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.
No one has said that. Do try to keep up. The issue is self defense, not murder.

I'm sorry, I thought you just said the defense does not not need to prove anything about GZ. Are you saying the prosecution has to prove it was self defense?

The prosecution has to prove their charges 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. All the defense has to do is establish reasonable doubt. The defense is self defense. And all the defense has to do is to establish reasonable doubt about the prosecution's charges. Showing any or all the witnesses for the prosecution have testified in an untruthful manner goes a long was toward showing reasonable doubt.
Nod..
 
At this point she is just trying to get out of there. She is saying whatever contradicts the defense's question during each objection, even when she has just replied the other way. How can she be considered credible? Multiple lies and story changes. Admits the mother influenced her responses in sworn testimony.

Nah.. the defense is clearly changing what she said and/or is saying and she is correcting him again and again and again... the Judge and the Defense are also catching him and he has been warned numerous times.

Agree to disagree...he reads her statement...asks her if that is what she said...she says no...they play the tape...it confirms what he read in her statement...repeat...again and again and again.

To show she is not a credible witness. All in the effort to produce reasonable doubt.
 
I just caught a little of it on MSNBC. Not sure if it will be on this afternoon or not, but I can't listen on my computer because I've had technical difficulties and don't have sound.

Man, I've never heard such biased commentators. And they are going on and on about how meeeeeeeeeeeen the attorney for the defense is to her. Damn. I thought he as being pretty gentle. She has clearly been coached to use the word 'sir' but not to say it with any kind of respect. The prosecution could have sewn this case up with her. All she had to do was to come in and be vulnerable. The minute he made here cry, it would be 'Katy bar the door' to the defense.

She is not credible, and she is not vulnerable. But she's a national celeb. Anyone wanna make book on how long after this trial is over before she starts to make the talk show circuit, and gets a ghost writer to write up all her lies in a book? I'd say less than a month.

I'd love to see a book she wrote without help or editing.
 
Nah.. the defense is clearly changing what she said and/or is saying and she is correcting him again and again and again... the Judge and the Defense are also catching him and he has been warned numerous times.

Agree to disagree...he reads her statement...asks her if that is what she said...she says no...they play the tape...it confirms what he read in her statement...repeat...again and again and again.

To show she is not a credible witness. All in the effort to produce reasonable doubt.

Yeah and at this point it appears he's trying too hard to get her to change her story by making up stuff about what she said. He's clearly trying to take advantage of the witness's speech issue to change her testimony so he can then discredit her testimony. How many dozens of times and different ways is he gonna ask her the same question?
 
Last edited:
It's not murder, Sarah...it's not even manslaughter at this point and that's BECAUSE of the testimony of the Prosecution's own witness. Trayvon Martin wasn't in danger from George Zimmerman. He was hundreds of yards away, standing outside the safety of the condo he was staying at. Instead of going inside however, Martin walks ALL THE WAY BACK to confront someone that he's just described as the "creepy assed Cracker". That blows manslaughter out of the water as well.
 
I just caught a little of it on MSNBC. Not sure if it will be on this afternoon or not, but I can't listen on my computer because I've had technical difficulties and don't have sound.

Man, I've never heard such biased commentators. And they are going on and on about how meeeeeeeeeeeen the attorney for the defense is to her. Damn. I thought he as being pretty gentle. She has clearly been coached to use the word 'sir' but not to say it with any kind of respect. The prosecution could have sewn this case up with her. All she had to do was to come in and be vulnerable. The minute he made here cry, it would be 'Katy bar the door' to the defense.

She is not credible, and she is not vulnerable. But she's a national celeb. Anyone wanna make book on how long after this trial is over before she starts to make the talk show circuit, and gets a ghost writer to write up all her lies in a book? I'd say less than a month.

I'd love to see a book she wrote without help or editing.

So you like comic books!
 
Agree to disagree...he reads her statement...asks her if that is what she said...she says no...they play the tape...it confirms what he read in her statement...repeat...again and again and again.

To show she is not a credible witness. All in the effort to produce reasonable doubt.

Yeah and at this point it appears he's trying too hard to get her to change her story by making up stuff about what she said. He's clearly trying to take advantage of the witness's speech issue to change her testimony.

I really hate to break it to you, but the attorney is allowed to ask leading questions on cross examination. Of course he is trying get her to change her story. And when the prosecution does cross examination with Zimmerman, he will do the exact same thing. I don't really see any speech difficulties. She just won't speak up and she is disrespectful. Those two things do not constitute 'speech difficulties.'
 
Really? Is the defense now saying that GZ did not shoot and kill TM? I did not realize that was in question. I suppose maybe someone else did it. Lone gunman on the hill?

No one has said that. Do try to keep up. The issue is self defense, not murder.

I'm sorry, I thought you just said the defense does not not need to prove anything about GZ. Are you saying the prosecution has to prove it was self defense? Or are you saying there is a thing called reasonable suspicion that self defense may have been necessary? I've never heard of reasonable doubt being applied to self defense.

If the jury believes GZ acted in self defense, they can not convict for murder 2. It's all very simple.
 
The Prosecution's entire case is based upon the premise that George Zimmerman is responsible for the conflict simply because he got out of his SUV and attempted to follow Trayvon Martin.

What this witnesses' testimony shows however is that it was Martin who left the the safety of the condo to walk all the way back to confront someone. At that point the person responsible for the confrontation is Martin...not Zimmerman.
 
Rachel was at the local CVS buying a canned Arizona iced tea, skittles and a bottle of Nyquil. I guess we found out what was changing her demeanor this morning. LEAN!!!

What's she going to lean on? Her neck?
 
Creepy assed cracker isn't racist... Really? The witness is a dope.



Dam. I must have a hangover from my one glass of wine last night. I did a double take on this post when I thought it said, 'the witness is the pope.' :eek:
 
Last edited:
And did anyone but me hear it when she told the defense attorney, 'that's retarded?'
 
You're still talking about it even though the case is over? Move along, create some more scenarios in your head.

Maybe Fox will hire you.
 
Why do the ads that keep coming up above and below this thread keep talking about losing a lot of fat? :evil:
 
Agree to disagree...he reads her statement...asks her if that is what she said...she says no...they play the tape...it confirms what he read in her statement...repeat...again and again and again.

To show she is not a credible witness. All in the effort to produce reasonable doubt.

Yeah and at this point it appears he's trying too hard to get her to change her story by making up stuff about what she said. He's clearly trying to take advantage of the witness's speech issue to change her testimony so he can then discredit her testimony. How many dozens of times and different ways is he gonna ask her the same question?

As many as it takes to show she is lying.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top