MSNBC Panel: Little Hope’ Zimmerman Will Be Convi

[Sallow]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Taken alone? Maybe not.

But as a piece in the puzzle? It does.

When you sat on a jury, did you guys just look at the evidence and all decide that one piece of it was "irrelevant" or did you guys deliberate?

Juries are instructed as to what is and isn't relevant to the case. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

They toss out this evidence?

I must of missed that.

You have a link?

No, but it is circumstantial evidence. The jury will most likely be told how to deliberate on it. But only you can be led into thinking that DNA based evidence has any weight on this case.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

Evidence of what ?

 

[Sallow]

It does not matter. Jury is guided by the judge and the judge knows which evidence is important and which lack of evidence is not.

It was entered in as an exhibit.

You do know what that means, correct?

it does not matter. evidence differ. irrelevant evidence as this is not going to overturn the direct evidence of the eye-witness - and that is what the judge instructs on the jury

Which eye witness are you referring too? There are more than one.

 

[Sallow]

Juries are instructed as to what is and isn't relevant to the case. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

They toss out this evidence?

I must of missed that.

You have a link?

No, but it is circumstantial evidence. The jury will most likely be told how to deliberate on it. But only you can be led into thinking that DNA based evidence has any weight on this case.

Ah so...

The Judge didn't disallow the evidence and it has been entered in as an exhibit.

Correct?

 

[Vox]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

she does not have to. it is enough to instruct the jury to differentiate what is important evidence and what is not
jury instruction is not public

 

[OODA_Loop]

Ah so...

The Judge didn't disallow the evidence and it has been entered in as an exhibit.

Correct?

An exhibit to prove what ?

 

[OODA_Loop]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

she does not have to. it is enough to instruct the jury to differentiate what is important evidence and what is not

What is the DNA evidence of ?

 

[Katzndogz]

The popular liberal view is that Zimmerman should be found guilty because there will be violence if he isn't.

Suppose he's acquitted, riots break out all over the country and the demand is to execute him to stop the rioting. Should he be executed to satisfy the mob?

Gangs and threats of violence have just about taken control of much of our system. 4th of July celebrations are being cancelled because gangs threaten violence. If you're going to give up the holiday shouldn't we give up the judicial system as well?

Mob violence should be met with superior levels of violence. That's the way to stop it.

 

[Vox]

It was entered in as an exhibit.

You do know what that means, correct?

it does not matter. evidence differ. irrelevant evidence as this is not going to overturn the direct evidence of the eye-witness - and that is what the judge instructs on the jury

Which eye witness are you referring too? There are more than one.

Goode - he is the main. then the police, the PA, the paramedics - those all are much more important than lack of DNA

 

[Vox]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

she does not have to. it is enough to instruct the jury to differentiate what is important evidence and what is not

What is the DNA evidence of ?

it is a lack of DNA which Sallow claims to be an evidence of Z not being beaten by T.

 

[bripat9643]

Well no.

It's about the realization that a racist state like Florida may not be able to administer proper justice.

True, it doesn't administer the Holder brand of justice properly. That's the kind where blacks get off Scott free and whites get lynched.

Which white person has been "lynched"?

And I am talking under the classic definition of lynched.

I wasn't. You and the rest of the lynch mob are gunning for Zimmerman. Then there were the members of the rugby team at Duke you and your ilk attempted to lynch. You also lynched the cops who arrested Rodney King. Examples of the lynch mob doing its dirty work are quite numerous.

 

[Sallow]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

she does not have to. it is enough to instruct the jury to differentiate what is important evidence and what is not
jury instruction is not public

And what did she say about it?

I've been watching the trial..so maybe I missed it.

Provide a link, please.

 

[Sallow]

True, it doesn't administer the Holder brand of justice properly. That's the kind where blacks get off Scott free and whites get lynched.

Which white person has been "lynched"?

And I am talking under the classic definition of lynched.

I wasn't. You and the rest of the lynch mob are gunning for Zimmerman. Then there were the members of the rugby team at Duke you and your ilk attempted to lynch. You also lynched the cops who arrested Rodney King. Examples of the lynch mob doing its dirty work are quite numerous.

You said whites get lynched.

Well, back it up.

 

[Katzndogz]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

The jury will consider the DNA evidence along with all the other evidence. You just think the DNA evidence has far more importance in this case than it actually has.

 

[Vox]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

she does not have to. it is enough to instruct the jury to differentiate what is important evidence and what is not
jury instruction is not public

And what did she say about it?

I've been watching the trial..so maybe I missed it.

Provide a link, please.

you are constantly missing something.

Instructions to the jury are not public.

 

[OODA_Loop]

she does not have to. it is enough to instruct the jury to differentiate what is important evidence and what is not

What is the DNA evidence of ?

it is a lack of DNA which Sallow claims to be an evidence of Z not being beaten by T.

A lack of something as evidence ? Come on.

A lack of something is no evidence.

Lack of a murder weapon, lack of body, motive etc. in crime is not evidence....... it is a lack of evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

[


Dude, he was not RAPING him, so DNA evidence is almost irrelevant - especially considering the circumstances.

Do you at least know when DNA evidence is paramount? and what it is? seems like you are just repeating the syllables without understanding the meaning.

Unless Zimmerman clawed Trayvon with his fingernails, why would there be any Zimmerman DNA on Trayvon. I've never heard that they could life DNA of another person from your skin. I would imagine your own DNA would so contaminate the sample that it would be difficult to detect DNA from another person.

Joe keeps talking about throwing shit against the wall to see if it sticks, but almost everything he posts is an example of exactly that.

Replying to two morons in a group.

Zimmerman was shaven bald. Therefore, he had no hair for Trayvon to grab onto.

For Trayvon to be giving this guy such a beating that he was in fear for his life (supposedly) he had had to have gotten a good grip on him to be "slamming his head against the sidewalk".

ROFL! Talking about morons, that claim is utterly without merit.

yet despite these supposed injuries, despite having this supposed grip on the guy, there's no trace of Zimmerman on Trayvon's body.

You can't lift DNA samples from skin, moron. Otherwise we have clothing contacting clothing.

In fact, the only evidence he ran into Zimmerman at all is the big hole Zimmerman put into his chest.

So we are supposed to believe Zimmerman broke his own nose and smashed his own head against the ground?

You are beyond stupid. It's hilarious to observe how desperate the lynch mob is to convict Zimmerman despite not having a single shred of evidence.

 

[Vox]

Did the judge toss out the DNA evidence?

The jury will consider the DNA evidence along with all the other evidence. You just think the DNA evidence has far more importance in this case than it actually has.

The jury is always instructed to what to pay attention to.

it is similar with the doctor making the diagnosis - all factors are considered, physical exam, clinical picture, past medical history, lab results, screening results, but some are more relevant than the others and even if one contradicts the other, the diagnosis is made on a constellation of more relevant factors.

 

[Sallow]

it does not matter. evidence differ. irrelevant evidence as this is not going to overturn the direct evidence of the eye-witness - and that is what the judge instructs on the jury

Which eye witness are you referring too? There are more than one.

Goode - he is the main. then the police, the PA, the paramedics - those all are much more important than lack of DNA

Main what? He's one of several witnesses. In his testimony he said Martin was on top punching Zimmerman. He didn't see the whole fight and he said that at no time did he witness Martin "slamming" Zimmerman's head into the concrete. The paramedics reported that Zimmerman's injuries were minor. The police reported Zimmerman's statements and demeanor.

There were other witnesses, like Selma Mora who reported that Zimmerman was on top and Rachel Jeantel who disputed what Zimmerman and Martin said to each other and reported that Martin said "Get off me".

So basically you just want to throw out all the evidence that contradicts your theory of the case.

Is that how the jury you sat on handled your case?