George Zimmerman

[drivebymedia]

The DA knew it was wrong and hid three times the exculpatory evidence than it turned over

The DA got it wrong and the jury got it right.

No sunshine, de la Rionda was put there by the white people to get an innocent decision, he got the right decision.

No one prosecutor in America could be so incompetent and screw up so completely - voluntarily, as did this prosecution.

De la Rionda embarrassed all prosecutors.

Jeff Ashton thought Bernie did a good job!!

sad .....

 

[Jarhead]

The DA got it wrong and the jury got it right.

The DA knew it was wrong and hid three times the exculpatory evidence than it turned over.

No sunshine, de la Rionda was put there by the white people to get an innocent decision.

No one prosecutor in America could be so incompetent and screw up so completely - voluntarily, as did this prosecution.

BINGO.....

Now that you have said it.....let me see if you will do what EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO HAS MADE THAT CLAIM DID, WHEN I ASKED THEM the following question.....run!

My question to you.......

Please cite what evidence you are aware of that exists that the prosecution could have used to get a conviction, but didn't.

I mean....obviously, you know he should have been convicted...and you blame the prosecutor.....so what is it that you know as fact that was not presented in the case?

So far, every single person that blamed the prosecution refused to answer...and ran from the question.

Will you?[/QUOTE]

Back it up Driveby...

What did the prosecution leave out that would have resulted in a conviction?

 

[eflatminor]

My question to you.......

Please cite what evidence you are aware of that exists that the prosecution could have used to get a conviction, but didn't.

I mean....obviously, you know he should have been convicted...and you blame the prosecutor.....so what is it that you know as fact that was not presented in the case?

So far, every single person that blamed the prosecution refused to answer...and ran from the question.

Will you?

If history is anything to go by, the troll will run away or simply call you a racist.

Trolls don't answer questions. Trolls don't argue with specificity.

 

[drivebymedia]

Please cite what evidence you are aware of that exists that the prosecution could have used to get a conviction, but didn't [/QUOTE]

---------------------------------------------------------


You need desperately for someone to respond to your dribbling rages.

So here's one:

.... The first 5 witnesses that de la Rionda called all testified for the defense

O'Mara couldn't have been happier

 

[eflatminor]

The thug was the little guy who murdered the kid...

It's clear you reject Zimmerman's claim of self defense. Can you articulate with specificity what evidence you have that has allowed you to come to that conclusion?

I have articulated it on a daily basis.

Then it ought to be easy to restate your case here succinctly and without emotion. Will you?

And your avie is still stupid.

Yes, we understand you're capable of an ad hominem attack, but will you answer the question?

One more time, please tell us specifically what evidence you have to prove Zimmerman was a murderer and did not act in self defense.

The floor is yours.

 

[pioneerpete]

Please cite what evidence you are aware of that exists that the prosecution could have used to get a conviction, but didn't

You need desperately for someone to respond to your dribbling rages.

---------------------------------------------------------

So here's one:

.... The first 5 witnesses the de la Rionda called were all testified for the defense

O'Mara couldn't have been happier
[/QUOTE]

To you that is the prosecution throwing the case. To sane people that is evidence the case should have never been pursued.

 

[eflatminor]

Please cite what evidence you are aware of that exists that the prosecution could have used to get a conviction, but didn't

You need desperately for someone to respond to your dribbling rages.

---------------------------------------------------------

So here's one:

.... The first 5 witnesses the de la Rionda called were all testified for the defense

O'Mara couldn't have been happier
[/QUOTE]

Oh God that's precious! You failed to cite any evidence that the prosecution could have used. Nothing! You've only restated your tin foil hat theory that the prosecution purposefully threw the case.

Told you Jarhead...it's a troll!

 

[FireFly]

She knows what someone who looks suspicious does. Just like thousands if not millions of others.

Black guys

Cutting through casein houses with a Slim Jim. DD said he was supposed to leave Sanford that night or the next day. He was probably looking for a car to steal to get back to Miami & then sell it. That is why his dad was not worried about why TM was not back at Brandy's house. TM's text says he was going to get paid while he was gone & he was going to buy some stuff for his friend when he got back.

Blacks walk by my house many times an hour going to & from the park. Many Hispanics, Whites, Asians, Egyptians, etc do also. No one is suspicious until I see them cutting through yards close to houses instead of close to the street, then you bet I am watching.

 

[drivebymedia]

The first 5 witnesses the de la Rionda called were all testified for the defense[/COLOR]

O'Mara couldn't have been happier

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To you that is the prosecution throwing the case. To sane people that is evidence the case should have never been pursued.[/QUOTE]


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To anyone, that is one dumbass prosecutor that didn't want a guilty verdict.

 

[Jarhead]

Please cite what evidence you are aware of that exists that the prosecution could have used to get a conviction, but didn't

You need desperately for someone to respond to your dribbling rages.

---------------------------------------------------------

So here's one:

.... The first 5 witnesses the de la Rionda called were all testified for the defense

O'Mara couldn't have been happier
[/QUOTE]

uh.....wrong.

The first 5 witnesses called to testify were asked to cite facts. The facts, unfortuanlately for you and yours, supported the scenario that the defense claimed.

But they were most definitely the right people to call to testify if you are seeking the truth.

It is not the job of the DA's office to find ways to make someone look guilty, who is not guilty.

It is their role to seek the truth.

The fact that police at the scene, ME's, and eyewitnesses cited what they saw did not imply guilt is not the fault of the prosecutor.....it is the fault of the truth.

Now.....I will ask it THIS way....

Who SHOULD they have called in to testify, but didn't?

And...

What FACTS are you personally aware of that has you convinced of his guilt, that the prosecution did not present?

I hope you try to answer........will you?

 

[eflatminor]

To anyone, that is one dumbass prosecutor that didn't want a guilty verdict.

Since you're "anyone", why not answer the question, what evidence you are aware of that exists that the prosecution could have used to get a conviction, but didn't?

Non-response in 3...2...1...

 

[Jarhead]

The first 5 witnesses the de la Rionda called were all testified for the defense[/COLOR]

O'Mara couldn't have been happier

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To you that is the prosecution throwing the case. To sane people that is evidence the case should have never been pursued.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To anyone, that is one dumbass prosecutor that didn't want a guilty verdict.

[/QUOTE]

So tell me what evidence has you convinced of his guilt but the prosecution refused to present?

 

[Sarah G]

It's clear you reject Zimmerman's claim of self defense. Can you articulate with specificity what evidence you have that has allowed you to come to that conclusion?

I have articulated it on a daily basis.

Then it ought to be easy to restate your case here succinctly and without emotion. Will you?

And your avie is still stupid.

Yes, we understand you're capable of an ad hominem attack, but will you answer the question?

One more time, please tell us specifically what evidence you have to prove Zimmerman was a murderer and did not act in self defense.

The floor is yours.

Not interested in rehashing anything with you. If you're so interested, look through my posts, anyone can. That's why it is so ignorant for those of you lying about what my opinions are on the case. It's all here in black and white.

I have been here in threads chock full of wingnuts piling on me. Sorry you missed it but I don't intend to discuss it now.

Go beg someone else to talk to you.

 

[skookerasbil]

not surprising.......most of these university professors lean to the side of k00k but there are a lot of off the reservation nutters in there too.

 

[rdean]

These Republicans today kneel at the altar of the Church of the Heartless Bastard.

 

[drivebymedia]

To anyone, that is one dumbass prosecutor that didn't want a guilty verdict.

Since you're "anyone", why not answer the question, what evidence you are aware of that exists that the prosecution could have used to get a conviction, but didn't?

Non-response in 3...2...1...

You are another dribbling tea con redneck who is begging for someone, anyone to respond to their dribble - and you egg heads shouldn't assume everyone sits at their computer 24/7 like the tea cons do.

Anyway:

Zimmerman's jacket was clean on the back and front, not a mark - no grass stains, no concrete scrapes.

The elbows of Zimmerman's jacket were clean, not a scratch or grass stain.

De la Rionda did not introduce the jacket as evidence, and O'Mara certainly wouldn't.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

did you see her racist comments? She also said george followed martin because it was raining. haha

Casing houses in the rain is more suspicious than casing them when it isn't raining.

 

[Esmeralda]

Juror 37, who refused to have her image appear on Anerson Cooper's show, continually referred to Zimmerman as "George"

"I felt George was innocent the first day of the trial".

She is from Sanford, has 2 children, and her husband carries a gun.

"Race was not an issue, it's just that Trayvon Martin looked suspicious.



A jury of your peers.
God help us.

Well, she's stupid and George is stupid.

 

[skookerasbil]

well.....give that juror a cigar!!!

 

[pioneerpete]

Fact witnesses are neither prosecution witnesses or defense witnesses. They are fact witnesses period. They are there to tell the truth, not back one side or the other. They were deposed months ago. Everyone knew what they were going to say. Does that not register that this case never had enough evidence to warrant a conviction? The evidence doesn't change because of a protest/march/rally/riot. You wanted arrest. You got it. You wanted trial. You got it. You wanted justice. You got it. Turns out you really wanted public execution. You aren't going to get it in this country.

Neighborhood Watch:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzXUkMMy_-Y]Suck a fat dick, Chucho! - YouTube[/ame]