George Zimmerman

[dilloduck]

I like her clown wig.

 

[pioneerpete]

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.

Jacket was in evidence. They went over it during forensics evidence. Confirmed grass stains on the back.

 

[Meister]

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.

If you throw out the remark from the police that were there saying that the backside of Z's pants and jacket were wet consistent with being on his back in the grass....you might come up with your premise....but that isn't the case.

 

[skookerasbil]

yuk......yuk.........

don't worry.......the miserable progressives are always searching for something to be miserable about. Right now, it happens to be the verdict of this trial. They'll move on quickly to something else to be angry and miserable about. Its as predictable as the sun rising.......and funny as fucking shit Im might add. My life would be miserable without them being perpetually miserable.

 

[drivebymedia]

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.

Don't most of the break-ins occur at 7:00 dinner time?

When everyone is home and dozens of people are walking the dog?

George knew this.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

in bold?

Wrong!

You have no idea what was brought to trial. You are debating something you have absolutely no accurate information on.

Where do you get your info?

I ask because whoever they are, they are making you look like an ass.

 

[drivebymedia]

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.

If you throw out the remark from the police that were there saying that the backside of Z's pants and jacket were wet consistent with being on his back in the grass....you might come up with your premise....but that isn't the case.

Not wet from the rain? Your back never gets wet in the rain? You must be on your back for your back to get wet in a rainstorm?

Really.....

A clean jacket presented in Court would have George in prison today.

 

[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...

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.

Worthy of any grade school playground taunt. Well done. For what it's worth, I'm not a conservative, but let's focus on the question, shall we?

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.

Thank you for actually responding to this question (wish you would do the same for the previous questions I asked, but thanks).

I'm not sure how you know his jacket was 'clean' (do you have a link?), but either way, I don't see how this proves anything other than the type of material from which Zimmerman's jacket was made is not conducive to grass staining. Certainly, you're not suggesting that would be sufficient to warrant a conviction?

Tell me that's not all you've got!

 

[Jarhead]

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.

Don't most of the break-ins occur at 7:00 dinner time?

When everyone is home and dozens of people are walking the dog?

George knew this.

Actually, 7PM is a prime time to break in. It is dark, some people are still at work, others are out for dinner. The perfect storm for that time of year.

All a burglar needs to do is look for a dark home. Not too difficult at 7PM

Nice try....but you are starting to look even sillier.

 

[skookerasbil]

The savages wont get it when some of their own get their heads blown off compliments of this meathead Sharpton.

 

[Meister]

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.

If you throw out the remark from the police that were there saying that the backside of Z's pants and jacket were wet consistent with being on his back in the grass....you might come up with your premise....but that isn't the case.

Not wet from the rain?

A clean jacket would have George in prison today.

Are you really this stupid? Wait....don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
The cop said the pants and jacket were wet on the back side consistent with being on his back.. Those aren't my words, those were from a cop who WAS AT THE SCENE. Dude, give it up

 

[numan]

The media no longer waits for the news, it manufactures it.
.

You just realized that? It has been going on for decades.

.

 

[eflatminor]

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.

If you throw out the remark from the police that were there saying that the backside of Z's pants and jacket were wet consistent with being on his back in the grass....you might come up with your premise....but that isn't the case.

Not wet from the rain? Your back never gets wet in the rain? You must be on your back for your back to get wet in a rainstorm?

Really.....

No, but I didn't a little research and apparently the police found the jacket was NOT clean, but was wet and soiled in a manner consistent with being on one's back...just as Zimmerman claimed.

A clean jacket presented in Court would have George in prison today.

But it wasn't clean.

Man, we can smell your desperation. It's really pathetic my man.

 

[numan]

There should be no more reaching to punish this man in court. His life will be hell where ever he goes, what ever job he gets, anyplace he wants to live, someone will be there pointing at him and he'll be watching his back.

Has O. J. Simpson's life been Hell?

.

 

[Meister]

Witness: Back of Zimmerman's jacket was wet, had grass on it

Read more: Witness: Back of Zimmerman's jacket was wet, had grass on it | George Zimmerman Murder Trial - WESH Home


Oooooops

 

[drivebymedia]

If you throw out the remark from the police that were there saying that the backside of Z's pants and jacket were wet consistent with being on his back in the grass....you might come up with your premise....but that isn't the case.

Not wet from the rain?

A clean jacket would have George in prison today.

Are you really this stupid? Wait....don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
The cop said the pants and jacket were wet on the back side consistent with being on his back.. Those aren't my words, those were from a cop who WAS AT THE SCENE. Dude, give it up

The jacket was clean and never presented as evidence.

O.K., the market is beginning to move. Recess with the retarded children is over

 

[eflatminor]

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.

Well, I read through the 10 posts of yours in this thread. Not a one presents a shred of evidence that Zimmerman lied. Perhaps you'd be good enough to offer a link to one of your previous posts that contains such evidence. No?

Your reluctance to state your case plainly and specifically is telling. Good luck with that.

 

[Jarhead]

If you throw out the remark from the police that were there saying that the backside of Z's pants and jacket were wet consistent with being on his back in the grass....you might come up with your premise....but that isn't the case.

Not wet from the rain? Your back never gets wet in the rain? You must be on your back for your back to get wet in a rainstorm?

Really.....

No, but I didn't a little research and apparently the police found the jacket was NOT clean, but was wet and soiled in a manner consistent with being on one's back...just as Zimmerman claimed.

A clean jacket presented in Court would have George in prison today.

But it wasn't clean.

Man, we can smell your desperation. It's really pathetic my man.

I think it shows how the media presented the activities in the court. I am retired. My wife is an attorney. SO I was glued to the trial. I saw the evidence presented, and heard the questions asked. The prosecution tried to make wine out of water. They did the best they could. Their witnesses weren't witnesses for the defense. They were witnesses to the facts. The facts supported the defense.

What was the prosecution to do? Call witnesses who only had emotions and assumptions to work with?

Jeez....I can not believe a guy is debating this topic so emphatically....but is not at all aware of the evidence that was brought to trial.

HIS JACKET HAD GRASS ON IT.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not wet from the rain?

A clean jacket would have George in prison today.

Are you really this stupid? Wait....don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
The cop said the pants and jacket were wet on the back side consistent with being on his back.. Those aren't my words, those were from a cop who WAS AT THE SCENE. Dude, give it up

The jacket was clean and never presented as evidence.

O.K., the market is beginning to move. Recess with the retarded children is over

Er yeah it was.

Even you aren't that stupid.

 

[eflatminor]

Not wet from the rain?

A clean jacket would have George in prison today.

Are you really this stupid? Wait....don't answer that, it was rhetorical.
The cop said the pants and jacket were wet on the back side consistent with being on his back.. Those aren't my words, those were from a cop who WAS AT THE SCENE. Dude, give it up

The jacket was clean

That's a lie.

and never presented as evidence.

Perhaps a wet and soiled jacket consistent with being on one's back wouldn't have helped the prosecution???

O.K., the market is beginning to move. Recess with the retarded children is over

And off the troll scurries back into it's hole.

Dude, you are REALLY bad at this.