methane47
Member
Not that. They don't seem to have a narrative. They let the defense ask all kind of things and speculate continuously, letting the defense lead the witnesses into things.
George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
Not that. They don't seem to have a narrative. They let the defense ask all kind of things and speculate continuously, letting the defense lead the witnesses into things.
I don't think they have much to work with...
faceless007
Member
Cop (first on scene) says Martin's body was face down. Shows photo.
Cop took Z's gun from his holster--meaning Z reholstered it. Says Z immediately volunteered the fact that he shot Martin and that he was armed.
Cop took Z's gun from his holster--meaning Z reholstered it. Says Z immediately volunteered the fact that he shot Martin and that he was armed.
The defense is allowed to ask the State's witnesses leading questions.
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
I think everyone agrees they should have gone with manslaughter. They absolutely did overreach, it's too hard.
Speak for yourself.
DragonSworne
Banned
Nope, chase someone down and kill them = Second degree
More than enough evidence to put Zimmerman away.
It depends. It might be seen as an overreach, but, as I posted above, it is my understanding that manslaughter is a lesser included offense of second degree murder. In that sense, manslaughter is still on the table, but is still subject to the defense's claims of justification/self-defense.
Dude Abides
Banned
They can't stop the defense from asking those questions, and they can't create a narrative for which there is no evidence.
I wish people saying they should have charged manslaughter would explain what they think the relevant difference is between the charges.
beastworship
Neo Member
been watching this off and on and paying some attention to the whole situation. Jorge will obviously be going free, or as free as free can be. and i really can't complain about it. he's just a slug genetic defect that got his ass kicked by a kid.
Killing_Joke
Member
I disagree. It's not like they have a list of "i saw it all" type witnesses. They are trying to be extremely detailed whether it helps them or not. If GZ testifies, ANY contradiction will help them in their favor. Unless the jury believes most or all the witnesses lied.
They're trying to prove with the cops and medic that TM didn't really beat the shit out of him like he described.
faceless007
Member
Cop said Z's jacket and back of pants were wetter than front. I assume the prosecution has a reason for doing that since it goes at odds with trying to put Z as the one on top.
Have any medical experts or forensics testified yet? The entry and exit wounds are going to be pretty important.
Have any medical experts or forensics testified yet? The entry and exit wounds are going to be pretty important.
DragonSworne
Banned
How would the front ever be wet?
He is either on top at all times thus never gettting wet, or he was on the bottom atleast once to get wet.
Saying his back was wet doesn't say much other than that he was for a moment on the ground. Could have been done when he reholstered his gun and tried to cover up the whole murder.
vas_a_morir
Banned
My Mom, a veteran attorney, told me that she knew the prosecution didn't feel like they could win when they sent out the 'young guy.' Don't know if that's true, but I thought that was a funny observation. (She said they probably just want to give this guy some more trial experience)
Also said there were 'grass stains' on the back, as well.
Zoe
Member
Bottom legs would get wet with straddling. His back would also be more wet if he was on the grass rather than leaning over and catching some rain.
Or they thought "I have a 100 percent conviction rate in homicide trials by overcharging and leveraging plea deals and I don't want to tank that on a case I have to take all the way to trial and may lose."
methane47
Member
A narrative is not a lie. But they need to project the narrative that Zimmerman was the aggressor. Right now all they seem to be doing is, asking people random questions about the entire situation. They don't seem to be pushing towards any opinion at all.
Its clear as day the Defense is arguing that Martin was the aggressor, continuously pounding the point that Trayvon was on top.
What point is the prosecution getting across currently? And the Onus is on the prosecution to prove guilt. But all they are doing now is proving that it was dark and raining and they could maybe see the number of the houses from the front.
vas_a_morir
Banned
What stream are people using? I found this, but it's from a news desktop?
http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/
Is there something more direct?
Nevermind, I realized the windows desktop is just from the court room.
http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/
Is there something more direct?
Nevermind, I realized the windows desktop is just from the court room.
To be fair, it doesn't seem like they have much of a case to work with
To me, the controversy was never whether or not GZ would be convicted (or even charged), but the police investigation or lack thereof immediately following the events
vas_a_morir
Banned
I miss the Ninja Turtle Cop.
User 100115
Banned
I am pretty sure that even though they are in court, they are still on duty.
faceless007
Member
Seriously, prosecution is completely failing to fill in the holes in the narrative. Did Z say anything in the car? Did he describe at any point what happened? Were any statements taken at the scene? Did the police get any impression of exactly what had gone down? They're not even asking the basic questions to paint the picture.
Not the prosecution's fault the police fucked up.
The reason the case went national in the first place is the police didn't do shit
faceless007
Member
I'm not talking about the procedure of who they arrested and investigated, I'm saying the prosecution should just be asking their witnesses "What did you think happened?"
By not arresting him I think it is implied that the police thought it was self-defense. Not sure if they want to ask that.
faceless007
Member
Fair point. Since Z hasn't testified they can't really use these witnesses to contradict his account.
Dude Abides
Banned
What witness do you think they have that would testify that Zimmerman was the aggressor? The only one was Jeantel.
leatherhat
Member
I can't believe this is a prosecution witness
Kitschkraft
Member
Court uniform.
BloodMoney
Banned
Perhaps from their perspective the situation played out the way Zimmerman has indicated?
Perhaps they felt this was a "stand your ground" self defense scenario?
BrokenEchelon
Banned
Seems like Zimmerman is going to walk.
Killing_Joke
Member
Exactly. This case isn't that easy when 99.9% of your witnesses didn't see shit. It's her word against his. As of right now GZ was the aggressor thanks to Rachael. Defense is just trying to spin it with GZ yelling help and the fact TM was caught on top.
I wonder if the reenactment can be used as evidence? (maybe it was haven't watched the whole thing). In case he chooses not to testify. The jury should be able to watch it.
I'm pretty sure they can use that video for evidence (its police video, right??) and its really good for the prosecution. They should be able to prove Zimmerman was lying. Hopefully they can use his Hannity interview as well..
Xenon
Member
I thought the police did arrest him but the DA said they had no case and let him go.
"Objection: Speculation."
Only way around that is to establish a foundation of expertise in crime scene reconstruction, which I doubt the officers immediately on the scene could do. The cop could make a descriptive observation (e.g. he had a concerned look on his face), but without established expertise, they couldn't speculate to what they thought happened.
EDIT: And even with expertise, they would have to say, "This bit of evidence lead me to believe that...because..." or something similar. So without evidence, there's no speculation, even from an expert.
Dude Abides
Banned
Yeah, you can just affirm that you'll tell the truth.
They should be able to. They may be waiting until the end of their case.
methane47
Member
They have gotten police on the stand. If I was the lawyer, i would ask every single one of them
- "what is the proper action to take if a Citizen observes a suspicious person."
- "Should citizens follow suspicious persons in a car?"
- "Should citizens then jump out of a car and pursue suspicious persons into dark alleyways or into backyards?"
- "Should citizens attempt to detain a person that they have not witnessed committing a crime or for no apparent reason?"
- "In your opinion if you are being followed or chased by an unknown person, what should you do?"
- "Are you aware of any crimes that Trayvon Martin committed on that night?
- "In your opinion, would you be threatened if someone was following or chasing after you for no reason"
Something like that. So atleast the jury can start to hear about the fact that Zimmerman followed TM without any legal or sensical cause. I'm sure the lawyer would be able these questions in such away to atleast bring this point to light. He had police and they should be able to give expert testimony about authority and proper procedures for Citizens acting as psuedo law enforcement.
Dude Abides
Banned
None of those questions would be allowed, except maybe the one about Martin's crimes.
vas_a_morir
Banned
That courthouse looks like a cheap Orlando hotel.
- Status