The Zimmerman Trial

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Originally posted by ButterCookie
You are absolutely right in being fair about his memory of a John Doe 'before it was news'....

so why did they call him as a witness???

He is an EXPERT witness, not an eye-witness or other witness to the crime. He is called there to relate his expertise and specialized opinion.

Q 1.1What is an expert witness?

An expert witness is one allowed to provide opinion testimony at trial based upon his or her specialized knowledge, training or experience, if the opinion is reliable, relevant to the issues in the case, and will help the fact finder to reach a decision. An expert witness need not have percipient knowledge of the facts of the case.

Source

An 'expert' witness who cannot remember a conversation he had on the topic 24 hours ago? An expert witness who is not sure the body was even handled properly? An expert witness who admittedly states that he has never conducted any independent research on the gun shot wounds and the affects on a body, and who has to repeatedly refer to ONE case from 3 weeks ago to form his opinion...

reply to post by ButterCookie


yes, this was the same argument the defense stated when the prosecution rested its case yesterday.

its the states responsibility to prove GZ murdered TM. they haven't proven anything in that regard.

manslaughter is almost the same way. they are having a hard time proving it too. the only proof they have that its manslaughter is the calls for help being tm's and not gz's according to family members. that's it. that's all they have.

the defense has enough proof to prove self defense. bloody head, broken nose. witness saying he was being beaten down MMA style, the cries for help, etc.

this shouldn't of even gone to court. my thought in the beginning is the same as now. this is witch hunt, not a trial.

reply to post by ugie1028


If George's trial is a witch hunt, what do you call the attack on Trayvon Martin and his family's reputation by people who don't even know them personally? Good old southern racism?

reply to post by ButterCookie


What do you want from me? I didn't pick the guy. I thought he was a disaster. I was just answering your question. Why does everyone want to argue so much? I have my opinions, you have yours.

Peace.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


not to sound cold, but I dont care about that. im talking about the trial. they are NOT on trial. Zimmerman is.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ugie1028

 

If George's trial is a witch hunt, what do you call the attack on Trayvon Martin and his family's reputation by people who don't even know them personally? Good old southern racism?

No need to bring in racism - its also just called witch hunt

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

What do you want from me? I didn't pick the guy. I thought he was a disaster. I was just answering your question. Why does everyone want to argue so much? I have my opinions, you have yours.

Peace.

Wow...not picking on you. Don't take my post that way. I mentioned that the ME shouldn't was lying when he said he was the most knowledgeable person regarding Trayvon's autopsy. You said, "But he is an expert". I responded that he is an expert who didn't know anything, which is backed by his very testimony, and now you feel 'attacked' by me?

Come on. This is a debate, nothing more.

We are actually on the same side, in that we both want to dissect the case to the point where we want to see a fair judgment.

There are some good reenactment videos that prove that even though it was suggested to Zimmerman to not follow Martin, he did it anyway. He also mentions that Martin walked all the way around his car as if this was supposed to be a very intimidating thing to experience but rather than actually feeling as though he was in danger, he almost immediately gets out of his car after this happens in order to pursue Martin.... He says it's to go look at street signs. Street signs are on streets, therefore you can see them driving in a car not to mention see them better with headlights... but he gets out of his car to go look for street signs?

I don't think so.

As for Martin circling his car.... If someone was following me, I'm not saying I'd walk close to their car because I'm a small female, but I do what I could to get the tag number. Martin may have been putting his hand in his waist band to emulate having a weapon because he knew he was taking a chance by going to go check out the car that was following him.

He still had a right to be concerned.

www.youtube.com...

Zimmerman had no right to pursue Martin at all. Period. He is responsible for what happened.

You don't stalk and scare people without expecting them to go kung fu ninja on you... even though we don't really know Martins level of retaliation... but I'm sure he defended himself yet there's a witness that says the man on top shot the man on bottom and got up.

Zimmerman needs some rights stripped from him for quite some time because he just doesn't know how to respect them. He caused all of this to happen by way of his hot egotistical profiling head and his reluctance to follow instructions and follow due process.

Due process can NEVER be allow to be this man's excuse because he is making a mockery out those processes.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I don't need to prove anything, but if you find the first big thread on this case, I am posting on the very first page (nnnaybe the very first reply) supporting Martin. You can watch my opinio change as the real facts started come out in the public.


I argued for a few pages, then realized Zimmerman was innocent. I didn't want you show you anything really, I just wanted you to address and admit I never said he went looking for an address.

reply to post by ugie1028


So, you don't care about a dead teen's character being dragged through a street full of pig excrement before a prosecution team has even had the chance to prove the killer is guilty of unlawful homicide?

reply to post by NotAnAspie


Conjecture and hearsay... None of what you said was indeed an evidence proven fact. Convictions cannot be handed down based on conjecture and hearsay. In order for the state to prove a miscreedence of defendant, they must first prove that a law was violated. No law has been proven as violated by fact, only hearsay and conjecture, neither of which proves a thing when it comes to case law. What I keep stating is fact, unemotional, evidence based truths.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Nope don't care... why? because that's not the thread topic. The trial is... not some actions of a few stupid people.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by ugie1028

 

So, you don't care about a dead teen's character being dragged through a street full of pig excrement before a prosecution team has even had the chance to prove the killer is guilty of unlawful homicide?

I don't care, that is for sure. If indeed what the defense is stating is the truth then he deserves nothing better. The idea that this "kid" was an innocent person is even more unbelievable than any story that the prosecution has come up with.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


There will be plenty of facts proffered to the jury to convince them that Zimmerman never went back to his truck when he said he did. Don't be impatient - all will be revealed in good time.

reply to post by ButterCookie


Misunderstanding, I think. Sorry.

You asked me why they called him as a witness and I was saying that he is what is called an "expert witness" (not that I think he's great or anything, that's just what they're called). I wasn't defending him as an expert, I meant he wasn't called for being an eye-witness, who is someone who SAW something, or can testify to the condition of the body because he saw it. But as an "expert witness" who is someone they call to bring their expertise and professional opinion on the matter.

In other words, he doesn't need to remember anything. That's not why he's there. He's there to give his professional opinion based on the pictures and notes of the case. Even if he didn't perform the autopsy, he could still be called as an expert witness in the case. So, his memory of it is irrelevant.

I hope that's clearer.

reply to post by LeaderOfProgress


My only claim is that he was innocent of initiating the fight with George, not that he was any kind of angel in human form. None of the evidence I have encountered convinces me that Trayvon was a vicious thug who'd drop a stranger just for interrupting his phone call. Otoh, I've seen lots of evidence that suggests Zimmerman is either a seasoned liar, or has such an unreliable memory none of his testimony can be taken seriously. I'm sure O Mara will make a 12 course meal of Zimmerman's traumatic after effects, but the evidence is there in his nen call that any memory problems he has weren't caused by Trayvon Martin, as he couldn't even remember the street name he was on where he's NW Co-ordinator for, and was about as effective as a spaghetti tightrope in directing police to where they were needed.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


He wasn't a very good expert witness, but his speciality is cutting up dead bodies and analysing the contents.

Originally posted by LeaderOfProgress
reply to post by NotAnAspie

 

Conjecture and hearsay... None of what you said was indeed an evidence proven fact. Convictions cannot be handed down based on conjecture and hearsay. In order for the state to prove a miscreedence of defendant, they must first prove that a law was violated. No law has been proven as violated by fact, only hearsay and conjecture, neither of which proves a thing when it comes to case law. What I keep stating is fact, unemotional, evidence based truths.

lol... If you look at the reenactment videos you'll realize that these words come of of Zimmermans own mouth.

Not to mention they are on the nen call. That's both his testimony and actual fact working against his case.

The actual recording just moments before the killing is not evidence of fact? Are you saying the recording is a hoax. What in the world are you trying to say? The case examines all the things about that phone call and Zimmermans time line and testimony and there's nothing you can do about that no matter how much you try to argue with a forum member who is not on the jury.

1) There is PROOF that they suggested to him to not follow Martin, yet what did he do?

2) He claimed that this person was some kind of apparent threat but instead of staying in his car, he goes and plays cop by trying to go around the other side of the buildings and head Martin off and the timeline supports that he did not walk, but that he ran to do this.... while nen had told him they didn't need him following that kid.

Proof? Evidence? It's ALL there. It's on a recording... documented... all being reviewed by a jury no matter what you say to *me*

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

 

There will be plenty of facts proffered to the jury to convince them that Zimmerman never went back to his truck when he said he did. Don't be impatient - all will be revealed in good time.

What facts will be presented? The prosecution in the case has RESTED, in defition that means they have no more facts to present. That is why the defense asked for accuital, allowing the state to give it's case before making such a motion. This shows patience and respect of the judicial system by the defense and a propensity for the truth. The truth is that the defense could truely rest with the evidence as it is and win. What one has to ask themselves is does the defense have any aces up there sleeve... That would be the only reason, I would think, that they have not rested themselves yet.

reply to post by NotAnAspie

Proof? Evidence? It's ALL there. It's on a recording... documented... all being reviewed by a jury no matter what you say to *me*

Exactly. How many other murder cases give you those kind of clues? Recordings of the last moments of the dead teen and a running commentary from the killer of the moments leading up to it.