Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
[MENTION=42969]jon_berzerk[/MENTION] said:
>>>lack of DNA is not evidence that someone did not touch something
>>>lack of fingerprints is not indicative that someone did not touch something
point not dna
not fingerprints
rather inconsistent and statements conflicting
how so
When your statement to the police conflicts with your statement to your best friend? Thats a potential problem that goes to the credibility of the defendant. Especially when best friend testifies for the state and writes a book about it...see links in original post.
So he isn't just a cold blooded murderer, he's a moron as well..
I think Zimmerman had a warped mind. To him all blacks are criminals.
Zimmerman tutored black kids on the weekend and lived in a MIXED race community that INCLUDED Blacks, you fucking mental midget!
George Zimmerman « YWN Coffee Room
Nancy Grace.....Jane Vaseline Mithcell....or whatever......
Jesus.....they look like they're trying to chew their own faces off.....
plastic is inedible
I don't know about embellishing or not, but there's no question it was a completely traumatizing event. I don't assume someone is lying if there's no evidence of it and I just personally haven't seen any evidence GZ is a dishonest person. Nothing in his story causes me to find it far-fetched or implausible. It seems logical, at least to me.
Fair enough. But consider this...he told Sean Hannity that he knew nothing about the "Stand Your Ground" law. However his professor testified that he taught it in the class GZ took and that GZ was one of his best students...
"Alexis Carter, the adjunct professor who taught Zimmerman’s criminal litigation at Seminole State College in 2010. In a key bit of testimony, Carter told the jury that he had covered Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law extensively for George Zimmerman’s class. He described George Zimmerman as “one of the better students,” and remembered giving him an “A” in the class."
He also took self defense classes and had a concealed weapons permit...so not sure Im buying that...in fact, I'm NOT buying it...lol. Where there is one inconsistent statement, there is bound to be others...I went looking and I think there is.
At first, in this trial I took the approach of finding every reason to believe GZ...mainly because Al and Jessie and the race card being pulled teed me off...but, for fun, I flipped, tossed everything aside and then looked for reasons where I wouldnt. In the end...I believe most of what he said, but not all of it.
George Zimmerman Professor Testifies He Taught Extensively About ?Stand Your Ground? | Mediaite
Hey dude...you know, this is a good point. One of the few lies that can be proven on GZ.
And.....it only takes one......right? For the jury?
One....and you're done.
Ask the Jodster.....
how so
When your statement to the police conflicts with your statement to your best friend? Thats a potential problem that goes to the credibility of the defendant. Especially when best friend testifies for the state and writes a book about it...see links in original post.
that does not overcome reasonable doubt
show us something that over comes that line
we have already heard from crime investigators
that generally stories change a little
however it possible to touch something
and not leave dna
or have recoverable dna
plus the witness said they could have missed DNA
If I shot every guy that I ever got in scrap with their would be a lot of dead people..and their would be a lot of hurting families and fatherless children...this loser did not think he was going to be beaten to death..he ended up on the losing end of a fist fight he appears to have instigated and killed someone over it..
The prosecution is politically motivated, is this because of Obama's "son" comment?
When your statement to the police conflicts with your statement to your best friend? Thats a potential problem that goes to the credibility of the defendant. Especially when best friend testifies for the state and writes a book about it...see links in original post.
that does not overcome reasonable doubt
show us something that over comes that line
we have already heard from crime investigators
that generally stories change a little
however it possible to touch something
and not leave dna
or have recoverable dna
plus the witness said they could have missed DNA
It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.
There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.
If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.
Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.
that does not overcome reasonable doubt
show us something that over comes that line
we have already heard from crime investigators
that generally stories change a little
however it possible to touch something
and not leave dna
or have recoverable dna
plus the witness said they could have missed DNA
It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.
There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.
If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.
Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.
it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt
that is the standard we have in this system
in the heat of the moment
zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened
if martin did or didnt touch the gun
as for lack of dna
the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either
is there any doubts on who had what
Why do you feel the need to continue fabricating evidence?
I did not, why do you need to lie about what I said?
Not true. hoodie stain A was Trevon's, stain B was a negative result for blood, stain C positive result for blood but he was unable to obtain dna results.
I did not say on the hoody, Sarah, I said on the shirt he was wearing UNDERNEATH the hoody... which is explained nicely in the Washington Post:
Florida Department of Law Enforcement DNA expert Anthony Gorgone also testified that Zimmermans DNA was found among blood on a shirt Martin was wearing under his hooded sweatshirt.
Expert testifies no Martin DNA on gun grip in Zimmerman trial - The Washington Post
So, do you think the Washington Post is lying as well? How about the LA Times:
Zimmermans DNA, however, was found on blood on a shirt that Martin wore underneath his sweatshirt.
Zimmerman murder trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on the gun, expert testifies - latimes.com
So you must think that the LA Times is lying as well? Hmm seems alot of liberal media sources are lying about this Sarah... either that or you are.. sorry, I tend to believe them over you. Better luck next time
It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.
There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.
If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.
Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.
it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt
that is the standard we have in this system
in the heat of the moment
zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened
if martin did or didnt touch the gun
as for lack of dna
the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either
is there any doubts on who had what
And the prosecutor is accused of hiding exculpatory evidence:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-a...cutor-indicted-falsifying-arrest-warrant.html
Not really. At best, the lack of DNA / Prints corroborating GZ's story is nothing more than a lack of corroborating evidence, which is proof of nothing.When your statement to the police conflicts with your statement to your best friend? Thats a potential problem that goes to the credibility of the defendant. Especially when best friend testifies for the state and writes a book about it...see links in original post.
that does not overcome reasonable doubt
show us something that over comes that line
we have already heard from crime investigators
that generally stories change a little
however it possible to touch something
and not leave dna
or have recoverable dna
plus the witness said they could have missed DNA
It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.
There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.
If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.
Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.
Why do you feel the need to continue fabricating evidence?
I did not, why do you need to lie about what I said?
I did not say on the hoody, Sarah, I said on the shirt he was wearing UNDERNEATH the hoody... which is explained nicely in the Washington Post:
Expert testifies no Martin DNA on gun grip in Zimmerman trial - The Washington Post
So, do you think the Washington Post is lying as well? How about the LA Times:
Zimmermans DNA, however, was found on blood on a shirt that Martin wore underneath his sweatshirt.
Zimmerman murder trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on the gun, expert testifies - latimes.com
So you must think that the LA Times is lying as well? Hmm seems alot of liberal media sources are lying about this Sarah... either that or you are.. sorry, I tend to believe them over you. Better luck next time
You did lie or you just didn't know what you were talking about. The blood stain was not on the cuff like you all have been spewing, both arms were checked elbow to cuff. The stain was on the waist part of the sweatshirt and it was a small little tiny spot.
May not mean much but what else have you been spinning here? If you're watching the WP for info instead of looking at all the reports, we now know you are getting less than accurate info. LA Times too.
I told you about the hoodie just as an aside. It was what I heard the DNA guy talk about.
that does not overcome reasonable doubt
show us something that over comes that line
we have already heard from crime investigators
that generally stories change a little
however it possible to touch something
and not leave dna
or have recoverable dna
plus the witness said they could have missed DNA
It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.
There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.
If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.
Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.
it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt
that is the standard we have in this system
in the heat of the moment
zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened
if martin did or didnt touch the gun
as for lack of dna
the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either
is there any doubts on who had what
There is no situation so bad that Obama can't make it worse.The prosecution is politically motivated, is this because of Obama's "son" comment?
According to the article it was in response to Sharpton and Jackson demanding Zimmerman be tried for murder. Of course, even for her, there is a presumption of innocence. But if she is convicted, damn, I hope she is disbarred.
Obama should have stayed the hell out of it. He is Zimmerman's president too. AND he is a lawyer who should know all about the presumption of innocence. Obama leaves little doubt that Harvard sells mail order degrees.
It may not go to your reasonable doubt...but it goes to mine in part to his credibility....and it may go to a jurors.
There is a big difference in grabbing and prying ones hands off of a gun that intends to use it on you and just sliding hands in that direction and no prying of hands off of it.
If on the other hand you believe he did grab the gun and that DNA not on the gun is possible even if grabbed, then that conflicts with his statement to police that it was reached for but not grabbed.
Regardless of which one you choose to believe, its a major inconsistency in his statement.
it is not (my) beyond a reasonable doubt
that is the standard we have in this system
in the heat of the moment
zimmerman probably isnt sure exactly what happened
if martin did or didnt touch the gun
as for lack of dna
the flashlight and the skittles didnt have DNA on it either
is there any doubts on who had what
The standard in the system is what the jury considers reasonable doubt or a juror. They do not have to give a reason why either...it could be that they dont believe a word that comes out of his mouth because of the inconsistencies. That is their right and that is our system.
There is nothing in our system that says a juror has to defend their decision to anyone. In fact, in our system, if only one lie is found out...you can disregard everything they say. That will be part of the deliberation instructions from the judge to the jury after closing arguments.
Slight inconsistencies are common...not big ones. Furthermore, GZ seems to be very sure of everything he says...even the police said that all of his statements to them added up and were very consistent. Problem is, there is a professor and his best friend that have come forward with major inconsistencies that the police werent privy to in interrogation.
I respect your opinion, I just see it differently.
What specifically is Zimmerman lying about?
George Zimmerman's bond revoked by judge, 48 hours to surrender in Trayvon Martin killing - Crimesider - CBS News
George Zimmerman's bond revoked by judge, 48 hours to surrender in Trayvon Martin killing
Circuit Judge Kenneth Lester Jr. said that Zimmerman engaged in "material falsehood" about money in issuing his ruling.
everything.
I did not, why do you need to lie about what I said?
I did not say on the hoody, Sarah, I said on the shirt he was wearing UNDERNEATH the hoody... which is explained nicely in the Washington Post:
Expert testifies no Martin DNA on gun grip in Zimmerman trial - The Washington Post
So, do you think the Washington Post is lying as well? How about the LA Times:
Zimmerman murder trial: Trayvon Martin's DNA not on the gun, expert testifies - latimes.com
So you must think that the LA Times is lying as well? Hmm seems alot of liberal media sources are lying about this Sarah... either that or you are.. sorry, I tend to believe them over you. Better luck next time
You did lie or you just didn't know what you were talking about. The blood stain was not on the cuff like you all have been spewing, both arms were checked elbow to cuff. The stain was on the waist part of the sweatshirt and it was a small little tiny spot.
May not mean much but what else have you been spinning here? If you're watching the WP for info instead of looking at all the reports, we now know you are getting less than accurate info. LA Times too.
I told you about the hoodie just as an aside. It was what I heard the DNA guy talk about.
sorry marilyn, the state put on a terrible case based on very sketchey evidence. GZ will be acquited and blacks will riot in the streets of all of our cities and burn their own neighborhoods.
We are living in a sick society when the media decides which cases will go to trial based on racial issues that will generate ratings.
If TM was white of GZ was black this case would never have made the news and the shooter would never have been charged because there is no evidence of a crime.
