The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[QuickHitCurepon]

Sigh, I've never said otherwise. I was just pointing out something to all of those speaking as fact that TM initiated the confrontation.

Given there is no evidence to the contrary it is reasonable to accept it as fact.

There is no evidence to suggest that either initiated the confrontation. All we know is that at some point TM was on top of GZ bashing his head into the ground and the GZ shot TM. None of that suggests either initiated things. Nobody will ever know besides GZ what happened.

That's the very sad part, however the verdict will go a long way in solving this mystery.

 

[MeBelle]

Somebody mentioned Kraka'????

 

[Zona]

Zimmerman is known liar, he lied at his bond hearing about his finances. He cannot be trusted to tell the truth.

As to your second point, that is a bunch of nonsense. Was a DNA test provided to prove Gladys Zimmerman and Jose Meza are George's mother and uncle?

So what you cock sucker. The evidence supports Zimmermans case at every turn....Who cares if he lied on somethings....It isn't like fat whale ***** didn't.

IT IS THE STATES JOB to put up the case to hang him. **** YOU as you're the liar!

Who cares that the defendant lied? I've heard it all now!

so zimmerman I a liar. Thanks for admmiting this.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The other side doesn't have any reasoning. These people hate the fact that anyone would defend themselves from one of the chosen ones.

**** everyone of these assholes!

 

[Ropey]

Oh Canada!

Yeah. Nuttin' to do with Bernie's clusterfuck summation.

I just thought we could use a little beauty to counteract the ugliness of Bernie's efforts.

Missy's some fine bit 'o woman.

 

[blackhawk]

Am I the only who has noticed this has nothing to do with what happened the night of the shooting?

It has everything to do with what happened that night - Zimmerman's CREDIBILITY.

No it doesn't stop pretending to be this stupid if in fact you are pretending.

 

[wavingrl]

Greta is good tonight--on fire.


The prosecutor's inconsistencies or manipulative mistakes.

He told the jury 'GZ said himself to his wife--'I just killed a man'. He really said --'Tell my wife I shot a man.' Mr. Mantolo, witness, testified to that.

So--tomorrow should be interesting.

Greta would have objected during the prosecution's closing but the others felt O'Mara didn't miss that and it would be covered tomorrow.

eta: It is Wisconsin. a fine state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Van_Susteren

I can hear it now----Who is the liar now ?

lol--that is pretty much what she said.

I keep trying to place her 'dialect'--Minnesota, not Wisconsin--somewhere in the midwest if I had to guess. It has always been easy to listen to her--a soft, but strong voice. No screeching. I appreciate that greatly.

eta: Wisconsin it is --a fine state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greta_Van_Susteren

 

[Meister]

actually the autopsy showed Martin to only have abrasions on his knuckles and the gun shot wound which would concur, due to Zimmermans injuries, with Martin's hitting Zimmerman.

A person doesn't necessarily have to have bruised knuckles in a fight.
Also, depending on a timeline between the hitting and the gun shot and dying, there may not have been enough time to have the bruising develop....just saying

sounds to me like that would have shown up in the autopsy -


Marks Of Violence
A murderer will always leave marks of violence on the bodies of their victims, no matter how hard they try to hide it. During an autopsy, these marks may be difficult to find if the murder agent was drugs or poison, but these agents can still be found through blood tests. On the other end of the scale, signs that the victim suffered a violent death are immediately discovered from the external examination.
Choose one of the following topics for more information:

--> Internal/external examinations

--> Bruising

--> Cuts

--> Gunshots

--> Assualt


Internal/External Examinations Top^
During an autopsy, there may be no external signs that the victim suffered from a brain haemorrhage. Brain scans performed during the internal examination are the only way that a coroner can reveal the fatal clots that may have been caused by a blow to the head. Changes in the appearance of skin colour may also lead to solving the crime, as some fatal agents have the ability to change the physical appearance of the body. For example, carbon monoxide poisoning can cause the skin to become pink in colour and smothering and the crushing of the chest can cause can cause pin sized patches of bleeding in the face. When many of these pin sized patches of bleeding occur, it can give the face a blue appearance.

Bruising Top^
Bruising on the skin occurs when the blood vessels are broken by some form of hard and forceful contact with the skin, usually by a blunt object. The shape of the bruise can often reveal which direction the blow was received from and the colour of the bruise can indicate how long ago the injury occurred. As bruising heals, it goes red-purple, to brown, to green and finally to yellow. Bruising is not an accurate way of deciding how the victim met their fate, as interpreting bruising is different in every person, due to the fact that people bruise at different rates and bruising continues for a short while after death. Strangulation around the neck also leaves significant bruising. The hands, cords and ropes usually leave a distinct mark around the neck in the shape of the pattern on the strangling agent. If the strangling agent is very soft material, it may leave little or no marks, but the dissection of the neck area is able to show tissue bruising beneath the skin.

Forensic Science | Marks Of Violence

You're not understanding what I'm saying.....There may not have been enough time for a bruise to appear before he died. Once the heart stops beating, the blood stops circulating and no bruise would appear. If he had lived longer there may have been time for him to bruise up.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Quoting another poster from a different board:


Dear Jurors, according to the State’s closing argument, not a single one of you will ever be allowed to defend yourself if you get attacked.
If you have ever cussed in frustration under your breath, you will be guilty of murder.
If you have ever watched someone you did not know in your crime riddled neighborhood, you will be guilty of murder.
If you have ever wanted to serve your community, and sought education to help you do that, you will be guilty of murder.
If you have ever done something in succession that could not also be done simultaneously, you will be guilty of murder.
If you are ever attacked, and do not state your name clearly and concisely while you are screaming for help and afraid for your life, you will be guilty of murder.
That is all the prosecution has for you to consider after their 44 witnesses and numerous exhibits.
I ask you to examine the evidence.
I ask you to listen to the witnesses.
I ask you to read the charges and realize that Prosecutors in this case have shown you more spite, hate, and ill will in his closing argument, never mind his case, than he has proven against Mr. Zimmerman in this entire trial.
Mr. Zimmerman acted in self defence, The State has proven that for us. He can not be found guilty of ANY charges.
Thank you.

Dear Jurors,

Let me begin by stating that we are not without heart or without compassion or sympathy, we know Sabrina and Tracy have lost a son. We know this is a rough time in their lives right now, and Mr. Zimmerman wishes there could have been another way to resolve this altercation. But that does not change what the facts and evidence in this case comport. I ask you not to consider the atmosphere surrounding this case. Politics have no place in the court of law. Set aside your fear of the ramifications, should you choose to acquit this man of the charges against him. I implore you not to make your decisions based on the racist undertones the state has chosen to depict my client of perpetrating.

Do not give in to the mischaracterizations of our client that the state wishes you to believe. We have diligently set our case in front of you. This man is innocent. As you have seen throughout this proceeding, all of the facts point to our client being an innocent man! The state wishes you to believe he was a vigilante, looking for a fight. The state wishes you to believe that his motivations were borne out of hatred, ill will and spite. I ask you, what about my client here here today demonstrates those things?

The state wants you to believe he profiled Trayvon Martin because of his skin color. Is it wrong to defend yourself from an attacker? According to the state, it is. Yet, according to THEIR OWN WITNESSES, this man was only acting in defense of his person! According to the state, any retaliation that results in death of the attacker, should be an automatic prison sentence. The state, jurors, wishes to discredit this man by making him out as a liar. I submit to you here today, that this man has done nothing wrong. He was in genuine fear of his life on the night of February 26th, 2012, when a young and boisterous young man chose to confront him, and in so doing attacked him with no provocation.

I will ask you to examine the evidence that shows the injuries he received at the hands of Mr. Martin. I will ask you to consider the testimony of Mr. John Good, who removed all doubt from this court, that Mr. Zimmerman was the VICTIM, not the attacker! Nothing the state brought before you in the past two weeks points to the guilt of the defendant. I will ask you to consider the testimony of Mr. Pleasants, who was under the impression that he wanted to be a lawyer or a prosecutor, not a "cop wannabe" as the state wishes you to believe. You the jury, cannot possibly believe my client is in any way as the state has portrayed him.

In closing, I wish to thank you for giving up the time in your daily lives to hear this case, time away from your family and friends to decide the fate of our client, Mr. George Zimmerman. Ultimately however, I ask you the jury, in the remaining time you have left in this proceeding, to consider the facts and testimony that have been laid out before you, please, I ask you to exonerate my client of all the charges that have been brought against him.

Thank you for your time.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

**** everyone of these assholes!

 

[JQPublic1]

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or

This excerpt applies to MARTIN. He was not engaged in unlawful activity and was apparently either attacked or afraid of imminent attack by GZ. Martin had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. You dumb ass one dimensional buffoon. You cannot even grasp the fact that Trayvon did not have to wait to be attacked by his STALKER. What ever he did he stood his ground when an unknown threat triggered alarms in his head to make him believe he was in danger. If the prosecution didn't use that in court then he/she is as inept in their thinking as you are. The other possibility is that there is a good old boy thing going on here and that the case is being purposefully blown.

 

[QuickHitCurepon]

I do not see anything in evidence that Zimmerman is a liar.
Where is that?
OH, wait a minute! Someone in the media said it SO IT MUST BE TRUE.
Sorry about that, my BAD.
Let me get in line with the other sheep.

He lied in the bond hearing. True story.

It isn't in evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

my understanding is his wife did, not him.

There's a scuz for ya.

 

[Brain357]

Yes, he went to see where Martin went to. he didnt find him and went back towards his car. And martin appeared all of a sudden and confronted him.
All teh evidence is consistent with that story. Nothing contradicts it. So why do you not want to believe it?

You mean that is what might have happened. But as I've mentioned it seems very odd Martin first runs away, but then comes out of nowhere and attacks him? That doesn't seem very weird to you given Marten has no history of violence?

OK. So we know that Martin ran away, because Zimmerman said so. I think there was testimony to that effect as well.
So how did the two end up encountering each other again?
1) Zimmerman ran after Martin and caught up to him and confronted him. Unlikely given the physical disparity.
2) Zimmerman laid in wait for martin and confronted him when he re-appeared. Unlikely. Zimmerman had no idea where Martin was going or whether he would be back that way.
3) Martin doubled back to confront Zimmerman. The official story. Seems the most likely. Why? To teach Zimmerman a lesson. To cover his tracks because he was n fact casing the house. To intimidate Zimmerman so he wouldn't finger Martin in a later break in. To get even with Zimmerman because he dissed him by looking at him. Lots of possibilities here. But all of them point to Martin initiating the second fatal contact.

I agree he probably ran away. What Zimmerman said pre shooting is probably true. Now what he said post shooting that is questionable.
1.) Your assuming this is a race and Martin ran away as fast as he could. I would argue he may have just jogged off until he was around the corner then walked. I see no reason Zimmerman couldn't have caught up to him if he wanted.
2.) I agree it is unlikely Zimmerman would expect Martin to come back.
3.) To me it seems like Martin would have a long record of batteries if he was so easily offended. But he doesn't and that's why I see this option as unlikely.

One interesting thing I've read is that Zimmerman didn't have any of Martin's blood on him? He shot somebody who was on top of him in the heart and had no blood on him?

 

[Lakhota]

On that dark and rainy night:

1. What did Martin do wrong?

2. What did Zimmerman do wrong?

 

[rdean]

What did I make up?

Does this look like the back of someone's head who had been "pounded" into cement?

Zimmerman said Martin pounded his face and held his hands over Zimmermans mouth, only there was no DNA on Martin's hands. Doesn't this look like no more than one punch? No DNA, no smeared blood?

Medical examiners said the injuries were "insignificant". Zimmerman himself didn't seek medical help.

And remember, this is after his head was "pounded" into the cement, his face punched again and again and hands held over his mouth.

Since there are no severe injuries to back it up, would you say he was attempting to illicit "sympathy" from the jury? Because he knows he murdered a child?

I know, I know. Martin is black. That means he will always be guilty to Republicans.

Medical examiners said the injuries were "insignificant". Zimmerman himself didn't seek medical help.

Injuries don't count unless you are knocked unconscious or killed.
Especially when the perp is a black yute.

You are sure that Zimmerman didn't seek medical help?

Are you absolutely sure?

If he had a busted nose he got medical treatment. No doubt about it.

He didn't have a busted nose. We know that from the trial.

 

[pioneerpete]

He lied in the bond hearing. True story.

It isn't in evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

my understanding is his wife did, not him.

There's a scuz for ya.

So you're saying TM had better taste?

 

[CrazedScotsman]

Skyline and Goldstar is watered down grainuals of meat with some spices and a touch of chocolate. They are not chili! Camp Washington Chili is and it is the best in the world. Oh, and my moms too. Oh man, it's good stuff.

EDIT: Mr. Jim's Steakhouse has some damn good chili as well.

Hop on a plane to Albuquerque if you want chili or Omaha if you want a steak. Cincinnati does have decent corn dogs, as I remember.

whispering--go to the Varsity in Atlanta--chili dog, onion rings and frosty orange

greasy--someone is sure to mention that but good.

Flying Biscuit--more vegetarian options and nouveau Southern food

lol--one of my favorite places no longer exists--pure fried fare--catfish, hush puppies, french fries and the salad dressing was tangy--similar to an oil based Russian dressing. They brought baskets and baskets of piping hot little catfish--the best kind. My grandfather had a hollow leg and he could eat a lot of catfish.

If you want good fish, there's this little place in downtown Cincinnati called Alabamas. Man o man it's really good.

For ribs, everyone in the Cincinnati area swears by Montgomery Inn, but that stuff isn't good. The best ribs I've ever had was from this guys basement over in St. Bernard. He had these 3 smokers going and 5 grills for whatever you wanted and it was cheap too. Illegal, but cheap, lol. You could also grab yourself some "Corn" if that was your thing. The "Corn" came from Indiana and Kentucky.

By "Corn" I'm talking about grain alchohol.

 

[rdean]

Do you believe that if you're attacked you have the right to defend yourself?

Absolutely! Trayvon Martin was trying to defend himself against an aggressive armed profiling assailant.

By straddling him and attempting to bash his fucken skull in.

A band-aids worth of injuries? Show us something "serious". You can't.

Besides, explain how Zimmerman got to his gun if he was being straddled and it was in his holster, down his pants, behind his back.

 

[syrenn]

Medical examiners said the injuries were "insignificant". Zimmerman himself didn't seek medical help.

Injuries don't count unless you are knocked unconscious or killed.
Especially when the perp is a black yute.

You are sure that Zimmerman didn't seek medical help?

Are you absolutely sure?

If he had a busted nose he got medical treatment. No doubt about it.

He didn't have a busted nose. We know that from the trial.

really?

you need to pay better attention then.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or

This excerpt applies to MARTIN. He was not engaged in unlawful activity and was apparently either attacked or afraid of imminent attack by GZ. Martin had no duty to retreat and had the right to stand his ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. You dumb ass one dimensional buffoon. You cannot even grasp the fact that Trayvon did not have to wait to be attacked by his STALKER. What ever he did he stood his ground when an unknown threat triggered alarms in his head to make him believe he was in danger. If the prosecution didn't use that in court then he/she is as inept in their thinking as you are. The other possibility is that there is a good old boy thing going on here and that the case is being purposefully blown.

Unless you are willing to call every single witness that testified for the state a liar Martin attacked Zimmerman, which is illegal.