The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[jon_berzerk]

[MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] said:
>>>lack of DNA is not evidence that someone did not touch something

>>>lack of fingerprints is not indicative that someone did not touch something



point not dna

not fingerprints

rather inconsistent and statements conflicting

how so

When your statement to the police conflicts with your statement to your best friend? Thats a potential problem that goes to the credibility of the defendant. Especially when best friend testifies for the state and writes a book about it...see links in original post.

that does not overcome reasonable doubt

show us something that over comes that line

we have already heard from crime investigators

that generally stories change a little


however it possible to touch something

and not leave dna

or have recoverable dna

plus the witness said they could have missed DNA

 

[The Professor]

So he isn't just a cold blooded murderer, he's a moron as well..

I think Zimmerman had a warped mind. To him all blacks are criminals.

Zimmerman tutored black kids on the weekend and lived in a MIXED race community that INCLUDED Blacks, you ******* mental midget!

George Zimmerman « YWN Coffee Room

George Zimmerman stood up for a homeless Black man who had been beaten by Justin Collison, the son of a White Sanford police lieutenant. The event was videotaped and Collison should have been arrested immediately, but it appeared that the police were going to let the matter slide. Fortunately, Zimmerman came to the homeless man's defense. The following links describe Zimmerman's efforts to obtain justice for the man.
Trayvon Martin shooting: George Zimmerman once protested treatment of homeless black man by police, his father says * - NY Daily News
Tape showed Zimmerman's anger over black man's beating - CNN.com

One other thing. The FBI investigated Zimmerman for any signs of racism and concluded there was no evidence to support the accusation. But what do they know, right?

 

[KissMy]

Nancy Grace.....Jane Vaseline Mithcell....or whatever......
Jesus.....they look like they're trying to chew their own faces off.....

plastic is inedible

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The prosecution is politically motivated, is this because of Obama's "son" comment?

 

[KissMy]

I don't know about embellishing or not, but there's no question it was a completely traumatizing event. I don't assume someone is lying if there's no evidence of it and I just personally haven't seen any evidence GZ is a dishonest person. Nothing in his story causes me to find it far-fetched or implausible. It seems logical, at least to me.

Fair enough. But consider this...he told Sean Hannity that he knew nothing about the "Stand Your Ground" law. However his professor testified that he taught it in the class GZ took and that GZ was one of his best students...

"Alexis Carter, the adjunct professor who taught Zimmerman’s criminal litigation at Seminole State College in 2010. In a key bit of testimony, Carter told the jury that he had covered Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law extensively for George Zimmerman’s class. He described George Zimmerman as “one of the better students,” and remembered giving him an “A” in the class."

He also took self defense classes and had a concealed weapons permit...so not sure Im buying that...in fact, I'm NOT buying it...lol. Where there is one inconsistent statement, there is bound to be others...I went looking and I think there is .

At first, in this trial I took the approach of finding every reason to believe GZ...mainly because Al and Jessie and the race card being pulled teed me off...but, for fun, I flipped, tossed everything aside and then looked for reasons where I wouldnt. In the end...I believe most of what he said, but not all of it.

George Zimmerman Professor Testifies He Taught Extensively About ?Stand Your Ground? | Mediaite

Hey dude...you know, this is a good point. One of the few lies that can be proven on GZ.
And.....it only takes one......right? For the jury?
One....and you're done.
Ask the Jodster.....

They have GZ on 3 lies he told since the media & the Feds brought the whole country down on him. All good lawyers tell their client to STFU! But amazingly M O'M was with him on all 3 lies.

 

[25Caliber]

how so

When your statement to the police conflicts with your statement to your best friend? Thats a potential problem that goes to the credibility of the defendant. Especially when best friend testifies for the state and writes a book about it...see links in original post.

that does not overcome reasonable doubt

show us something that over comes that line

we have already heard from crime investigators

that generally stories change a little


however it possible to touch something

and not leave dna

or have recoverable dna

plus the witness said they could have missed DNA

It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.

There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.

If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.

Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement. Is it possible that GZ only told the police that he slid his hand in that direction, because GZ knew there would be none of Trayvons DNA on the gun? But when he told his buddy, he made it sound and look like he had a physical struggle with Travon for the gun just after Trayvon "allegedly" said "youre gonna die tonight" and that he won the battle of wills, shot and saved his own life.

I am questioning everything GZ says outside of what I can verify on audio or thru an eyewitness that can back it up exactly. I believe he embellished when he said that Trayvon said "youre gonna die tonight"...to me he even looks like he is embellishing when he accuses of it in interrogation...I think GZ said it to further support his self defense theory...he felt like saying that Trayvon said that would help him. Cops dont like anyone going for their gun...that is a green light to shoot and kill for a cop...was GZ trying to play that card...after all the only person who could refute it is dead.

I think that GZ had a reasonable reason for self defense without that embellishment, but Im not so sure that GZ thought that would be enough at the time. If Im in the jury and it is presented to me correctly by the prosecution, I would begin to doubt anything I couldnt absolutely verify with witness or audio accounts...GZ has a definite motive to embellish.

 

[RKMBrown]

If I shot every guy that I ever got in scrap with their would be a lot of dead people..and their would be a lot of hurting families and fatherless children...this loser did not think he was going to be beaten to death..he ended up on the losing end of a fist fight he appears to have instigated and killed someone over it..

Ayup.. I've seen it dozen's of times... man who is weak of character instigates fight... loosing fist fight escalates fight by resorting to any available weapon, knife, pipe, gun, broken bottle, whatever he can find to change the tide of battle. If you side with GZ on this case then by that measure the only mistake TM did was not killing GZ. Yeah that's the only way to solve disputes now killing the other guy so you are the only one that can tell the story afterwards.

 

[Sunshine]

The prosecution is politically motivated, is this because of Obama's "son" comment?

According to the article it was in response to Sharpton and Jackson demanding Zimmerman be tried for murder. Of course, even for her, there is a presumption of innocence. But if she is convicted, damn, I hope she is disbarred.

Obama should have stayed the hell out of it. He is Zimmerman's president too. AND he is a lawyer who should know all about the presumption of innocence. Obama leaves little doubt that Harvard sells mail order degrees.

 

[jon_berzerk]

When your statement to the police conflicts with your statement to your best friend? Thats a potential problem that goes to the credibility of the defendant. Especially when best friend testifies for the state and writes a book about it...see links in original post.

that does not overcome reasonable doubt

show us something that over comes that line

we have already heard from crime investigators

that generally stories change a little


however it possible to touch something

and not leave dna

or have recoverable dna

plus the witness said they could have missed DNA

It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.

There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.

If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.

Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.

it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt

that is the standard we have in this system

in the heat of the moment

zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened

if martin did or didnt touch the gun

as for lack of dna

the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either

is there any doubts on who had what

 

[Sunshine]

that does not overcome reasonable doubt

show us something that over comes that line

we have already heard from crime investigators

that generally stories change a little


however it possible to touch something

and not leave dna

or have recoverable dna

plus the witness said they could have missed DNA

It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.

There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.

If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.

Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.

it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt

that is the standard we have in this system

in the heat of the moment

zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened

if martin did or didnt touch the gun

as for lack of dna

the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either

is there any doubts on who had what

And the prosecutor is accused of hiding exculpatory evidence:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...cutor-indicted-falsifying-arrest-warrant.html

 

[Sarah G]

Why do you feel the need to continue fabricating evidence?

I did not, why do you need to lie about what I said?

Not true. hoodie stain A was Trevon's, stain B was a negative result for blood, stain C positive result for blood but he was unable to obtain dna results.

I did not say on the hoody, Sarah, I said on the shirt he was wearing UNDERNEATH the hoody... which is explained nicely in the Washington Post:

Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA expert Anthony Gorgone also testified that Zimmerman’s DNA was found among blood on a shirt Martin was wearing under his hooded sweatshirt.

Expert testifies no Martin DNA on gun grip in Zimmerman trial - The Washington Post

So, do you think the Washington Post is lying as well? How about the LA Times:

Zimmerman’s DNA, however, was found on blood on a shirt that Martin wore underneath his sweatshirt.

Zimmerman murder trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on the gun, expert testifies - latimes.com

So you must think that the LA Times is lying as well? Hmm seems alot of liberal media sources are lying about this Sarah... either that or you are.. sorry, I tend to believe them over you. Better luck next time

You did lie or you just didn't know what you were talking about. The blood stain was not on the cuff like you all have been spewing, both arms were checked elbow to cuff. The stain was on the waist part of the sweatshirt and it was a small little tiny spot.

May not mean much but what else have you been spinning here? If you're watching the WP for info instead of looking at all the reports, we now know you are getting less than accurate info. LA Times too.

I told you about the hoodie just as an aside. It was what I heard the DNA guy talk about.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.

There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.

If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.

Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.

it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt

that is the standard we have in this system

in the heat of the moment

zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened

if martin did or didnt touch the gun

as for lack of dna

the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either

is there any doubts on who had what

And the prosecutor is accused of hiding exculpatory evidence:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...cutor-indicted-falsifying-arrest-warrant.html

the state did everything it could to hide evidence

that is why she diverted this case away from the grand jury to begin with

 

[RKMBrown]

When your statement to the police conflicts with your statement to your best friend? Thats a potential problem that goes to the credibility of the defendant. Especially when best friend testifies for the state and writes a book about it...see links in original post.

that does not overcome reasonable doubt

show us something that over comes that line

we have already heard from crime investigators

that generally stories change a little


however it possible to touch something

and not leave dna

or have recoverable dna

plus the witness said they could have missed DNA

It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.

There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.

If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.

Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.

Not really. At best, the lack of DNA / Prints corroborating GZ's story is nothing more than a lack of corroborating evidence, which is proof of nothing.

Some of GZ's statements are inconsistent, some are consistent. The DNA evidences means nothing more than there is no conclusive DNA evidence over and above the evidence already provided and admitted by the defendant that he killed the boy. Had GZ denied he was there, or denied he shot the kid... then the DNA evidence would have sunk him.

As it is, I believe we are left with did he kill him in self defense, did the boy die due in part to GZ's negligence, and any other suitable reasons for conviction.

 

[Redfish]

Why do you feel the need to continue fabricating evidence?

I did not, why do you need to lie about what I said?



I did not say on the hoody, Sarah, I said on the shirt he was wearing UNDERNEATH the hoody... which is explained nicely in the Washington Post:




Expert testifies no Martin DNA on gun grip in Zimmerman trial - The Washington Post

So, do you think the Washington Post is lying as well? How about the LA Times:

Zimmerman’s DNA, however, was found on blood on a shirt that Martin wore underneath his sweatshirt.

Zimmerman murder trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on the gun, expert testifies - latimes.com

So you must think that the LA Times is lying as well? Hmm seems alot of liberal media sources are lying about this Sarah... either that or you are.. sorry, I tend to believe them over you. Better luck next time

You did lie or you just didn't know what you were talking about. The blood stain was not on the cuff like you all have been spewing, both arms were checked elbow to cuff. The stain was on the waist part of the sweatshirt and it was a small little tiny spot.

May not mean much but what else have you been spinning here? If you're watching the WP for info instead of looking at all the reports, we now know you are getting less than accurate info. LA Times too.

I told you about the hoodie just as an aside. It was what I heard the DNA guy talk about.

sorry marilyn, the state put on a terrible case based on very sketchey evidence. GZ will be acquited and blacks will riot in the streets of all of our cities and burn their own neighborhoods.

We are living in a sick society when the media decides which cases will go to trial based on racial issues that will generate ratings.

If TM was white of GZ was black this case would never have made the news and the shooter would never have been charged because there is no evidence of a crime.

 

[25Caliber]

that does not overcome reasonable doubt

show us something that over comes that line

we have already heard from crime investigators

that generally stories change a little


however it possible to touch something

and not leave dna

or have recoverable dna

plus the witness said they could have missed DNA

It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.

There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.

If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.

Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.

it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt

that is the standard we have in this system

in the heat of the moment

zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened

if martin did or didnt touch the gun

as for lack of dna

the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either

is there any doubts on who had what

The standard in the system is what the jury considers reasonable doubt or a juror. They do not have to give a reason why either...it could be that they dont believe a word that comes out of his mouth because of the inconsistencies. That is their right and that is our system.

There is nothing in our system that says a juror has to defend their decision to anyone. In fact, in our system, if only one lie is found out...you can disregard everything they say. That will be part of the deliberation instructions from the judge to the jury after closing arguments.

Slight inconsistencies are common...not big ones. Furthermore, GZ seems to be very sure of everything he says...even the police said that all of his statements to them added up and were very consistent. Problem is, there is a professor and his best friend that have come forward with major inconsistencies that the police werent privy to in interrogation.

I respect your opinion, I just see it differently.

 

[daveman]

The prosecution is politically motivated, is this because of Obama's "son" comment?

According to the article it was in response to Sharpton and Jackson demanding Zimmerman be tried for murder. Of course, even for her, there is a presumption of innocence. But if she is convicted, damn, I hope she is disbarred.

Obama should have stayed the hell out of it. He is Zimmerman's president too. AND he is a lawyer who should know all about the presumption of innocence. Obama leaves little doubt that Harvard sells mail order degrees.

There is no situation so bad that Obama can't make it worse.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.

There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.

If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.

Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.

it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt

that is the standard we have in this system

in the heat of the moment

zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened

if martin did or didnt touch the gun

as for lack of dna

the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either

is there any doubts on who had what

The standard in the system is what the jury considers reasonable doubt or a juror. They do not have to give a reason why either...it could be that they dont believe a word that comes out of his mouth because of the inconsistencies. That is their right and that is our system.

There is nothing in our system that says a juror has to defend their decision to anyone. In fact, in our system, if only one lie is found out...you can disregard everything they say. That will be part of the deliberation instructions from the judge to the jury after closing arguments.

Slight inconsistencies are common...not big ones. Furthermore, GZ seems to be very sure of everything he says...even the police said that all of his statements to them added up and were very consistent. Problem is, there is a professor and his best friend that have come forward with major inconsistencies that the police werent privy to in interrogation.

I respect your opinion, I just see it differently.

what

the instruction is beyond a reasonable doubt

not what the juror feels like

it isnt just zimmerman showing reasonable doubt

there have been many (state) witnesses that have shown reasonable doubt

in this case

 

[dilloduck]

a Citizen's Grand Jury has no legal standing--pity.

 

[Gadawg73]

What specifically is Zimmerman lying about?

George Zimmerman's bond revoked by judge, 48 hours to surrender in Trayvon Martin killing - Crimesider - CBS News

George Zimmerman's bond revoked by judge, 48 hours to surrender in Trayvon Martin killing

Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. said that Zimmerman engaged in "material falsehood" about money in issuing his ruling.

everything.

He hasn't even testified yet and you believe he is lying.
You have no credibility as your mind is already made up.
Made up by the liars that put up a 6th grade photo of Zimmerman, conned you into believing Zimmerman ran down Martin and shot him and conned by the people that claimed Zimmerman was commanded and ordered by police to not follow Martin.
Those are the only lies exposed to date.

 

[Sarah G]

I did not, why do you need to lie about what I said?



I did not say on the hoody, Sarah, I said on the shirt he was wearing UNDERNEATH the hoody... which is explained nicely in the Washington Post:




Expert testifies no Martin DNA on gun grip in Zimmerman trial - The Washington Post

So, do you think the Washington Post is lying as well? How about the LA Times:



Zimmerman murder trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on the gun, expert testifies - latimes.com

So you must think that the LA Times is lying as well? Hmm seems alot of liberal media sources are lying about this Sarah... either that or you are.. sorry, I tend to believe them over you. Better luck next time

You did lie or you just didn't know what you were talking about. The blood stain was not on the cuff like you all have been spewing, both arms were checked elbow to cuff. The stain was on the waist part of the sweatshirt and it was a small little tiny spot.

May not mean much but what else have you been spinning here? If you're watching the WP for info instead of looking at all the reports, we now know you are getting less than accurate info. LA Times too.

I told you about the hoodie just as an aside. It was what I heard the DNA guy talk about.

sorry marilyn, the state put on a terrible case based on very sketchey evidence. GZ will be acquited and blacks will riot in the streets of all of our cities and burn their own neighborhoods.

We are living in a sick society when the media decides which cases will go to trial based on racial issues that will generate ratings.

If TM was white of GZ was black this case would never have made the news and the shooter would never have been charged because there is no evidence of a crime.

Oh, no evidence huh? This case went to trial because he murdered a kid.