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.
Did the 13 year old ever testify?

Maybe he will with the defense? I would suggest they call him to prove that Trayvon actually made it back to the condo. Maybe they will.

Right now there is no evidence outside of DD saying she thought he was near it...but near is vague and subjective. A boy confirming it would be good for the defense and their narrative for sure.
 
Kooshdakhaa said:
You know what is really amusing in all this? Seeing all you racist white people put in the position of defending a fat hispanic dude. lol

But I guess if you have to choose, you choose the lesser of the two evils, eh? The lighter skin?
Are you also one of those that considers any criticism of our first black president to be racist?

It makes no difference to me the color either man's skin. It is the story told, the evidence obtained, the witness testimony and LOGIC that convinces me of guilt or innocence. So far NOT GUILTY is winning the debate in my head.
 
The prosecution is done. All the wishing and bandaids and made up bathroom visits in the world aren't going to make it any better than what it was.

Get over it. They don't have shit.

Next?
 
Westwall said:
Oh yes I know all of that. You still are making up a lot of assumptions. I don't know what the cops did or didn't do in their investigation. Based on how little the DA presented my assumption is the cops did little on the scene investigation otherwise there would have been a better presentation.

That's the nature of message boards, especially in cases like this. People who are not present in court can only speculate even if they have vast experience in similar cases! Did you come here to tell us that?

Westwall said:
I have considerable real world experience sonny....I am a officer of the court myself and have testified in over 75 court cases over a period of 35 years as an expert witness so you may take your assertions and do with them what you please....but your knowledge of the legal system is severly lacking.....like most CSI wannabe's

I don't know you but I'll take your word that you are an officer of the court... sunny! Are you the court jester?
BTW, knowledge of the legal system is not the issue at present... The discussion is about physics: a discipline you seem to have a poor grasp of! Please don't tell me you are an expert in forensics after failing your own physics test right here on this thread!





I have a PhD in geology...we MUST learn a TON of physics to obtain that degree (equivalent of a Masters) so know more about physics than you probably do. Whenever you simplify something like you are doing you open yourself up to all sorts of problems.

The real world is rarely simple when humanity comes into it. People have a tendency to screw up all sorts of things and a fight is a good example of that. There is zero evidence that GZ is a maniac. There is ample evidence that he is a overly zealous neighborhood watch guy with delusions of grandeur.

One of you CSI types made the comment that how could anyone take martial arts classes for 3 years and not be able to defend themselves in a fight. It is plain to see that GZ is not a physical person. His physical intelligence (i.e. how well he can maintain balance, his sense of tempo etc.) seems to be pretty low so his inability to defend himself is no surprise.

You have jumped to a conclusion and like Mr. Nifong did a few years back you will ignore anything that brings your conclusion into doubt.

Mr. nifong lost his law license for that transgression....

Are all of the medical examiners oriental?????

Remember the OJ trial? I think his name was Dennis Fhong or something. Real train-wreck.
 
Gotcha...maybe they will bring an expert in to say it. Of course if im the prosecution, I would want to see current photos...not an opinion from a year ago. We have the guy sitting right in court...lets see.

Too late for that. The prosecution has rested its case and can only call rebuttal witnesses if GZ testifies. Nor can they demand that a current exam be done. In other words the prosecution is screwed.

Im not sure...but you can definitely see why an attorney for GZ would make sure that hair is grown back, right?
 
When T Martin came out to play, Georgie Porgie ran away, lol.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHPBr6-sTQ8]Georgie porgie - YouTube[/ame]
 
Right now there is no evidence outside of DD saying she thought he was near it...but near is vague and subjective. A boy confirming it would be good for the defense and their narrative for sure.

Dee Dee testified that TM was "by" it, not "near it" or even "near by" it. The testimony was given in conjunction with her explanation of why TM chose to confront GZ instead of running home. Paraphrasing from memory:

"Because he was already by it sir"

In the context of the testimony the natural meaning of this statement was that TM was immediately adjacent to the condo and that is why he could not or did not run home.
 
Right now there is no evidence outside of DD saying she thought he was near it...but near is vague and subjective. A boy confirming it would be good for the defense and their narrative for sure.

Dee Dee testified that TM was "by" it, not "near it" or even "near by" it. The testimony was given in conjunction with her explanation of why TM chose to confront GZ instead of running home. Paraphrasing from memory:

"Because he was already by it sir"

In the context of the testimony the natural meaning of this statement was that TM was immediately adjacent to the condo and that is why he could not or did not run home.

But she didnt know how near it he was...she said she thought a couple of houses down. I would contend that "near or by" is subjective because near in relation to where he came "from" could mean a couple of doors down or at the other side of the building. You can never tell for sure with DD...she even said she was having trouble hearing him.

You want to use this testimony to support the defense narrative...yet you want to throw out what she says just after it, which is in total contradiction of what GZ says was said and happened...me? I dont believe any of her testimony or give any credence to it...she was trying to defend why she failed to take the incident serious and had a separate motive, imo....you are picking and choosing.
 
Last edited:
That's one scary Joker considering he was one beautiful man.

Just a small homage to the sorely missed Heath Ledger. He had his whole life ahead of him. <sad>

A versatile talent in Hollywood...getting rarer every year, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top