Yes, my mind was made up by the evidence long before the trial, that’s true.
I apologize, that was out of line.
Just because someone is a veteran, doesn’t make them an eternal spring of truth or any less likely to lie. Not to get off the subject, but Chris Dorner was a combat vet and he was called a liar when he accused the LAPD of mistreatment of an arrestee. I guess what I’m trying to highlight is that just because someone is a veteran doesn’t make them anymore trustworthy than anyone else.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
It isn’t a very good investment - he isn’t going to get his $3K back even if Zimmerman is acquitted, so he doesn’t have much incentive in either case.
[/quote]
I don’t know what to tell you. If you think that giving someone $500 contribution to the website, >$1500 for clothes to wear during the trial, $2500 for the defense fund, you agree to take the stand, and your wife agrees to take the stand, you have a vested interest in keeping your best friend from going to prison. I’m very happy the prosecution highlighted for the jury.
- Honesty
Theres always the possibility for error when any witness trys to identify screams for help. I think the ex combat medic was sincere. He’s heard close friends scream in terror before and learned to recognize the voices.
The jury can decide if he’s right. That’s different from recognizing his sincerity.
So far I haven’t felt that any of the witnesses flat out lied about recognizing George or Trayvon’s voice. They were giving their honest opinions. The jury will need to sort it all out.
Before you could be selected as a juror, one or both sides will ask you if you could be impartial. If you answer truthfully, you would never have been selected for this trial, and probably, no other trial. “I’m willing to give that guilty son-of-a-bitch all the benefit of doubt he deserves” isn’t what the judge or legal teams are looking for.
Should the jury hear what amount of money the Martins got, and what amount they intended to ask for in the future, by claiming that Zimmerman is liable for their son’s death?
No one knew what the actual evidence was going to be until the trial. So you were convinced by conjecture.
But as a juror, you would be expected to make up your mind based on the evidence present in court.
The twists, spins, and outright lies that have been created, told and repeated by MSNBC, ABC, CNN, etc and the stories told by the various lynch mob leaders will not be admitted.
You’ve actually made up your mind without hearing the evidence.
I’m not going to claim that being a combat vet makes anyone a saint later in life. Or less likely to lie. But I have to point out that Chris Donner’s “combat” experience consisted of being part of a shore security unit in Bahrain for about 5-6 months.
Who were the 3 for the state? mom, brother and ? Did they have elaborate stories to dazzle the jury with about their special skills that would allow them to ID such a strange scream or how they weren’t even aware of what they were listening to when the oh-so-familiar sound just penetrated their heart out of the blue? Or did they simply state that they knew Trayvon and recognized his voice? The defense witness stories are far too over the top, trying way to hard to underline that they should be believed. While his mom didn’t seem really sure at all and appeared wildly uncomfortable to me, very much like she is not in the habit of lying and she knew she was.
In any case, I don’t care if it’s 1 or 100, I will never believe it’s Zimmerman. Not because of what anyone else claims about recognizing the voice, but because of what I heard myself, particularly in combination with Zimmerman’s wholly incredible stories about what happened during that screaming and shot. There is simply nothing remotely credible in the idea that Zimmerman was screaming like that while he was being headbanged, smothered, punched, and then got hold of his gun and pulled the trigger. Seriously. I would LOVE to see a couple of people act that out and make it seem plausible, because my mind’s eye can’t pull it off.
??? Really? What was new in the trial that we didn’t have access to ages ago? Nothing I heard about.
I’m really confused by this because you have said previously…
And…
How is it that you would vote to convict when you yourself have stated that they state has not made its case?
I would prefer voice recognition testimony from witnesses who had regular enough contact with TM or GZ to be able to identify one party’s voice but yet someone who is not a close friend or family member so as to be emotionally invested in the case.
I’m not sure anyone we’ve seen fits that bill on both counts. Neighbors may have the emotional detachment but not the prior voice familiarity. Coworkers might come closer on the familiarity but those called so far seem to be friends of GZ.
I’m not sure any such hypothetical witness exists. Maybe a school teacher or football coach of TM? Maybe someone GZ had a regular business interaction with via phone but other had never met in person?
Otherwise I tend to disregard voice ID unless there is something particularly unique and outstanding about the quality of someone’s voice. I regularly deal with a few hundred police officers over the phone, most of whom I have never met in person and none of whom are personal friends. Many seems to think I should be able to identify their voices. I can’t for most of them.
Because she’s decided Zimmerman’s a liar, based on her magical lie detecting ability, and that’s all the evidence she needs, despite the fact that the majority of the real evidence supports him.
Many people have donated to GZ’s defense. The act of donating doesn’t mean they believe he is innocent or guilty. It’s reasonable to assume that many just want to see him get a fair trial.
I haven’t donated because 1) I don’t know if GZ is guilty or not and 2) I don’t give money to people I don’t personally know. I’ve been waiting for this trial to see what evidence the prosecution has that GZ could be guilty of 2nd degree murder.
The prosecution can not dig to deeply into why there is a fund to help GZ with legal fees and personal expenses. That would open the door to questions about why companies won’t hire someone who was/is being actively hunted by lynch mob-types who have threatened to kill him. It might also open the door to questions about the lies and manufactured stories in the media about GZ’s guilt. That Can-O-Worms would weaken an already weak case by the State.
How many people have donated money and testified on his behalf? How many? I imagine no more than two.
- Honesty
You may have your cause an effect backward, here. Someone who recognized (or thought they recognized) Zimmerman’s voice on the tape might then be motivated to donate to his defense fund, as the cries on the tape being Zimmerman’s suggests his innocence. That is, the donation and testimony might both be preceeded by and stem from the voice recognition, rather than the testimony stemming from the donation.
O’Mara is laying the groundwork to get Trayvon’s dad’s initial statement that the voice wasn’t his sons.
Doris Singleton and now Serino testifying. Next will be the dad.
O’Mara is limiting the scope of the dad’s testimony. Probably only one question. “What did you say to Serino?” That limits the states cross.
Wow, the judge just let hearsay in. Serino testified as to what Martin said.
I recently saw a show with a angry red faced man named frank taaffe, who apparently has appeared on alot of shows speaking in gzs defense. He says he is a former neighbor or friend. One of the hosts asked him where all of Georges other friends or family are, and pointed out this frank person seems be Georges sole ‘friend’. Being curious about him, I ixquicked his name, and found some public comments by Taafee calling African americans ‘shineboys’, ‘aunt Jemimas’ etc. So apparently gzs only friend is a self avowed hardcore racist who proudly calls African americans shineboys right to their face
Early I said, "The prosecution asked 3 witnesses (DD, mom, step-brother (did I miss any?)) who they thought the voice belonged to. Even though he wasn’t called to testify, the jury may still wonder why TM’s father wasn’t called (or maybe they’ve already heard his “no, it isn’t/yes it is” theory?) to testify about who was crying out".
Perhaps you could ask the prosecution to request that the judge reopen the prosecutions case to allow your testimony. You might be able to clinch the case for them with your “Everything GZ and anyone who testifies for him, including many of the prosecution’s witnesses, is lying. GZ is guilty. Case closed.”
You go Stoid! You are nothing if not unflinchingly honest. And I’ll even go a step further than you. If I were on the jury I would vote guilty no matter what the law is in Florida. No matter what the judge says. Even if everything GZ did was “legal.” Because what he did was reckless and wrong.
I’d do this purely based upon GZ’s nen call. My reason is Judge Judy’s “But For.” But for the fact that GZ profiled someone he didn’t like the looks of, followed him while armed, refused to identify himself as neighborhood watch, and generally acted like a cop wannabe macho jackass, none of it would have happened. GZ could have been a Jeffrey Dahmer, for all TM knew.
I don’t care if everything he did was legal. It was stupid and wrong and resulted in the death of an innocent person. An innocent person, not a “suspect.” And I would vote him guilty, accordingly. Although it may not be murder in the second, it was definitely reckless disregard for human life, or manslaughter, and purely because of GZ a young man is dead. Guilty, Guilty.
Jury nullification works both ways. More lying probably goes on in courtrooms under oath than the corner bar, and what is “right” often has nothing whatever to do with “law” and “justice.”