error; and this was known before the trial even started. The state went ahead with a mistaken trial because of public outcry, and some may be hoping for a mistaken conviction for the same reason.
If true, I think this says something bad about our justice system, though I’m not sure exactly what.
I assumed, and still hope, that the state has something up its collective sleeve. But the chances of that are dwindling.
So I think you’re absolutely correct. The judge could – and probably should – grant a defense motion to strike the evidence at the conclusion of the prosecution’s case. But I think she won’t – she is going to ask the jury to let her off the hook.
If the jury doesn’t, then the moment of truth will come. She’ll have to take the horribly unpopular, but legally correct step of setting aside the jury’s verdict, or dodge again and hope the appeals court, next year or so, does the right thing.
Or so it looks to me right now.
I…I can see the future…
Zimmerman walks. The bleeding hearts cry injustice. Maybe there’s some rioting and some folks burn their own shit, but probably not.
Then everyone returns to talking about what’s crackin’ on this season of “Big Brother.”
As a person who didn’t read a single story about this case, or care one way or the other until the actual trial started and the real evidence came out, I have to say that Zimmerman is absolutely, 100% not guilty, and will be found to be so based not upon the defense’s witnesses, but the prosecution’s. People want(ed) this case to be symbolic–wanted that image of a young Trayvon to be the emotional argument–wanted to believe the story that was reported. But, to crib from Tom Cruise in “A Few Good Men,” It doesn’t matter what I believe. It only matters what I can prove.
That Jag Lawyer was an excellent teacher. George learned a lot in that class. So the prosecution made the point that George had a basic understanding of self defense, homicide and so on.
I don’t think George had time to construct some elaborate story. He was interviewed within a couple hours. More importantly the witness, John Good saw the fight in progress and his testimony confirmed George’s statement.
[QUOTE=Stoid]
When I wrote that, I did not realize I was watching the defense attorney, the white haired skeletal guy. I have thought all along he was the prosecutor for some reason…
[/QUOTE]
Considering the way the trial is going, this is not surprising. In most criminal trials, the defense is the one making the defendant look like he’s innocent.
Regards,
Shodan
According to some of Zimmerman’s accounts Trayvon saw the weapon and perhaps said “You’re going to die tonight” (the sequencing of this quote is important but less important than my major point).
My point is that after Trayvon reaches for the gun and states a direct threat against Zimmerman’s life. Trayvon then, according to Zimmerman, continues subduing (or punching or bashing) Zimmerman with an apparent complete disregard for the gun and his own life.
This story doesn’t pass any sort of common sense test. If Trayvon sees a gun (according to Zim) then why wasn’t he killed in a struggle over control of that gun? Did Trayvon think “guns are too easy, I’d rather try to suffocate this guy”? Why wouldn’t Trayvon have a natural survival reaction and either stop the fight or try to control the gun Zimmerman says Trayvon knew full well was there?
Important to find out (and I’m too lazy to dig it up) is did Zimmerman say that Trayvon saw the weapon and then utter “you are going to die tonight”.
More damning is that Zimmerman says a 17-year-old in 2013 said the word “Homie”. (Just kidding).
You are mistaken. Immediately after Trayvon reached for the gun, according to Zimmerman, Zimmerman reached the gun first and shot Trayvon.
So - now that you see that you were in error thinking there was an “inconsistency”, does this make it more likely for you to think Zimmerman is not guilty?
That is Zimmerman’s claim.
I would hate to have you on a jury if you think that being annoying gives one side less weight than the other.
I agree that this is just the flavor of the month. Nancy Grace will move on to another trial. It will be largely forgotten. A year from now there will be a “Where are they now?” It would have been interesting to see which trial would have had more press, this or Arias. This trial has more interesting legal questions but the Arias case had an attractive defendant and butt sex. Tough choice.
The inconsistency is that Zimmerman says he was being bashed and punched and had no choice because he thought the beating wouldn’t stop. Trayvon during the struggle with a guy who outweighed him by a good amount had time to look around, say stuff, subdue Zimmerman with one hand, have a sip of iced tea with the other.
I find this story absurd.
To answer your question.
Zimmerman is not guilty according to the letter of the law (since his story introduces reasonable doubt in my opinion), but in no way do I think he is innocent. Zimmerman got his ass beat and deserved it. The kid was also defending himself.
You still did not address Trayvon saying “Homie”. 
Amy Siewert, the crime lab analyst, just gave the defense a gift. I did not see the defense seize on it and run with it.
She testifies that the gun was in contact with Martin’s sweatshirt when the bullet was fired. She states she did not examine the wound, only the clothing and gun.
The autopsy report says the shot was from intermediate range and not a contact shot.
Both statements can be completely true if Martin is on top and leaning over Zimmerman. His sweatshirt could hang a couple inches away from his skin, be in contact with the muzzle of the gun, and yet have the stippling on the skin show a shot from intermediate range.
Skype attack on the testimony of the professor. Someone figured out the number, and started calling over and over, making the Skype useless. I guess the guy called in via cellphone to finish.
I have to say, it makes me giggle. It just goes along with this whole thing being a joke.
Yes, that’s exactly his testimony. Zimmerman was wearing the gun in a waistband holster that was near his back right-side pocket (I personally found that interesting; Zimmerman is left-handed; wouldn’t he shoot with his left hand?). Since Zimmerman says he was on his back, with Martin straddling him, the black gun - in a black holster - would have been underneath him; and in fact his weight and Martin’s weight would have been resting on the gun.
ZImmerman says that Martin nevertheless saw the gun, sat up - both hands still smothering Zimmerman’s mouth and nose - and said, ‘you’re going to die tonight motherfucker’, at which point Martin slid his hand down Zimmerman’s chest towards George’s gun. Zimmerman used his right arm to trap Martin’s hand/arm against George’s body, and with the same right arm, pulled the gun out of the holster despite the weight pushing down on him, and shot Martin.
If you watch the video walkthrough, you’ll see the contorsions George would have to go through to try and pull this off. Try this at home: Lie down on the floor with your wallet in your back right pocket. Put a book between your right arm and your body. Now, without letting the book fall over, try to pull your wallet out. For extra credit, try to do this while someone is on top of you, presumably with one hand free to punch you in the face while you try it.
Well, she testified that the gun was in contact with the hoodie, and the hoodie was in contact with the sweatshirt underneath. I guess the defense will call their own witness to try and establish the ‘intermediate distance’ bit.
The Skype testimony was an absolute farce. With Webex and a host of other online meeting software available, they find a way to publish the guy’s number in a publically televised trial. Like I said - a team of braindead monkeys could prosecute this case better than the State has…
Trayvon sounds like the hardest MFer in cell block D with that kind of brazen anouncement of his next move. “You’re going to die tonight” as if this was his 20th kill. Usually when people, even kids, see weapons their first instinct isn’t to shoot people with malice and in such an artistic way. I’m glad Zimmerman took such a thug off the street.
Inconsistent with normal human survival.
Angela Corey has been criminally indited for falsifying the arrest warrant and Complaint. Can the defense move to dismiss based on that?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zimmerman-prosecutor-angela-corey-criminally-120000903.html
No.
The body issuing the “indictment” is something called the “citizen’s grand jury.” Do not confuse this with any aspect of the criminal justice system. This is a group of freeman-on-the-land type folks. This “indictment” is legally meaningless and utterly without force or effect.
Of course you do. Because it never happened, and no one ever said it did.
Judging by Trayvon and his friend profiling Zimmerman as a “rapist”, Trayvon could have been saying “Homo” and Zimmerman misheard.
Ah yes, the citizens’ grand jury. Beloved by 9/11 conspiracy theorists and ‘Obama was born in Kenya’ birthers everywhere.
Citizens’ grand jury: a non-actionable, non-governmental organization that assumes a responsibility upon itself to accuse an individual or groups of individuals of having committed a crime.
never mind.