The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

[testarosa]

This is called Trial Lull.

5 freaking months in the Jodi thread and we all call each other friends now.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

In both instances they had plenty of time to commit the act. We do not have that here and it is directly contradicted by the medical evidence produced by the prosecution which indicates that the wounds are consistent with striking ones head on concrete.

So you wish to assert that in a time window of perhaps 2 seconds, GZ was able to slash himself with a razor blade and dispose of it so no one could find it ..

Zimmerman wasn't bleeding at the police station after he was picked up. Watch the video. Not the "enhanced" version put out by Fox, but the raw video.

 

[Gracie]

Not everyone can see me, Testarosa. Just those on the friends list. So I ain't that brave.

 

[Wake]

More troubeling, but not damning was the absence of Zimmerman DNA from under Martin's finger nails.

Hm. Did GZ state that TM scratched GZ in self-defense? You probably know more on this than me, so do you want to help a simple guy out, please?

 

[legaleagle_45]

More troubeling, but not damning was the absence of Zimmerman DNA from under Martin's finger nails.

Hm. Did GZ state that TM scratched GZ in self-defense? You probably know more on this than me, so do you want to help a simple guy out, please?

No. The claim is that Martin grabbed GZ's head and slammed it against the concrete. It seems reasonable that in doing so, som GZ DNA would get under Martin's fingernails... thus the absence of same is troubeling but not damning.

 

[koshergrl]

They did find Zimmerman's bullet in Martin's chest.

No shit!

Wow. Well then, it's a slam dunk.

Cripes you guys are dumb as dirt.

 

[The Rabbi]

Unbelievable. You dont get to rewrite the law. Negligence is a failure to act appropriately. This was not a failure to act. It was a deliberate action. He is on trial for committing a deliberate act, namely shooting Trayvon and killing him. Everything before that is largely irrelevant.

negligence

n. failure to exercise the care toward others which a reasonable or prudent person would do in the circumstances, or taking action which such a reasonable person would not. Negligence is accidental as distinguished from "intentional torts" (assault or trespass, for example) or from crimes, but a crime can also constitute negligence, such as reckless driving.

 

[testarosa]

Not everyone can see me, Testarosa. Just those on the friends list. So I ain't that brave.

Me either baby

Weirdos bounding around.

 

[Wake]

More troubeling, but not damning was the absence of Zimmerman DNA from under Martin's finger nails.

Hm. Did GZ state that TM scratched GZ in self-defense? You probably know more on this than me, so do you want to help a simple guy out, please?

No. The claim is that Martin grabbed GZ's head and slammed it against the concrete. It seems reasonable that in doing so, som GZ DNA would get under Martin's fingernails... thus the absence of same is troubeling but not damning.

Huh. That's a good point.

Maybe TM's finger tips weren't deeply clutching GZ's skull. Maybe so. Do you know if they swabbed not only TM's fingernails, but also palms, fingers, etc? IF there was no speck at all of GZ's DNA on any part of TM's hands, then I'd say that's pretty doggone damning.

Trials can be so riveting.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Watching the DVR'd trial on America Live today, I'm not so sure about the outcome.

The troubling part is where the scientific guy whose name I don't remember stated that there was no DNA of Trayvon Martin's on GZ's gun. How much weight does that carry? Is it damning?

Gadawg made clear that DNA is circumstantial evidence, it has not bearing on the verdict, and carries little to no weight.

Hm... I wonder if the jury will keep that in mind.

The prosecution bored the jury half to death with the DNA questioning...

 

[Gracie]

Not everyone can see me, Testarosa. Just those on the friends list. So I ain't that brave.

Me either baby

Weirdos bounding around.

Yup. The bad thing is...you don't know they are fruitloops until some time has passed then BAM!
Sometimes red flags are slow in rising.

 

[25Caliber]

Is it possible to act in self defense even though prior actions could show negligence?

I know that the prosecution is not going down the negligence route as Serino wanted. So they will not be hitting on the negligence issue too much...they are trying to prove murder...almost execution style...bad move.

A manslaughter charge and we would be seeing a slew of negligence.

Was it truly negligence? That would be for a jury to decide. But please dont keep asking for "proof" of negligence...that has been stated ad nausea. Put that reasoning in the mind of the jury and let them decide.

It seemed GZ was negligent at first. But after reading TM texts GZ read the situation correctly & conducted himself appropriately the entire time. He was lead into a trap & attacked. It is difficult to watch someone, drive & talk on the phone to police at the same time, so he was a little slow to realize he was led into an ambush.

Fair enough. I would agree with that for the most part. My difference would be that negligence could be shown at least to the time of being punched...so further than early on. If he took the stand I would have a ball with his "he said he was gonna kill me" statement; his reaching for a "phone" that wasnt there; and the fact that he never identified himself.

On the other hand, I do think that GZ had a right and reason to be suspicious and I dont think he went out that night to kill a black kid. I think he was doing what he thought was in the best interest of the neighborhood given the recent crime in the area.

I just feel that the adrenaline rush he got as things escalated clouded his good judgment and he went from being a concerned citizen to giving the perception to trayvon that he was being stalked or pursued by a stranger in the dark. And i believe that "in the dark" is key also...that changes things a bit and it should have tipped GZ off the possible perception he could have on the person he was following.

Now, if it had turned out that trayvon had committed a crime that night, then you could say that GZs suspicion was right. It turns out that his suspicion was wrong...that changes things for me also.

 

[Oldstyle]

There was already testimony that Zimmerman's injuries were minimal.

Until you've been punched in the nose and had your head slammed onto concrete several times, Sarah...do you REALLY think you have the right to decide what WAS and WASN'T "minimal"?

You seem to think that Zimmerman should have allowed Trayvon Martin to slam his head against the concrete until he had some serious brain damage and only THEN make a decision to use his gun...a notion that's almost laughable.

This isn't someone who drew and shot his gun as someone approached him in a threatening manner...this is someone who drew and shot his gun only after that person punched him in the face, knocked him down onto the ground, straddled him...and slammed his head against the pavement.

Admit it...you don't REALLY feel that there is a legitimate reason for a private citizen to use a firearm to defend themselves.

So says the only witness. You make it sound like there's video from a CCTV instead of an excuse made by an jerk who should have had his gun rights yanked in 2005.

The only witness? What about Goode? He was the eyewitness that actually went outside and was close enough to see what was going on. He testified that it was Martin on top of Zimmerman...that Zimmerman was calling for help and that Martin was raining blows down on top of Zimmerman MMA style.

George Zimmerman didn't lawyer up following the shooting. He gave statement after statement to the Police. He walked them through the incident. When the lead detective tried to bluff Zimmerman by telling him that they had the entire incident on tape from a surveillance camera, Zimmerman's response was "Thank God!" Is that the response of a guilty man? Of someone who has something to hide?

Your problem if you're a Zimmerman "hater" is that his testimony stands up to the physical evidence. It's why the lead detective said in court that he thought Zimmerman was telling the truth.

 

[Snookie]

The weirdest part of this case is when Z claimed that TM sat up after he shot him and said You got me.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Zimmerman wasn't bleeding at the police station after he was picked up. Watch the video. Not the "enhanced" version put out by Fox, but the raw video.

Are you now trying to say that he was not bleeding on the scene and that the EMTs did not clean him up and the the pictures taken by the police on the scene and by witnesses on the scene were fraudulent? And is it also your opinion that GZ is a hemophiliac who would keep bleeding regardless of being treated and that GZ was not injured at all that day and that he self inflicted those wounds on the following day and perhaps bribed the police which reported it, bribed the EMT's who reported it and...

What are you trying to say? And does it involve someone shooting from the grassy knoll?

 

[Oldstyle]

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

In both instances they had plenty of time to commit the act. We do not have that here and it is directly contradicted by the medical evidence produced by the prosecution which indicates that the wounds are consistent with striking ones head on concrete.

So you wish to assert that in a time window of perhaps 2 seconds, GZ was able to slash himself with a razor blade and dispose of it so no one could find it ..

Zimmerman wasn't bleeding at the police station after he was picked up. Watch the video. Not the "enhanced" version put out by Fox, but the raw video.

You mean the "raw" video where the lighting was so bad that you couldn't make out the injuries to Zimmerman? The video that the main stream media ran with for weeks to "prove" that he wasn't injured at all? The video that didn't show the injuries that are clearly in existence from the photos that were taken at the scene of the shooting?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Zimmerman wasn't bleeding at the police station after he was picked up. Watch the video. Not the "enhanced" version put out by Fox, but the raw video.

Are you now trying to say that he was not bleeding on the scene and that the EMTs did not clean him up and the the pictures taken by the police on the scene and by witnesses on the scene were fraudulent? And is it also your opinion that GZ is a hemophiliac who would keep bleeding regardless of being treated and that GZ was not injured at all that day and that he self inflicted those wounds on the following day and perhaps bribed the police which reported it, bribed the EMT's who reported it and...

What are you trying to say? And does it involve someone shooting from the grassy knoll?

NoTea never saw the pictures Singleton took at the scene. They have been shown multiple times. Try not to waste your time with NoTea, he/she isn't interested in the facts.

 

[RKMBrown]

Not everyone can see me, Testarosa. Just those on the friends list. So I ain't that brave.

Me either baby

Weirdos bounding around.

Yup. The bad thing is...you don't know they are fruitloops until some time has passed then BAM!
Sometimes red flags are slow in rising.

Didn't know the board had an albums feature.. friend groups... lots of toys. Will have to pick out some photos now I guess.... slow in rising issues... heh not here.

 

[Oldstyle]

Google Darlie Routier and Charles Stuart, just off the top of my head. It's not exactly a new idea, it's just new to you.

You don't have the good sense to quit while you are behind...do you? Does it really matter if an idea is old or new if it's ridiculous? If you're left with this kind of nonsense, NoTea...it simply points out how bad the case IS against George Zimmerman.

No, it simply points out the ineptitude of the prosecution. Unless you think OJ Simpson was innocent, too.

Let me give you some help, OLDstyle: look up Vincent Bugliosi and see what he did with Charles Manson and how he did it.

Bugliosi is in his late 70's now but he had plenty to say about the Simpson trial and I bet he's going to have some interesting commentary about this one, too.

I have great respect for Vincent Bugliosi, NoTea. I've got a feeling that if he DID comment on this case it would be to state that they never should have brought the case to court. I highly doubt that Bugliosi would have allowed himself to be pressured into taking this dog of a case to court. He's smarter than that!

 

[Sallow]

Well no, the state has to prove that what happened was in fact murder. All the defense needs to do is poke holes in what the state claims happened. Basically Zimmerman only needs to get across the idea that he feared for his life, whether he proves it or not and whether or not it is true.

If an adult male is pounding my head into the concrete repeatedly, I am going to fear for my life and do everything I can to stop him. So the state needs to prove Martin was not even fighting back and was simply executed. I don't think they have proven that.

Of course, it is all up to the integrity of the jury and whether or not they hear about the threats of riots and want to prevent them at the expense of the life of an innocent man, assuming Zimmerman is innocent.

Immie

There's an entire series of events that happened before Martin was murdered.

And there are a couple of version that exist.

Zimmerman's and reality.

Thus far the reality is conflicting with Zimmerman's in some very big ways.

The state has done everything but declare that Zimmerman is innocent on the front page of the New york Times, which reality do you live in?

Well no..they haven't.