If anyone is interested, the man who performed Trayvon's autopsy (prosecution witness) - Dr. Shiping Bao - a terrible witness IMO - is testifying as I write this post. He has testified that he has no memory of the autopsy (relies only on notes), he has changed his opinion on how long Trayvon may have lived after being shot (up to 10 minutes instead of 3 minutes) and now believes that the THC found in Trayvon's blood could have affected him mentally and physically (although the THC info will not be presented to the jury).
He starts to give his answers before the defense attorney is finished asking the question. Never answers a yes or no question with a yes or no.
Once again, the prosecution's own witness/expert appears to be more helpful to the defense.
George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
Shoes.Joe Guy wrote:
In my experience, it's impossible to get 6 women to agree on anything...
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
Men are wrong
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
I always thought it was "men are scum".
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
That may be a little harsh oldr...
I believe it's "pigs" not "scum"....
I believe it's "pigs" not "scum"....
-
oldr_n_wsr
- Posts: 10838
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 1:59 am
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
You're right. My bad. 
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
As the trial unfolded, there's been one very peculiar aspect to this case; the almost total role reversal between the way prosecution and defense cases are normally presented...
Agree with it or disagree with it, accept it or don't accept it, Mark O'Mara and the defense team presented a fully formed, detailed, and consistent theory of the case, relating their theory directly to the evidence and the witness testimony. They laid out their theory and then methodically, step by step used the evidence and testimony to support it.
This is what the prosecution normally does. But in this case the prosecution never did this. Instead they acted as though they had the lesser burden of the defense, and basically tried to raise reasonable doubts about the defense case, poking holes where they could, and offering an array of speculative alternatives....
It's not so much that they had no theory of the case as that they had multiple theories of the case...
For example on a critical point, who was on top during the struggle, they offered three theories....
They began the case by arguing that Zimmerman was on top. But then, after they could see that the evidence and the testimony had shot that theory all to hell, late in the defense case, they switched to, "well okay, maybe Martin was on top, but he could have been shot after he had stopped beating up on Zimmerman and was puiling away, which would mean Zimmerman didn't act in self defense"....
Nice theory, the problem is they presented absolutely no evidence to support it, they merely presented it as a possibility. (Again, as though all they had to do was raise reasonable doubt about the defense theory.)
Then in his closing argument prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda (I didn't watch all of his presentation, but I heard most of it; it was tough not to since the man screamed almost non-stop for three hours.) offered yet a third theory; this time he speculated they had rolled around in a struggle sometimes Zimmerman was on top, sometimes Martin....
Again, absolutely no evidence had been presented to support this theory; he just tossed it out there as another possibility. (like defense lawyers frequently do) I think the reason he did this was to try to minimize a key element of the case where the actual evidence wasn't on his side and attempt to sow confusion and cloud the issue. (Just like one would expect defense attorneys, who only have to meet a standard of reasonable doubt would do.)
I could cite numerous other examples of how this strange role reversal played out, but I don't have the time for that so I'll just give one more.
In his rebuttal closing argument yesterday, prosecutor John Guy for the first time asks the question, "Didn't Trayvon Martin have right to defend himself?" Again, no evidence was ever presented that Martin was somehow acting in self defense, Guy just tosses it out as yet another possibility....
Time and again throughout the trial, it was the defense that was trying to keep every point clear and precise, and the prosecution that was trying blur lines, (like how the 911 dispatcher telling Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" in reference to his following Martin becomes "the police told him not to follow Martin") conflate disparate pieces of testimony and invite speculation...
They've been almost completely in the realm of the "don't pay attention to that; look at the shiny object" approach that defense attorneys use, (particularly when the evidence against their client is extremely damning)
They also tried to make a big deal out of the fact that the yelling for help on the tape stopped right after the shot was fired, trying to insist that this somehow proved that it must have been Martin yelling. (The pro prosecution talking heads on the news channels have been insisting the same thing)
Seems to me that it's equally plausible, (or at least plausible to the level of reasonable doubt) that the guy who was getting his ass kicked would stop yelling for help as soon as he was no longer getting his ass kicked....(especially when you add to that the shock of his just having shot someone)
Again, just more theorizing and speculation....
The big problem with all of this of course, is that no matter how much the prosecutors wanted to pretend that they were defense lawyers and only had to meet the bar of reasonable doubt, at the end of the day they are still the prosecution, and the prosecution is required by law to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt...
The prosecution's narrative of the case is exactly the same as what has been heard from folks like Al Sharpton, the attorney's for the Martin Family, and every other pundit who has wanted Zimmerman's scalp since day one:
That "the core" of this case is all about a guy who profiled, got out of his car and then followed shot and killed an unarmed "child"....
As far as they're concerned, that's all there is to this. But of course that is not what this case is all about....
This case is about whether or not the standard for self-defense under the laws of the state of Florida were met or not....It's about whether the jury believes that George Zimmerman acted with a reasonable fear of "great bodily harm"....
And it's not about whether they are 100% convinced he did, or think that he probably did, or think that it's more likely than not that he did....
It's about whether or not they have at least a reasonable doubt that he might have done so....
That is the core of this case....
It's not about "profiling", it's not about following, it's not about Zimmerman asking, "what are you doing here?" (none of which is a violation of Florida law, though the prosecution certainly invited the jury to look at it that way)
It's about who threw the first punch, (which is where the altercation actually begins from a legal standpoint) and after the altercation began, did Zimmerman act in self defense based on the standard I outlined above....
As for the question of who threw the first punch, zero evidence was presented by either side on this point....
Which of course means that reasonable doubt about this must attach by definition. "Ties" go to the defense; if there's no evidence either way on a point, there must be reasonable doubt.
There is of course, an abundance of evidence, both physical evidence (all the injuries on Zimmerman, the lack of injuries on Martin aside from skinned knuckles) and from witness testimony that shows who was getting the worst of the altercation, and who was on the bottom at the time the shot was fired....
Of course you never know what a jury is going to do, (see Simpson, Orenthal James) but if they are guided by the laws and the evidence, I don't see any way that the jury can fail to find the standard of self defense being met in this case. (whether they're considering 2nd degree murder or manslaughter)
It's really not even a close call. I think O'Mara brought the point home brilliantly in his closing when he said, "Given the evidence in this case, if Trayvon Martin had been shot in the hip and survived, he would be on trial for aggravated assault."
The prosecution case, (such as it is) is based almost entirely upon emotional appeal, (the "child armed with a box of skittles") and conjecture and speculation.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll lose, (emotional appeals have succeeded before) but there was an indication from the jury yesterday that this may not have carried the day....
After about two hours of deliberation they sent a note requesting a list of all the items in evidence. Normally that's pretty pro forma thing that wouldn't indicate much of anything but in this case, I think it's bad for the prosecution, for this reason:
It means that the emotional appeal did not carry the day right out of the box. It means that at least one member of the jury, (probably more) wants to review and consider the evidence in a careful, deliberative, and methodical way. (In other words, do the job they are supposed to do.)
If this is the case I think this is awful news for the prosecution...
Because given the condition of the evidence and the testimony, the more the jury comes down from the 30,000 foot level and drills down into the specifics, the more they are playing in O'Mara's ball park and the worse it is for the state...
Agree with it or disagree with it, accept it or don't accept it, Mark O'Mara and the defense team presented a fully formed, detailed, and consistent theory of the case, relating their theory directly to the evidence and the witness testimony. They laid out their theory and then methodically, step by step used the evidence and testimony to support it.
This is what the prosecution normally does. But in this case the prosecution never did this. Instead they acted as though they had the lesser burden of the defense, and basically tried to raise reasonable doubts about the defense case, poking holes where they could, and offering an array of speculative alternatives....
It's not so much that they had no theory of the case as that they had multiple theories of the case...
For example on a critical point, who was on top during the struggle, they offered three theories....
They began the case by arguing that Zimmerman was on top. But then, after they could see that the evidence and the testimony had shot that theory all to hell, late in the defense case, they switched to, "well okay, maybe Martin was on top, but he could have been shot after he had stopped beating up on Zimmerman and was puiling away, which would mean Zimmerman didn't act in self defense"....
Nice theory, the problem is they presented absolutely no evidence to support it, they merely presented it as a possibility. (Again, as though all they had to do was raise reasonable doubt about the defense theory.)
Then in his closing argument prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda (I didn't watch all of his presentation, but I heard most of it; it was tough not to since the man screamed almost non-stop for three hours.) offered yet a third theory; this time he speculated they had rolled around in a struggle sometimes Zimmerman was on top, sometimes Martin....
Again, absolutely no evidence had been presented to support this theory; he just tossed it out there as another possibility. (like defense lawyers frequently do) I think the reason he did this was to try to minimize a key element of the case where the actual evidence wasn't on his side and attempt to sow confusion and cloud the issue. (Just like one would expect defense attorneys, who only have to meet a standard of reasonable doubt would do.)
I could cite numerous other examples of how this strange role reversal played out, but I don't have the time for that so I'll just give one more.
In his rebuttal closing argument yesterday, prosecutor John Guy for the first time asks the question, "Didn't Trayvon Martin have right to defend himself?" Again, no evidence was ever presented that Martin was somehow acting in self defense, Guy just tosses it out as yet another possibility....
Time and again throughout the trial, it was the defense that was trying to keep every point clear and precise, and the prosecution that was trying blur lines, (like how the 911 dispatcher telling Zimmerman "we don't need you to do that" in reference to his following Martin becomes "the police told him not to follow Martin") conflate disparate pieces of testimony and invite speculation...
They've been almost completely in the realm of the "don't pay attention to that; look at the shiny object" approach that defense attorneys use, (particularly when the evidence against their client is extremely damning)
They also tried to make a big deal out of the fact that the yelling for help on the tape stopped right after the shot was fired, trying to insist that this somehow proved that it must have been Martin yelling. (The pro prosecution talking heads on the news channels have been insisting the same thing)
Seems to me that it's equally plausible, (or at least plausible to the level of reasonable doubt) that the guy who was getting his ass kicked would stop yelling for help as soon as he was no longer getting his ass kicked....(especially when you add to that the shock of his just having shot someone)
Again, just more theorizing and speculation....
The big problem with all of this of course, is that no matter how much the prosecutors wanted to pretend that they were defense lawyers and only had to meet the bar of reasonable doubt, at the end of the day they are still the prosecution, and the prosecution is required by law to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt...
The prosecution's narrative of the case is exactly the same as what has been heard from folks like Al Sharpton, the attorney's for the Martin Family, and every other pundit who has wanted Zimmerman's scalp since day one:
That "the core" of this case is all about a guy who profiled, got out of his car and then followed shot and killed an unarmed "child"....
As far as they're concerned, that's all there is to this. But of course that is not what this case is all about....
This case is about whether or not the standard for self-defense under the laws of the state of Florida were met or not....It's about whether the jury believes that George Zimmerman acted with a reasonable fear of "great bodily harm"....
And it's not about whether they are 100% convinced he did, or think that he probably did, or think that it's more likely than not that he did....
It's about whether or not they have at least a reasonable doubt that he might have done so....
That is the core of this case....
It's not about "profiling", it's not about following, it's not about Zimmerman asking, "what are you doing here?" (none of which is a violation of Florida law, though the prosecution certainly invited the jury to look at it that way)
It's about who threw the first punch, (which is where the altercation actually begins from a legal standpoint) and after the altercation began, did Zimmerman act in self defense based on the standard I outlined above....
As for the question of who threw the first punch, zero evidence was presented by either side on this point....
Which of course means that reasonable doubt about this must attach by definition. "Ties" go to the defense; if there's no evidence either way on a point, there must be reasonable doubt.
There is of course, an abundance of evidence, both physical evidence (all the injuries on Zimmerman, the lack of injuries on Martin aside from skinned knuckles) and from witness testimony that shows who was getting the worst of the altercation, and who was on the bottom at the time the shot was fired....
Of course you never know what a jury is going to do, (see Simpson, Orenthal James) but if they are guided by the laws and the evidence, I don't see any way that the jury can fail to find the standard of self defense being met in this case. (whether they're considering 2nd degree murder or manslaughter)
It's really not even a close call. I think O'Mara brought the point home brilliantly in his closing when he said, "Given the evidence in this case, if Trayvon Martin had been shot in the hip and survived, he would be on trial for aggravated assault."
The prosecution case, (such as it is) is based almost entirely upon emotional appeal, (the "child armed with a box of skittles") and conjecture and speculation.
That doesn't necessarily mean they'll lose, (emotional appeals have succeeded before) but there was an indication from the jury yesterday that this may not have carried the day....
After about two hours of deliberation they sent a note requesting a list of all the items in evidence. Normally that's pretty pro forma thing that wouldn't indicate much of anything but in this case, I think it's bad for the prosecution, for this reason:
It means that the emotional appeal did not carry the day right out of the box. It means that at least one member of the jury, (probably more) wants to review and consider the evidence in a careful, deliberative, and methodical way. (In other words, do the job they are supposed to do.)
If this is the case I think this is awful news for the prosecution...
Because given the condition of the evidence and the testimony, the more the jury comes down from the 30,000 foot level and drills down into the specifics, the more they are playing in O'Mara's ball park and the worse it is for the state...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 4:35 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
If Zimmerman isn't hung out to dry, big trouble ahead.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
There's been a lot of speculation about that Dale, but I come back again to the fact that there was no violence in Sanford when this became a big publicity deal and Zimmerman hadn't been arrested or charged...(If it had been Oakland, there certainly would have been)
Frankly I'd be more concerned about the possibility of rioting in the Liberty City or Overtown sections of Miami, where there's a long history of that sort of thing. (I also wouldn't be surprised to see some store windows broken and cars torched in Oakland...there are some folks there who are always up for a party)
In any event this should not be any consideration for the jury whatsoever. The minute our criminal justice system starts rendering innocent or guilty verdicts based on the fear of violent lawlessness, our law based society is sunk.
Frankly I'd be more concerned about the possibility of rioting in the Liberty City or Overtown sections of Miami, where there's a long history of that sort of thing. (I also wouldn't be surprised to see some store windows broken and cars torched in Oakland...there are some folks there who are always up for a party)
In any event this should not be any consideration for the jury whatsoever. The minute our criminal justice system starts rendering innocent or guilty verdicts based on the fear of violent lawlessness, our law based society is sunk.
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
I see it the same way, Jim. I've looked at this case from both sides and it seems to me that anyone, even someone who thinks Zimmerman is a rotten person, would have reasonable doubt and couldn't convict him.
Everyone I've heard say that Zimmerman is guilty knows something that only those who agree with them know. They know that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the minute he saw him. They know Zimmerman is a lying sack of shit.
I think every one of them was there and witnessed the murder but for some reason they don't want us to know that.
There was a woman on one of the evening shows after the trial by the name of Shahrazad Ali. She said that if Zimmerman is found 'Not Guilty' it will give other "white men" an excuse to go out and kill more black people.
It has been quite an interesting trial and, as expected, has brought out a lot of emotional opinions from people.
I expect a verdict today. If it goes much longer, I expect a hung jury.
Everyone I've heard say that Zimmerman is guilty knows something that only those who agree with them know. They know that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the minute he saw him. They know Zimmerman is a lying sack of shit.
I think every one of them was there and witnessed the murder but for some reason they don't want us to know that.
There was a woman on one of the evening shows after the trial by the name of Shahrazad Ali. She said that if Zimmerman is found 'Not Guilty' it will give other "white men" an excuse to go out and kill more black people.
It has been quite an interesting trial and, as expected, has brought out a lot of emotional opinions from people.
I expect a verdict today. If it goes much longer, I expect a hung jury.
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
I originally thought a hung jury was the most likely outcome in this case Joe, but when I learned that it would only be a six person jury, I thought the odds on that went down a lot....
However I agree with you to an extent....
I don't think that the failure to reach a verdict today necessarily means the jury will hang, but if it goes past Monday or Tuesday (especially since the jury is sequestered and sequestered juries tend to reach verdicts fairly quickly) I'd definitely see that as a likely outcome....
The interesting thing to watch for at this point is what other kinds of questions or requests come from the jury. Another thing to look for is how late they deliberate; if they keep going into the evening, that could indicate that they think they may be close...
If they don't reach a verdict today and decide to deliberate tomorrow, (Sunday) rather than taking the day off, that would definitely signal that they are determined to get this done one way or another as quickly as possible....
If the jury hangs, ordinarily the prosecution would look at the vote breakdown to determine whether to retry, but I suspect that the political pressure on this is such that the prosecution will retry this case at least once, even if the vote is 5-1 for acquittal....
Nobody who's plan is to hunt down and kill someone while making it look like self defense is going to wait until they are on top of them pounding their head into the sidewalk, to pull out their gun...that's just a tad too risky...
If that was what had actually happened here, Zimmerman would have taunted and yelled at Martin until he turned and started to approach him, and then pulled out his gun (or more likely still, would have already had it pulled out) and fired immediately...
However I agree with you to an extent....
I don't think that the failure to reach a verdict today necessarily means the jury will hang, but if it goes past Monday or Tuesday (especially since the jury is sequestered and sequestered juries tend to reach verdicts fairly quickly) I'd definitely see that as a likely outcome....
The interesting thing to watch for at this point is what other kinds of questions or requests come from the jury. Another thing to look for is how late they deliberate; if they keep going into the evening, that could indicate that they think they may be close...
If they don't reach a verdict today and decide to deliberate tomorrow, (Sunday) rather than taking the day off, that would definitely signal that they are determined to get this done one way or another as quickly as possible....
If the jury hangs, ordinarily the prosecution would look at the vote breakdown to determine whether to retry, but I suspect that the political pressure on this is such that the prosecution will retry this case at least once, even if the vote is 5-1 for acquittal....
I agree, there are definitely folks who are absolutely convinced of this, and will continue to believe it (and always will) despite the fact that the known, undisputed facts of this case make that completely illogical.They know that Zimmerman intended to kill Martin from the minute he saw him.
Nobody who's plan is to hunt down and kill someone while making it look like self defense is going to wait until they are on top of them pounding their head into the sidewalk, to pull out their gun...that's just a tad too risky...
If that was what had actually happened here, Zimmerman would have taunted and yelled at Martin until he turned and started to approach him, and then pulled out his gun (or more likely still, would have already had it pulled out) and fired immediately...
Last edited by Lord Jim on Tue Jul 16, 2013 6:04 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
Apparently they deliberated through lunch, which would definitely seem to indicate that they agree on one thing....
They want to get this finished.....
Though you can never be sure what's going on with juries in terms of the time they take...
The Scott Petersen jury was out for seven days, and I was certain they we're going to hang after all that time, and they came back with a unanimous guilty verdict, and then went on to also unanimously sentence him to death...
They were just being very thorough and conscientious....
They want to get this finished.....
Though you can never be sure what's going on with juries in terms of the time they take...
The Scott Petersen jury was out for seven days, and I was certain they we're going to hang after all that time, and they came back with a unanimous guilty verdict, and then went on to also unanimously sentence him to death...
They were just being very thorough and conscientious....
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
The verdict has been reached.
Stand by....
Stand by....
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
Not Guilty!
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
Oh-oh.....................it's going to be a long hot summer.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
Facts rule over emotion, well done.
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
I agree.
Very sad situation.
But the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict.
Very sad situation.
But the evidence wasn't strong enough to convict.
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
But he will lose the civil trial. The difference is that a criminal offense requires a crime where as a civil case requires only bad judgment.
Soon, I’ll post my farewell message. The end is starting to get close. There are many misconceptions about me, and before I go, to live with my ancestors on the steppes, I want to set the record straight.
I'M NOT SURPRISED
"In Sanford no one can hear you scream."
The view I stated in here back in February 2012 was that it was a case of prosecutorial overreach. The State should have filed lesser charges -- like starting with manslaughter rather than second degree murder.
The only real facts that were ever known is that Zimmerman ended Trayvon Martin's life. Thankfully, a "trial in the court of public opinion" has, once again, failed the prosecution miserably. The jury has done its job -- justice has been served.
It would behoove Zimmerman to start a new life in some other country at this point. Vigilantes needing to make their mark will be behind every door, and in every alleyway.
Good night Mr. Zimmerman, wherever you are.
The view I stated in here back in February 2012 was that it was a case of prosecutorial overreach. The State should have filed lesser charges -- like starting with manslaughter rather than second degree murder.
The only real facts that were ever known is that Zimmerman ended Trayvon Martin's life. Thankfully, a "trial in the court of public opinion" has, once again, failed the prosecution miserably. The jury has done its job -- justice has been served.
It would behoove Zimmerman to start a new life in some other country at this point. Vigilantes needing to make their mark will be behind every door, and in every alleyway.
Good night Mr. Zimmerman, wherever you are.
“In a world whose absurdity appears to be so impenetrable, we simply must reach a greater degree of understanding among us, a greater sincerity.”
Re: George Zimmerman Trial to Start in June
Indeed, Zimmerman is a marked man and it would serve his best interest to burrow down into the depths obscurity. I wouldn't be surprised if that Black Panthers have put a price on his head.
Grow your hair long, a beard and head west.
Grow your hair long, a beard and head west.
Your collective inability to acknowledge this obvious truth makes you all look like fools.
yrs,
rubato