The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
M O'M is smoooooooooooth. He elicits trust.

I agree.

I like that he's taking time to explain circumstantial evidence, direct evidence, reasonable doubt (among other things) and making sure all of the PJ's understand it before moving on to something else.
 
WOOT did you hear that little "almost like a stealth juror" joke?

See above link on the lying juror that the defense called "stealth juror".
 
From [MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] 's earlier "summary" link re yesterday:
Closing Thoughts

As a closing note, it struck this observer as remarkable how large a proportion of the day involved de la Rionda speaking, rather than any of the prospective jurors. His speech was often long, somewhat rambling, and ultimately appeared to be an effort at conditioning the prospective jurors to a particular judgmental and emotional position–for example, participating in Neighborhood Watch is somehow similar to taking the law into your own hands.

Given the (to this New Englander’s eyes) somewhat astonishing responses–35% having been victims of crime, 10% having been victims of violent crime, 25% having Neighborhood Watch programs in their community, 30% owning or having owned personal firearms (the one having owned also having possessed a CCW), and another 30% having family or close friends who own guns–I’m not sure whether de la Rionda’s apparent selling proposition–which seems to be that Zimmerman took the law into his own hands–is being targeted at an amenable market.

The survivability of such a theory of the case seems particularly uncertain given the actual facts in evidence, which overwhelmingly favor the defense. For example, will it really be a credible argument that Zimmerman was seeking to “take the law into his own hands” when it was he who phoned the police, in his role as leader of his Neighborhood Watch Program to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood plagued with robberies?

This disconnect between the State’s apparent theory of the case and the actual facts in evidence is likely reason that de la Rionda emphasized to the jurors the worth of circumstantial evidence. The value of circumstantial evidence normally arises when there is a paucity of direct evidence. There is a considerable body of evidence in this case, but given that little if any of it favors the State’s position they are in effect left in a terrain largely barren of direct evidence.
 
From [MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] 's earlier "summary" link re yesterday:
Closing Thoughts

As a closing note, it struck this observer as remarkable how large a proportion of the day involved de la Rionda speaking, rather than any of the prospective jurors. His speech was often long, somewhat rambling, and ultimately appeared to be an effort at conditioning the prospective jurors to a particular judgmental and emotional position–for example, participating in Neighborhood Watch is somehow similar to taking the law into your own hands.

Given the (to this New Englander’s eyes) somewhat astonishing responses–35% having been victims of crime, 10% having been victims of violent crime, 25% having Neighborhood Watch programs in their community, 30% owning or having owned personal firearms (the one having owned also having possessed a CCW), and another 30% having family or close friends who own guns–I’m not sure whether de la Rionda’s apparent selling proposition–which seems to be that Zimmerman took the law into his own hands–is being targeted at an amenable market.

The survivability of such a theory of the case seems particularly uncertain given the actual facts in evidence, which overwhelmingly favor the defense. For example, will it really be a credible argument that Zimmerman was seeking to “take the law into his own hands” when it was he who phoned the police, in his role as leader of his Neighborhood Watch Program to report a suspicious person in his neighborhood plagued with robberies?

This disconnect between the State’s apparent theory of the case and the actual facts in evidence is likely reason that de la Rionda emphasized to the jurors the worth of circumstantial evidence. The value of circumstantial evidence normally arises when there is a paucity of direct evidence. There is a considerable body of evidence in this case, but given that little if any of it favors the State’s position they are in effect left in a terrain largely barren of direct evidence.

It's going to be interesting to hear and see what the state has as far as actual evidence. It's possible both sides have something that hasn't been 'found' by the media yet.
 
She keeps arguing, I don't know if it's the hormones or young dumb and full of ____.

She's the one that said she wants to do this for America.

Whatever the hell that means.
 
Last edited:
She keeps arguing, I don't know if it's the hormones or young dumb and full of ____.

She's the one that said she wants to do this for America.

Whatever the hell that means.

She's trying 'too hard' to give them answers she thinks they want to hear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top