The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

most recent photos show grass stains on the back of zimmermans clothes

and grass stains on martins knees

That sounds like evidence favorable to the defense.

I doubt if anyone denies there was an altercation.

How do those stains show who started it?


>>>>

It doesn't, it's just more to make you go hmmmm.

That middle between the non-emergency line call and the 911 call (neighbor) is ???

If you figure that part out, let me know, I'm working on it. ;-)

 

[Snookie]

They say that ignorance is bliss.

 

[Kooshdakhaa]

The witness up there now...black male...the Prosecution wants him bad...the defense will be trying to get him eliminated. He found out about the rallies thru MSNBC....not good...they are the ones that fabricated evidence to incite anger on the side of Trayvon...if I was the prosecution I would want him off the jury...he just referenced al sharpton...another strike.

He just mentioned Stand Your Ground Law being applied correctly to this case....this is not a SYG case...its self defense...this guy is getting all of his info from MSNBC...hes in the martin column pretty soundly and it would be difficult to get him to sway...prosecution will not want him at all...they will strike him.

Why did you start out saying, "The witness up there now...black male...the Prosecution wants him bad...the defense will be trying to get him eliminated."

and end up saying, "prosecution will not want him at all...they will strike him" ???

 

[testarosa]

This lady works across from Retreat at Twin Lakes, she could see memorial, buses all that going on over there from work.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

most recent photos show grass stains on the back of zimmermans clothes

and grass stains on martins knees

That sounds like evidence favorable to the defense.

I doubt if anyone denies there was an altercation.

How do those stains show who started it?


>>>>

Where did I say or suggest that grass stains had anything to do with the question of who started the physical altercation?

What I did say was that the grass stains (and their respective locations on the two guys), the injuries to Zimmerman and the close contact nature of the gun shot are all factors favorable to the defense of justification.

By the way, assuming Zimmerman testifies and says, "Yeah, I did follow the kid, but he then approached me and started beating on me and he knocked me down and he was cracking my head onto the ground," let's focus. Who on the State side is going to offer evidence to dispute those things?

How are they going to dispute those things?

So, let's say that Zimmerman testifies along those lines and thereby raises sufficient evidence for the justification defense. The STATE then has the obligation to disprove it.

I am kind of curious what they will point to in order to meet THEIR burden once the defense is raised by the defense? It won't be the PHYSICAL evidence. That's pretty clear. The scientific/physical/forensic evidence appears to support the defense even to the point of suggesting that if Zimmerman had not had a weapon on him, he might not even be alive today.

 

[Snookie]

Yep...there is only one side bringing race into it...Martins side. They dont need to, but they are. Funny how hoodies are suggested to be racist and apply to blacks...yet Ive only heard the defense accuse of that...so to them hoodies means black...lol.

It started with the Welfare Cadillac.

I dont know anything about the cadillac. Whats funny to me is how everyone is jumping on this hoodie bandwagon...nothing was ever suggested that because he was wearing a hoodie that he was profiled...it has been completely fabricated by the media. I mean what are people saying?...that he was profiled because he had a hoodie on...Mr Z never said that...it seems that its the other side associating the hoodie with black, therefore he was profiled because of it...its made up. its not like Mr Z told the dispatcher "uh oh, hes got a hoodie on he must be up to no good"...there was no mention of a hoodie.

Geraldo is the one who brought the hoodie up...suggesting that baggie pants and a hoodie is thug like and dont dress like that if you dont want to be followed. Then everyone just ran with it and associated it to Mr Z. Thats unfair.

It would be the same as if someone just came out and said he was wearing black sox, so thats what did it. Why cant race be left out of it? To me as soon as the race card is pulled it weakens the case in general.

Okay everybody. Let's all pretend that race has nothing to do with it. Harump, harump.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

It started with the Welfare Cadillac.

I dont know anything about the cadillac. Whats funny to me is how everyone is jumping on this hoodie bandwagon...nothing was ever suggested that because he was wearing a hoodie that he was profiled...it has been completely fabricated by the media. I mean what are people saying?...that he was profiled because he had a hoodie on...Mr Z never said that...it seems that its the other side associating the hoodie with black, therefore he was profiled because of it...its made up. its not like Mr Z told the dispatcher "uh oh, hes got a hoodie on he must be up to no good"...there was no mention of a hoodie.

Geraldo is the one who brought the hoodie up...suggesting that baggie pants and a hoodie is thug like and dont dress like that if you dont want to be followed. Then everyone just ran with it and associated it to Mr Z. Thats unfair.

It would be the same as if someone just came out and said he was wearing black sox, so thats what did it. Why cant race be left out of it? To me as soon as the race card is pulled it weakens the case in general.

Okay everybody. Let's all pretend that race has nothing to do with it. Harump, harump.

No pretending needed. Race has nothing to do with it.

 

[Snookie]

That sounds like evidence favorable to the defense.

I doubt if anyone denies there was an altercation.

How do those stains show who started it?


>>>>

Where did I say or suggest that grass stains had anything to do with the question of who started the physical altercation?

What I did say was that the grass stains (and their respective locations on the two guys), the injuries to Zimmerman and the close contact nature of the gun shot are all factors favorable to the defense of justification.

By the way, assuming Zimmerman testifies and says, "Yeah, I did follow the kid, but he then approached me and started beating on me and he knocked me down and he was cracking my head onto the ground," let's focus. Who on the State side is going to offer evidence to dispute those things?

How are they going to dispute those things?

So, let's say that Zimmerman testifies along those lines and thereby raises sufficient evidence for the justification defense. The STATE then has the obligation to disprove it.

I am kind of curious what they will point to in order to meet THEIR burden once the defense is raised by the defense? It won't be the PHYSICAL evidence. That's pretty clear. The scientific/physical/forensic evidence appears to support the defense even to the point of suggesting that if Zimmerman had not had a weapon on him, he might not even be alive today.

That's because TM would have been able to stand his ground.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Okay everybody. Let's all pretend that race has nothing to do with it. Harump, harump.

Too late for that! This case would not have gotten the media coverage it has had if it wasn't being trumped up about race.

 

[testarosa]

It started with the Welfare Cadillac.

I dont know anything about the cadillac. Whats funny to me is how everyone is jumping on this hoodie bandwagon...nothing was ever suggested that because he was wearing a hoodie that he was profiled...it has been completely fabricated by the media. I mean what are people saying?...that he was profiled because he had a hoodie on...Mr Z never said that...it seems that its the other side associating the hoodie with black, therefore he was profiled because of it...its made up. its not like Mr Z told the dispatcher "uh oh, hes got a hoodie on he must be up to no good"...there was no mention of a hoodie.

Geraldo is the one who brought the hoodie up...suggesting that baggie pants and a hoodie is thug like and dont dress like that if you dont want to be followed. Then everyone just ran with it and associated it to Mr Z. Thats unfair.

It would be the same as if someone just came out and said he was wearing black sox, so thats what did it. Why cant race be left out of it? To me as soon as the race card is pulled it weakens the case in general.

Okay everybody. Let's all pretend that race has nothing to do with it. Harump, harump.

Or Cadillacs, I'm totally confused as to where they come into it, except the Bernster keeps using the red car/ white car analogy, maybe he's talking about Cadillacs.

Who knows?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I doubt if anyone denies there was an altercation.

How do those stains show who started it?


>>>>

Where did I say or suggest that grass stains had anything to do with the question of who started the physical altercation?

What I did say was that the grass stains (and their respective locations on the two guys), the injuries to Zimmerman and the close contact nature of the gun shot are all factors favorable to the defense of justification.

By the way, assuming Zimmerman testifies and says, "Yeah, I did follow the kid, but he then approached me and started beating on me and he knocked me down and he was cracking my head onto the ground," let's focus. Who on the State side is going to offer evidence to dispute those things?

How are they going to dispute those things?

So, let's say that Zimmerman testifies along those lines and thereby raises sufficient evidence for the justification defense. The STATE then has the obligation to disprove it.

I am kind of curious what they will point to in order to meet THEIR burden once the defense is raised by the defense? It won't be the PHYSICAL evidence. That's pretty clear. The scientific/physical/forensic evidence appears to support the defense even to the point of suggesting that if Zimmerman had not had a weapon on him, he might not even be alive today.

That's because TM would have been able to stand his ground.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

"Stand your ground" has exactly nothing to do with this case.

It has nothing to do with Zimmerman's claim of justification. And it has nothing to do with the fact that IF Trayvon initiated the physical altercation with Zimmerman, then "stand your ground" had no applicability to him, either.

 

[testarosa]

Dismissed for cause - she works across the street from crime scene.

NEXT!

 

[testarosa]

Okay everybody. Let's all pretend that race has nothing to do with it. Harump, harump.

Too late for that! This case would not have gotten the media coverage it has had if it wasn't being trumped up about race.

Race and Cadillacs, apparently.

 

[AyeCantSeeYou]

Or Cadillacs, I'm totally confused as to where they come into it, except the Bernster keeps using the red car/ white car analogy, maybe he's talking about Cadillacs.

Who knows?

He could have used Indians and Pilgrims too. (Thanksgiving might have been pulled from that one.)

I'm going back to my corner before I get myself in trouble. LOL

 

[testarosa]

Okay everybody. Let's all pretend that race has nothing to do with it. Harump, harump.

Too late for that! This case would not have gotten the media coverage it has had if it wasn't being trumped up about race.

That sounds like evidence favorable to the defense.

I doubt if anyone denies there was an altercation.

How do those stains show who started it?


>>>>

Where did I say or suggest that grass stains had anything to do with the question of who started the physical altercation?

What I did say was that the grass stains (and their respective locations on the two guys), the injuries to Zimmerman and the close contact nature of the gun shot are all factors favorable to the defense of justification.

By the way, assuming Zimmerman testifies and says, "Yeah, I did follow the kid, but he then approached me and started beating on me and he knocked me down and he was cracking my head onto the ground," let's focus. Who on the State side is going to offer evidence to dispute those things?

How are they going to dispute those things?

So, let's say that Zimmerman testifies along those lines and thereby raises sufficient evidence for the justification defense. The STATE then has the obligation to disprove it.

I am kind of curious what they will point to in order to meet THEIR burden once the defense is raised by the defense? It won't be the PHYSICAL evidence. That's pretty clear. The scientific/physical/forensic evidence appears to support the defense even to the point of suggesting that if Zimmerman had not had a weapon on him, he might not even be alive today.

They have the GF's changed/changed/changed phone call testimony, other than that.............................................................

Anyone?

 

[king.solomon]

Race has nothing to do with this trial??

Oh brother!

I need a drink!

 

[testarosa]

Potential juror H-6, white male, 30s, TV viewer, no newspaper, does not know if it is "self-defense."

 

[dilloduck]

Too late for that! This case would not have gotten the media coverage it has had if it wasn't being trumped up about race.

Where did I say or suggest that grass stains had anything to do with the question of who started the physical altercation?

What I did say was that the grass stains (and their respective locations on the two guys), the injuries to Zimmerman and the close contact nature of the gun shot are all factors favorable to the defense of justification.

By the way, assuming Zimmerman testifies and says, "Yeah, I did follow the kid, but he then approached me and started beating on me and he knocked me down and he was cracking my head onto the ground," let's focus. Who on the State side is going to offer evidence to dispute those things?

How are they going to dispute those things?

So, let's say that Zimmerman testifies along those lines and thereby raises sufficient evidence for the justification defense. The STATE then has the obligation to disprove it.

I am kind of curious what they will point to in order to meet THEIR burden once the defense is raised by the defense? It won't be the PHYSICAL evidence. That's pretty clear. The scientific/physical/forensic evidence appears to support the defense even to the point of suggesting that if Zimmerman had not had a weapon on him, he might not even be alive today.

They have the GF's changed/changed/changed phone call testimony, other than that.............................................................

Anyone?

The state has nothing. The only reason the case is being tried is because the race card was played. Blacks had to be placated and guilt ridden liberals had to protect the black victims so they jumped on the wagon

 

[king.solomon]

At the risk of keeping it real....

Trayvone Martin was racially stereotyped.

Yes he was.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Too late for that! This case would not have gotten the media coverage it has had if it wasn't being trumped up about race.

Where did I say or suggest that grass stains had anything to do with the question of who started the physical altercation?

What I did say was that the grass stains (and their respective locations on the two guys), the injuries to Zimmerman and the close contact nature of the gun shot are all factors favorable to the defense of justification.

By the way, assuming Zimmerman testifies and says, "Yeah, I did follow the kid, but he then approached me and started beating on me and he knocked me down and he was cracking my head onto the ground," let's focus. Who on the State side is going to offer evidence to dispute those things?

How are they going to dispute those things?

So, let's say that Zimmerman testifies along those lines and thereby raises sufficient evidence for the justification defense. The STATE then has the obligation to disprove it.

I am kind of curious what they will point to in order to meet THEIR burden once the defense is raised by the defense? It won't be the PHYSICAL evidence. That's pretty clear. The scientific/physical/forensic evidence appears to support the defense even to the point of suggesting that if Zimmerman had not had a weapon on him, he might not even be alive today.

They have the GF's changed/changed/changed phone call testimony, other than that.............................................................

Anyone?

The girlfreind was not there.

And yes. If I track it correctly, she has "wavered" a bit on the matter. Consistency is not her strong suit.

If that's what they have to go with, I guess I can understand why the prosecutor is acting a bit desperate.