The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by IvanAstikov

He stretched the truth about everything, not sure what trial your following?

reply to post by Grimpachi


##SNIPPED##

What I actually stated is that a series of lies whilst explaining a killing is far more telling than a single mis-step by a prosecutor in a highly charged case.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Don't know how many times you have to be corrected....... He doesn't have to prove his innocence, the state has to prove his guilt.

Originally posted by ugie1028
Proof by assertion

Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction.

Thanks!
Didn't know it had a "real" name.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by roadgravel

 

If he has convinced the jury that Zimmerman is a habitual liar, he's done the job, from where I'm sitting. It's not like there was any mystery to solve over whodunnit - the jury just has to decide if he had good reason to do it, and there's no guarantee they will favour Zimmerman at the end of this.

If Zimmerman was on trial for lying, you would have a point.

He is not.

The prosecution has to do far better then prove that Zimmerman is a liar, they even have to do better then prove that he is a bad person. They have to prove that he murdered a person outside of the protections provided by the rights of self defence.

The prosecution, imho, has failed to do that.

reply to post by thesaneone


Hey, if it's good for the defence, it's good for the other side, or is that "equal rights for everyone" going a bit pear-shaped?

reply to post by IvanAstikov

than a single mis-step by a prosecutor in a highly charged case.

Single

Better catch youtube and watch the trial again.

Peace

Originally posted by ButterCookie
Prosecutor: ' How does he get the gun out?"

Guess what? He could have WISHED it out...doesn't matter.

Your victim is on top of the defendant, and thanks for showing the jury that once again.

I know the jury had to be thinking the same thing I was. The prosecution was really pounding that hard "it's IMPOSSIBLE for him to reach the gun." It's not a trip to the Moon. He could have reached around the leg, between the leg and his own side, or maybe the prosecution is just wrong about where Martin was positioned.

Personally I think the Force is strong with Zimmerman and that explains how he got the gun out.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Oh I get it so you think the prosecution wasn't telling a series of lies.


Errm.....ok.. well I have faith the jury knows better.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO CATCH UP .... My notes ... short but to the point. May not be in order or complete ... but they may help those who are not caught up)
*snip*
DAY FIVE
LIndzee Folgate - Physicians Assistant. Said Zimmermans wounds inconsequential and also that 'whatever Zimmerman did to stop the attack saved his life'. Turned for the defense.
George McKinney - United Security Alliance - said nothing on security tapes of the area.
Jonathan Manalo - Resident Twin Lakes - took pictures immediate after fight. Sold for $$.
Police Officer Richardo Ayala - Sanford PD - first responder
EMT Stacey Livingston - First Responder
Police Officer Timothy Smith - Sanford PD - first responder

DAY 6 - Lead Investigator Chris Serino. Totally backed Zimmerman story. Said 'Zimmerman could have been a victim too'. Found Zimmerman story to be 'credible'. Also that Zimmermans injuries were exaggerated but that they didn't have to be life threatening, but only that Zimmerman had to believe his life was in danger. Said that at no time did Zimmerman express 'ill will, hatred or spite towards Martin' (All needed for Murder 2 conviction). Turned for defense.

DAY 7 - Video of Zimmerman on Hannity show is shown.

Mark Osterman - wrote a book which in places contradicts Zimmermans Hannity statements. Osterman admits that he wrote the book based on one conversation and that he didn't take notes and may have gotten things wrong. Turned for the defense.

Valarie Rao - Medical Examiner Hired Gun Expert - Years of complaints against her for doing things like washing her feet in autopsy sinks and using bare hands during procedures.

She expressed her opinions from the photographs. said the injuries were insignificant or consistent with someone getting hit less than 3 times. On cross exam she admits that doing this was unscientific or unreliable (can't remember which she said) doing it by photograph. Neutralized by the defense.

Kristine Benson. Latent Print Analysis - Said no Martin prints on gun but that doesn't mean anything. Neutralized by the defense.

Appreciated! Seems we agree on 1-4. Haven't had time to watch past that though. This and your next MOST appreciated.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

 

I've seen all the pics. I haven't seen Trayvon Martin's knuckle imprint on any of them. Forensic examination couldn't find any trace of Zimmerman's dna on Trayvon's dark hoody or his light, burglary-friendly trousers.

You are kidding, right? You don't leave knuckle imprints when punching a person; you leave wounds, which Zimmerman HAD.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Minus

 

Ah.. but you are forgetting. Zimmerman said he was running for the back exit. He thought it was a criminal and doubtful someone that lives in the gated neighborhood is casing their neighbors houses. He saw him run and though he was a running out of the neighborhood. He didn't know and likely (my speculation) wouldn't expect that he was staying in the neighborhood. So he likely figured he'd run right out and never confront him.

Excellent point!

Oh, for any that missed it, as I did, the judge did NOT allow the animation entered into evidence, though she did say they could use it to "demonstrate" this or that. She also did NOT allow Martin's extensive phone records, further showing her extreme bias in this case. Since the State made a point of bringing in evidence to the reputation of Zimmerman, such evidence for Martin should have been allowed, for fairness.

reply to post by TKDRL


I never said he had to prove his innocence, I said he had to provide an affirmative defence that wasn't full of lies, if he wanted to avoid being charged.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by TKDRL

 

I never said he had to prove his innocence, I said he had to provide an affirmative defence that wasn't full of lies, if he wanted to avoid being charged.

Incorrect.

The defence does not have to prove anything.

They only need to provide reasonable doubt to the claims made by the prosecution.

reply to post by IvanAstikov

Let me put it really simple. In order to be convicted, the state has to prove, there is no way that it could have been self defense. For example, he was standing on the back of his neck, then blew the back of his head off. No way that could possibly be self defense.

We need to find some catchy saying like the OJ case.

If the prosecution puts on witnesses for the defense, then you must acquit.

Peace

reply to post by TKDRL


The prosecution's requirement has been pointed out several times. Some people just want the law to operate as emotion.

reply to post by LeatherNLace

Without a doubt in my mind, GZ is guilty of #2. IMO, like a predator, GZ profiled, stalked and killed his prey.

You and the rest of the Trayvon cheerleading section need to focus on the word REPEATEDLY...Zimmerman did not repeatedly follow Trayvon...the only person in the entire scenario that ever hinted at doing anything on a repeated basis was the wannabe thug Trayvon...

Originally posted by howmuch4another

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
The state didn't have to prove exactly what did happen, they just hadto prove that it didn't happen like George said. There's plenty of proof of that among the evidence the jury has to hand.

edit on 11-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)

If you are an American you are providing evidence of our failed education system as your statement could not be any more juxtaposed to the actual rule of law in our country.
Innocent until PROVEN guilty.

He's from the UK I do believe.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


The prosecutor has told many lies. He has a huge stake in trying to win this case. Zimmerman has no proven lies, and most are really just slight inconsistencies that the police detective Serrino considered normal.

The prosecution is pushing hard for a 3rd or 2nd degree murder charge.

This is what Florida law says: www.richardhornsby.com...

What say you ATS...do you think he is going to do some time in prison?

Also...what do you think of Mr. Zimmerman as a person?

Originally posted by jam321
We need to find some catchy saying like the OJ case.
If the prosecution puts on witnesses for the defense, then you must acquit.

"Skittles. Taste the rainbow"?