Me neither. jb was admitted to the hospital today so I was there most of it. Tonight is going to be spent watching last night's Under the Dome. Gawd, I love it!
APP - The Well Behaved Zimmerman TRIAL Thread
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
Me neither. jb was admitted to the hospital today so I was there most of it. Tonight is going to be spent watching last night's Under the Dome. Gawd, I love it!
Oh, so sorry, is jb okay?
Last edited:
He'll be fine. I'm a mess.
It is the way, huh, the unsick spouse feels helpless.
opinion: today was definitely the best day for the prosecution so far, though I do think it's being overblown by the media desperate to try and tell their own narrative. I also think defense did a lot of good job taking some of the wind out of the sails of the M.E. on cross, which I will go into below
The super key witness in todays testimony is by far the medical examiner
I dont have a transcript line by line so I am paraphrasing what her key points were but it was something like:
In favor of the state:
- She says that zimmermans injuries were not life threatening
- actually called them insignificant a few times
- said his injuries would be consistent with having his head impact concrete one time
- defiantly a very credible witness in terms of knowledge
Defense on Cross
- the defense took issue with her concluding zimmermans head hit the concrete one time, and got her to admit that multiple hits were certainly possible.
- got her to say that it's possible for his head to impact other times without necessarily causing injuries
- boxed her in to admit that the evidence does not neccesarily contradict zimmermans account of the events
- I easily counted her saying "possible" on cross over at least 7 times, with regards to zimmerman having his head hit the concrete multiple times
- defense also pointed out she was appointed by the head D.A. (? might be assistant attorney, it was someone involved with this case in someway, I didn't totally catch that). I don't think that's super relevant though, but might interject a slight bias.
Opinion/Observation: at one point the M.E. said she couldn't make a good conclusion with the pictures, but it was the same pictures she used to make a conclusion for the prosecution, defense didn't really jump on that statement very hard.
Opinion/Analysis:
The prosecution right now is arguing as if they don't actually have the burden of proof. They throw out "possibles" and "maybes" and "could ofs" like it's their second job. They can't just survive on possibles, or even preponderance of evidence, they need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which they simply are not doing. The M.E. did not rule out defenses claim, and she specifically said their story is not contradicted by the evidence.
***
Late today and early tomorrow there is an argument about allowing in zimmerman taking some class in which stand your ground was taught, though he said in a sean hannity interview that he didn't know SYG.
opinion this is dumb and the kind of stuff I think shows how weak the state is, trying to find any little minor thing to bring up
Apparently this is a weird legal area as you apparently can't introduce your own evidence to impeach (some lawyer like soc please clarify me on this). Basically defense is saying the state can't introduce the evidence, and also challenges it's relevance as the state has no proof zimmerman was even in the class when it was taught...
judge gave defense 30 minutes today to look up case law and i guess they have overnight now as they are presenting that case law in the morning.
***
opinion: the M.E.'s testimony is relevant to the point that it might make zimmermans story less consistent, or have some holes, but that is speculation, and the M.E. herself said that the evidence does not contradict defenses claims.. though she did say she is more likely to believe it was lesser hits rather than more. It's also important to point out that (fact) as a matter of law, the severity of injuries is not important in the context of self defense. It's all about state of mind at the time, and if someone could reasonably conclude that getting their hid hit against concrete could lead to grave bodily harm.
The super key witness in todays testimony is by far the medical examiner
I dont have a transcript line by line so I am paraphrasing what her key points were but it was something like:
In favor of the state:
- She says that zimmermans injuries were not life threatening
- actually called them insignificant a few times
- said his injuries would be consistent with having his head impact concrete one time
- defiantly a very credible witness in terms of knowledge
Defense on Cross
- the defense took issue with her concluding zimmermans head hit the concrete one time, and got her to admit that multiple hits were certainly possible.
- got her to say that it's possible for his head to impact other times without necessarily causing injuries
- boxed her in to admit that the evidence does not neccesarily contradict zimmermans account of the events
- I easily counted her saying "possible" on cross over at least 7 times, with regards to zimmerman having his head hit the concrete multiple times
- defense also pointed out she was appointed by the head D.A. (? might be assistant attorney, it was someone involved with this case in someway, I didn't totally catch that). I don't think that's super relevant though, but might interject a slight bias.
Opinion/Observation: at one point the M.E. said she couldn't make a good conclusion with the pictures, but it was the same pictures she used to make a conclusion for the prosecution, defense didn't really jump on that statement very hard.
Opinion/Analysis:
The prosecution right now is arguing as if they don't actually have the burden of proof. They throw out "possibles" and "maybes" and "could ofs" like it's their second job. They can't just survive on possibles, or even preponderance of evidence, they need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, which they simply are not doing. The M.E. did not rule out defenses claim, and she specifically said their story is not contradicted by the evidence.
***
Late today and early tomorrow there is an argument about allowing in zimmerman taking some class in which stand your ground was taught, though he said in a sean hannity interview that he didn't know SYG.
opinion this is dumb and the kind of stuff I think shows how weak the state is, trying to find any little minor thing to bring up
Apparently this is a weird legal area as you apparently can't introduce your own evidence to impeach (some lawyer like soc please clarify me on this). Basically defense is saying the state can't introduce the evidence, and also challenges it's relevance as the state has no proof zimmerman was even in the class when it was taught...
judge gave defense 30 minutes today to look up case law and i guess they have overnight now as they are presenting that case law in the morning.
***
opinion: the M.E.'s testimony is relevant to the point that it might make zimmermans story less consistent, or have some holes, but that is speculation, and the M.E. herself said that the evidence does not contradict defenses claims.. though she did say she is more likely to believe it was lesser hits rather than more. It's also important to point out that (fact) as a matter of law, the severity of injuries is not important in the context of self defense. It's all about state of mind at the time, and if someone could reasonably conclude that getting their hid hit against concrete could lead to grave bodily harm.
fine is fine. hope everything works out broski.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Fact: They brought up the situation of Martin having his hands underneath him and Zimmerman said he had pinned his arms to the side, after Martin was shot.
Opinion: Unless Martin died immediately, it would seem a natural thing for someone to to place their hands over the wound; so it's possible that Zimmerman did pin Martin's arms and that Martin moved them, prior to dying.
Fact: Investigating Officer made several comments that boiled down to him saying that it wouldn't be grounds for the police to approach someone who just APPEARED to be suspicious.
Opinion: I believe that arrest records of the Investigatin Officer is going to be reveiwed and if he has incidents where he investigated someone, who appeared suspicious, are going to be used to impeach his previous testimony.
Fact: The M.E. that testified never examined Zimmerman and testified on her OPINION of the pictures she was presented with.
Fact: Even she admitted that her OPINION had holes in it
Opinion: When the coroner testifies, the evidence could possibly destroy everything she said.
Fact: A lot of the Prosecution witnesses testimony has appeared to go to support the defense.
Opinion: If the Prosecution doesn't present a better case, Zimmerman has nothing to worry about.
Opinion: One insignificant thing, no big deal, lots of these details hurts the credibility of Zimmerman., this case is about if he is believable. His self defense is based on his story and is it real or did he contrive it.
The great bulk of the burden of proof was met before this trial ever started. The only thing to prove is that the killing was not justified.
canceled.2021.1
#AMERICAISDEAD
Fact: He told the dispatcher he was following him. The claim that he was looking for a sign only came up afterwords.
Opinion: The fact that he may have been following him with the intent to confront him is certainly material to self defense claims.
Fact: your claim that it was not is an opinion not a fact.
FACT: Who stalks someone with the intent to kill them and calls the police in the process?
I said he may have left his car with the intent to CONFRONT.
Fact:
Here are the relevant jury instructions in this case...
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Opinion:
The prosecution does not need to prove that Zimmerman was not thinking he was going to die. That's a rather impossible burden and almost any claim of self defense would win based upon it. They have to prove that he was not JUSTIFIED in using deadly force to defend himself. One could absolutely believe that Zimmerman thought he was going to die from the scratches on the back of his head and the broken nose, without creating a reasonable doubt that he was justified in the use of deadly force.
The defense is mostly built upon the claim that Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun. There is no dna evidence to support that. There are no witnesses to support that. The only proof of it is the defendant. His self preservation is reason enough for him to lie and if he is not extremely believable that is pretty weak. If points in his claims about what happened are proven false then he becomes less believable.
I think the Zimmerman supporters are celebrating early, even on the 2nd degree murder charges, which I thought would be tough to prove going in.
Here are the relevant jury instructions in this case...
If in your consideration of the issue of self-defense you have a reasonable doubt on the question of whether the defendant was justified in the use of deadly force, you should find the defendant not guilty. However, if from the evidence you are convinced that the defendant was not justified in the use of deadly force, you should find [him] [her] guilty if all the elements of the charge have been proved.
Opinion:
The prosecution does not need to prove that Zimmerman was not thinking he was going to die. That's a rather impossible burden and almost any claim of self defense would win based upon it. They have to prove that he was not JUSTIFIED in using deadly force to defend himself. One could absolutely believe that Zimmerman thought he was going to die from the scratches on the back of his head and the broken nose, without creating a reasonable doubt that he was justified in the use of deadly force.
The defense is mostly built upon the claim that Trayvon reached for Zimmerman's gun. There is no dna evidence to support that. There are no witnesses to support that. The only proof of it is the defendant. His self preservation is reason enough for him to lie and if he is not extremely believable that is pretty weak. If points in his claims about what happened are proven false then he becomes less believable.
I think the Zimmerman supporters are celebrating early, even on the 2nd degree murder charges, which I thought would be tough to prove going in.
Two shots, I hadnt heard that fact?
I could be wrong, but according to the testimony today, yes.
haven't heard testimony yet today, though I just heard state plans to rest today, or at the very latest early friday morning (no court tomorrow).
this is not a fact howey. Please stop this.
he could have been mistaken
he could have forgetten
he might not have been in class that day
do you remember every possible thing from a class you've taken months/years later? I sure don't.
It is not a fact he lied.
Opinion:
I would remember something like that, especially being a neighborhood watch person who carried a gun.