Zimmerman Trial (Friday July 12th.) MOD ALERT

exotix · Jul 12, 2013

Whaler17 said: ↑

Not even close. He was neighborhood watching, as Omara said, and while he was watching Martin, Martin attacked and assaulted him.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's too bad Shellie didn't take the stand to corroborate it ...

Whaler17 · Jul 12, 2013

Nobody came forward who could disprove it, so

exotix said: ↑

Yeah it's too bad Shellie didn't take the stand to corroborate it ...
Click to expand...

exotix · Jul 12, 2013

Ok, O'Mara defense timeline exhibit is incomplete except for *significant stuff* ?

- - - Updated - - -

When did Zimmy have a psychotic break with reality ?

Foolardi · Jul 12, 2013

Whaler17 said: ↑

The state had an OBLIGATION to show you the evidence that their contentions were true beyond a reasonable doubt. WOW did they fail there!

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing that overcame reasonable doubt, so no worries.
Click to expand...

Basically little besides assumptions and " Cop Wanabee " this and " Cop Wanabe "
that.Here a cop wanabee,there a cop wanabee,everywhere a cop cop.
Maybe what little Bernie should have come out and said is the dirty little secret.
That blacks Don't like Cops.Don't cotton cops.Don't listen to cops.Cop tells a
black to HALT ! and what do many a black do ... They Bolt.That's just a fact.
In fact,blacks are brought up to distrust cops.So by reason of inference,it would
make prefect sense that Trayvon,who we know is not little,maybe had a thing about cops.
Or " crackers " for that matter.I could make a far more compelling case that Trayvon
was Big Bad Wolf.Trayvon was the one profiling.Dee dee said as much.
BTW ... there are no phone trace record to prove dee dee actually WAS on the
phone at the time she says.No phone records available for 34 minutes prior to the
shooting.How convenient.Maybe explains why Dee Dee came from nowhere.
How Trayvon's cell phone was mishandeled as evidence.

exotix · Jul 12, 2013

O'Mara interpreting what the meaning of the Zimmy 911 call really meant ... LOL.

MCCP · Jul 12, 2013

The police operator said let me know if the suspect does anything else --twice.

You can't watch him if you don't follow him.

DonGlock26 · Jul 12, 2013

Eighty Deuce said: ↑

The video reenactment will be shown ! With full movement.
Click to expand...

I made the mistake of watching it on HLN. Tons of commercials.......

slashbeast · Jul 12, 2013

Juan Williams put it rather nicely in my opinion:

"White Hispanics," "Creepy-Ass Crackers," "Teenage Mammies," and "Suspicious A--holes who always get away" -- that is the vernacular of the George Zimmerman trial.
George Zimmerman faces life in jail as a jury considers second-degree murder charges against him for killing 17-year-old Trayvon Martin. But thanks to the media he is already sentenced to life in the American public's mind as a racist.
NBC edited a tape of Zimmerman’s call to police as he was following Martin to make him appear to be focused on Martin’s race.
The New York Times has referred to him in unique racial terms as a “white Hispanic." The terminology was necessary to have the story fit into a well-worn news narrative throughout American history from the Scottsboro Boys to Emmett Till to Rodney King – the black victim of white racism. Hispanic people can be as racist as black or white people in a country with a deep history of racism. But, apparently for the Times, Zimmerman's whiteness was important. It fit their good versus evil tale of a white racist killing an innocent black man.
Click to expand...

This is the unfortunate truth of the matter sadly.

It's a case of people trying to portray white men as evil and racist. It's quite clear that the left has a certain hatred for white people, especially straight white males. And it just goes to show that the media are the ones responsible for racial divide in the U.S.

The liberal media has done a great job of stirring up racial animosity in the U.S. I'm normally pretty apprehensive and dismissive when I hear my fellow right wingers accuse leftist of being the real racist in this country, but since this whole incident went down I'm really starting to take a second look at such accusations...because it seems quite clear that the left wing media has a certain agenda against people of caucasian descent. I had always knew that the left had a particular disdain for whites, particularly white males, but not to this degree. Nor had I realized before that the left really are on a secret crusade against white males.

It's pretty daunting when you suddenly realize that there's a huge possibility this is the truth. It's almost freightening as a white male to know that these people are gunning for you, because they're not a collective of people that can be so easily dismissed and ignored. These peoples convictions upon me as a white male effect me tremendously.

But in some sick and twisted way, I rather enjoy it. I welcome the challenge to stand up to people who are spiteful and vindictive of me and my values. But there's one thing the left seems to forget: White men are resilient and we don't give up nor do we lie down and take a beating without putting up a fight. We didn't rise to such great heights on this rock we call earth without fighting for it through sweat and blood.

The left I believe will find it difficult to defeat the resolve of White Men.

AceFrehley · Jul 12, 2013

TomFitz said: ↑

Bear in mind that the only people who are talking about riots are the ones who have spent the last year attacking Treyvon Martin and defending George Zimmerman.

I'm quite sure that many of them are the same people who dutifully cut, repeated and agreed with right wing extremists who predicted civil unrest if Obama got re elected.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...unrest-un-troop-presence-if-obama-re-elected/

That should tell you something.
Click to expand...

That is categorically false.

Not only that, it appears you have missed MSNBC's fermenting racism, and editing out a black man's skin to forward their agenda that whitey is after Obama.

[video=youtube;hZdTk4InmA4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZdTk4InmA4[/video]

I suggest modifying making Fox News Channel your primary focus, and opening your eyes to the clear bias we see from all media sources.

Eighty Deuce · Jul 12, 2013

skeptic-f said: ↑

Any bets on how long the jury will be out?
Click to expand...

2 hours.

Foolardi · Jul 12, 2013

exotix said: ↑

There's certainly no reasonable doubt as to who done it ... let's see if O'Mara can prove self-defense ...
Click to expand...

Not exactly.Unless you can admit the Prosecution Did mention who done the
sucker punch.Tell us all about who done it { Who punched who. }
We know Zimmerman was bruisedin the nose and it was concluded it had
to have come from a punch.Not some doggone tree or branch.
So the ballbusting State refused to even state an obvious.That Trayvon was in
fact NOT " just walking home " but actually has so much time on his hands he
had the Motive and opportuinity to Punch,sucker punch a " Creepy a$$ Cracker "
So this entire ludicrous EXCUSE the State drummed up for theatrics yesterday that
Trayvon was Just minding his own business and going home " is the LIE of
the decade.

exotix · Jul 12, 2013

The state didn't prove beyond reasonable doubt whether Zimmys' flashlight was on or off ?

DonGlock26 · Jul 12, 2013

Whaler17 said: ↑

WOW you sure are nervous and on pins and needles this morning. Lynching attempt not going your way?

- - - Updated - - -

We all now know it isn't an assumption, it is evident!
Click to expand...

The jig is almost up, then the attack on the jury will begin earnest.

Eighty Deuce · Jul 12, 2013

DonGlock26 said: ↑

I made the mistake of watching it on HLN. Tons of commercials.......
Click to expand...

Well, it is late in the game, but I have watched it completely on our local network down here, with their online feed. The only commercial is the one when you log in, hyping a law firm. But there is commentary during breaks using local folks, just 2 with no yelling, and NO COMMERCIAL INTERRUPTIONS.

http://www.news965.com/s/news/nation-world/zimmerman-live-video/

exotix · Jul 12, 2013

Ok, the animation ... LOL

RP12 · Jul 12, 2013

TomFitz said: ↑

Can't say. I Googled her and found no evidence of it.
Click to expand...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/cbc-zimmerman-acquittal-could-spark-race-riots/article/1342491

You didnt look very hard....

Foolardi · Jul 12, 2013

DonGlock26 said: ↑

I made the mistake of watching it on HLN. Tons of commercials.......
Click to expand...

I've just started going to HLN. I get a kick out of that silly " THE LION's Den ".
That Jane-Valez is a trip.She excentuates every doggone word.It's called
Sensationalism.LIke Nancy Grace and her hourly " Bombshell " warning.
I think that Jane Valez is a Geraldo wanabee. No Debbie Dimond { Geraldo
colleague. And we all know how Geraldo has a thing about Nancy Grace.
Can't stand her guts.Not as badly as Michelle Malkin probably cuz Grace would
sue the pants off Geraldo.And we don't need to go there.

DonGlock26 · Jul 12, 2013

Whaler17 said: ↑

The state had an OBLIGATION to show you the evidence that their contentions were true beyond a reasonable doubt. WOW did they fail there!

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing that overcame reasonable doubt, so no worries.
Click to expand...

The prosecution put on a low information voter emotional presentation.

States Closing Argument: Two Hours of Raising Doubt

Posted by Andrew Branca Thursday, July 11, 2013 at 8:10pm

NOTE: Streaming video of the entirety of the States closing argument is provided at the bottom of this post.

Today, the State presented their closing argument to the jury in the matter of Florida v. Zimmerman. After 14 months of investigation and discovery, weeks of pre-trial hearings, weeks more of trial testimony, and the expenditure of taxpayer money on the order of a million dollars, this was itthis is where the State would close the deal and deliver their compelling narrative of guilt to the jury.

What the jury got was not a compelling narrative of guilt, however, but a rambling monologue of isolated bits of circumstantial evidence, much of which was consistent withand even supportive ofthe defenses self-defense theory of the case.
Bernie de la Rionda, State Prosecutor, closing argument

Bernie de la Rionda, State Prosecutor, closing argument

When I took my first serious look at this case, some six or so months ago, and worked though the existing discovery file, I thought to myself, the States got nothing. But discovery wasnt complete, perhaps there was critical evidence not yet out.

When the pre-trial Frye hearings took place and the State presented their inept expert witnesses, I thought, the States got nothing. Judge Nelson agreed, and disallowed their testimony.

When I heard the States opening statements, and heard them describe the facts they said they would proveknowing, with discovery effectively concluded, that there existed no evidence to support those representationsI thought to myself, the States got nothing.

When the State rested its case, and a few days later the defense did the same, and still there was nowhere to be seen a coherent, compelling, fact-based narrative of guiltmuch less one supported by evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, I thought to myself, the States got nothing.

And this morning, when the State made their bizarre and desperate reach for murder 3 based on child abuseproperly denied by Judge NelsonI thought to myself, thats the act of a State prosecution team thats got nothing.

This afternoon, throughout a couple of hours of closing argument by the lead attorney on the State prosecution team, Bernie de la Rionda, the truth was finally as concrete and undeniable as a sidewalk to the headthe State has nothing.

This afternoon I heard what was perhaps the most disjointed, fact-free, histrionic, and ineffective closing argument that Ive heard delivered by a State prosecutor in a murder case in more than two decades of practicing law.

Maybe later Ill tell you what I really think about it.

Regardless, we pride ourselves on being fact-based and giving all of you access to the raw information to come to your own conclusionsso lets get to it.
A Slow Start

Bernie de la Rionda (henceforth BDLR) began his opening with a rather remarkably weak opening, stating that a teenager is dead through no fault of his own, because another man made assumptions. This does not strike one as particularly consistent with the evidencethe States own witnesses have Martin confronting Zimmerman, not the reverse, and surely no reasonable jury is going to believe that Zimmerman caused his own injuries. To say that Martin bears no fault seems simply incredible. Further, to my knowledge no one has ever died yet because a casual observer made some assumptions about him.
Judge Nelson, Florida v. Zimmerman

Judge Nelson, Florida v. Zimmerman
Odd Missteps: Vague and Aimless

Then BDLR made the first of many apparent slips in his closing, by referring to Martin as a 17-year-old man. Given the 12-year-old photos of Martin that had been strewn throughout society, and particularly the murder-3-based-on-felony-child-abuse the State sought only hours before, surely he could not have meant to refer to Martin as a man? Sure enough, one could almost see BDLR consciously remind himself to use boy rather than man, and sometimes first using the latter only to immediately correct and repeat the same sentence using the former. He might as well have held up a sign saying, I am trying to mislead you into sympathy for the victim.

As vague as that opening was, things only got vaguer. Next BDLR argued that Zimmermans matter-of-fact attitude after the shooting was indicative of . . . well, he didnt say exactly, here merely said that those actions speak volumes. Volumes of what? Especially as the States own witnesses under cross had agreed that Zimmerman appeared to be in shock, not a state of casual indifference at having taken another persons life.
Bernie de la Rionda

Bernie de la Rionda
Recounting of Zimmermans Good Neighborliness

Then BDLR sought to cast the net of causation to include events months before the shooting. He plays audio recording of Officer Singleton interviewing Zimmerman in which Zimmerman describes how the neighborhood had been experiencing a lot of crime, how his wife had become frightened, and how hed started a Neighborhood Watch initiative to address the problem. How this was supposed to contribute to Zimmerman being guilty beyond a doubt of second degree murder was unclear.
Modest Variations in Zimmermans Accounts Held Out As Lies

He then began pointing out slight variations in statements Zimmerman had made at intervals of weeks or months, suggesting that these represented lies, and that these lies ought therefore to lead the jury to conclude that Zimmerman was guilty of second degree murder. In some cases the alleged lies were abjectly not liessuch as the fact that on one day Zimmerman claimed not to know an address, but after shooting a man in self-defense and having the location of the shooting become an important investigatory issue, he suddenly knew the address. Well, of course.
Screen Shot 2013-07-11 at 4.11.30 PM

Bernie de la Rionda
Zimmermans Profiling, and Skittles as a Motive for Murder

BDLR then argued that Zimmerman had profiled Martin as a criminalsurely true, at least in the context of potential, as it was the rationale for Zimmerman having called the police in the first place. He then went on to claim that Martins only crime had been the purchase of skittles and a fruit drink, and wearing a hoodie. It struck me that if I had been sequestered among 5 other jurors away from home, family, and work for some weeks, only to be told at closing argument that the Skittles and fruit drink were in any way a relevant issue in this case, Id be rather unhappy. Even had Zimmerman been some kind of monstrous Skittles killer, there was no evidence whatever that he had any idea that Martin possessed the candy.
The Return of Rachel Jeantel: The Tracking and Trapping of Martin

Next up for discussion was Rachel Jeantel. I know my first memories of this witness was her obstreperous testimony, the sighs and eye rolling, the thats retarded, sir, the creepy-ass cracker, the seeming refusal to speak at a normal volume that required constant repetitions of questions and answers, her remarkable facility for remembering dateseven as long as a year priorfavorable to the State, but unable to remember dates only days or weeks earlier favorable to the defense. And, of course, her perjury and many casual lies. Perhaps the jurors recollections were more favorable.

He used Jeantels testimony to argue that Zimmerman had not only profiled Martin, but had tracked him, as one might track an animal, and ultimately trapped Martin. Zimmerman, BDLR speculatedfor there is absolutely no evidence for the propositionwas gonna be what he wanted to be, a police officer.
Martin as Fearful Victim Intent on Escape, Safety

Who was more scared, BDLR asked, Zimmerman or the kid being followed by a man in a truck? After all, he continued, its not like some guy [Martin] just came out of the dark and started beating Zimmerman up. Except, of course, that the jury had seen extensive testimonyalmost all of it provided by the State!that this was exactly what Zimmerman said happened.
Sabryna Fulton, Trayvon Martin's mother

Sabryna Fulton, Trayvon Martins mother
Zimmermans Perfectly Law Abiding Actions Preceding the Fight

Then BDLR transitions to an exposition of Zimmermans various actions in the minutes leading up to the attack and shooting. Oddly, he notes at each one that there is nothing illegal about this particular step, nor that one, yet somehow we are to conclude that they collectively evidence second degree murder. Seeing Martin and thinking suspicious? Not a crime. Calling police to report? Not a crime. Getting out of car? Not a crime. Zimmerman was armed, had a license, still no violation of the law, he said.
Mocking the Notion that Martin Was Armed With Fists and Sidewalk

Then he noted the apparent disparity in size of the two menthe athletic, fit Martin and the clinically obese Zimmerman, and noted that while Zimmerman was armed, Martin was armed only with Skittles. The defense will tell you, he said, that Martin was armed with his fists and concrete, and mocked the suggestion. But could he really believe that the jury that was time and time again shown the bloody and broken pictures of Zimmerman, who heard his physicians assistant, Dr. Maio, and others testify to the dangerousness of head injuries, would buy into the notion that Martin was essentially harmless and armed only with candy? Theyve been sequestered for weeks to have that argument presented to them? Really?
These (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s and Fing Punks

Inevitably we got into perhaps the only portion of the evidence remaining that could possibly be referred to as the meat of the States theory of the caseZimmermans utterances of these (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s and (*)(*)(*)(*)ing punks. Curiously, BDLR conceded upfront that Zimmerman had not been shouting these words, as the State had sometimes done during the trialand which BDLR himself would be doing shortly, and repetitively at the top of his lungs during his closing. Indeed, BDLR argued now, the very fact that Zimmerman muttered the words was indicative of ill-will and hatred.
Bernie de la Rionda

Bernie de la Rionda
Zimmerman Must Be Held Accountable For HisLawful?Actions

At that point BDLR transitioned to a talking point one usually hears at the end of a prosecutors closing argumentthat the defendant should be held accountable for his actions, and that he was asking the jury to do just thathold Zimmerman accountable.

The timing of this statement was truly bizarre, however, because up to this point BDLR had yet to point to any specific action of Zimmermans that was a crime. Indeed, the majority of Zimmermans actions hed mentioned he himself had identified as lawful. Hed argued that Zimmerman had profiled, and followed, had called the police, had exited his car . . . were these the actions for which he wanted the jury to hold Zimmerman accountable? On what basis, under what criminal statute?
Taking the Law Into Ones Own Hands & the Wannabe Cop

Next up was a talking point about how the law doesnt allow one to take the law into ones own hands. Even the police, he noted, would simply have talked with Martin, sought some identification, a reason for being in the neighborhood.

There was, however, no evidence whatever that Zimmerman had shot Martin when casual questioning would have been a reasonable alternative. Surely these same hypothetical police officers would not have continued merely asking questions while Martin broke their nose, drove them to the ground, mounted them in a position of helplessness, and pounded their heads into a cement sidewalkthe circumstances under which Zimmerman fired the fatal shot, after at least 40 seconds of screaming for his life. Did he wish the jury to believe that the police would have idly accepted such a vicious beat down at the hands of Martin? Did he wish the jury to believe the he himself would have?
Bernie de la Rionda

Bernie de la Rionda

BDLR would later wonder aloud why Zimmerman hadnt acted more like a police officerwhy he hadnt just explained to Martin that he was a member of community watch, and not a creepy-ass cracker, and request that Martin await the arrival of the police.

Had BDLR not heard the testimony of his own witness, Jeantel, in which she described the briefest of verbal exchangesinitiated by Martinbefore the apparent onset of blows? Or Zimmermans repeated virtual testimony of a consistent nature? Martin had allowed no opportunity for such dialogue, nor given the outcome of events would an effort along those lines have been expected to be productive.

The closing then moved into the wannabe cop stage. Zimmerman, he postulated, was a wanna be cop who was frustrated with crime in the neighborhood, and this time he was going to handle it. And that made it not self-defense. Could it really be self-defense if you follow somebody, he asked the jury, if you profile somebody.

This narrative, however, is entirely inconsistent with the little direct evidence in this case. Would somebody intending to take the law into their own hands phone the police and urge them to send officers? Would somebody who had affirmatively decided that he was going to handle it leave his handgun holstered, and when confronted by Martin allow himself to be struck to the ground by a punch he never saw comingand whose state of readiness was apparently so nonexistent that he never so much as landed a blow on his attacker?
Absence of Evidence is Evidence

Next up was what I refer to as the absence of evidence is evidence part of BDLRs closing. There was no blood found on Martins hands, so this must prove . . . what exactly, he didnt say. That Martin never struck Zimmerman? Could that be believed, given the photographic evidence of Zimmermans injuries? Was there an alternative hypothesis for how those injuries occurred? If so, it was never verbalized.

There was none of Martins DNA found on the pistol, BDLR argued. First of all, Zimmerman never claimed Martin had touched his gun, but merely that he had reached for itno DNA would be expected to be found. Second, people touch objects all the time without leaving DNA. Third, the environmental conditions were not conducive to preserving DNA. Fourth, the quality of the forensics and autopsy under Medical Examiner Bao were not exactly world class, as evidenced by Baos own testimony.
Prosecution closing argument slide who more inclined to yell for help

Then there was the Zimmerman had studied the law argument, presumably the foundation for the notion that Zimmerman had therefore known exactly how to manipulate the evidence and his own statements to coincide with the legal requirements of Floridas self-defense statute. But this same exact knowledge was possessed (or should have been possessed) by every lawyer in that courtroom, as well as the judge. Did their possession of such knowledge suggest an inclination to murder? Having brought two of Zimmermans professors to testify before the jury, had the State elicited any evidence indicating a tendency of Zimmerman to use his knowledge of the law to help avoid legal sanction for deliberately committed crimes? No. It was simply nothing more than speculation.
Weighing of the Evidence: What Evidence?

Them, strangely, after showing little if any evidence up to that point, BDLR began to talk to the jury about matters involved in the weighing of evidence. He urged them to use their God-given common sense in weighing inconsistencies in Zimmermans statements, for example, but this bolt had been shot when he had made his earlier pointed remarks about the inconsistency of Zimmerman not being able to recall a street name before the shooting, and later being shown to have learned the name. Such false inconsistencies do not murder 2 make.
Creation of a Uncertainty & a Reasonable Doubt

Rather than actually offer any evidence for the jury to consider, however, he instead offered up a basketful of uncertainties. Who was actually following who? We dont know. Who was on top of who at particular points of time? Dont know that exactly either. It was remarkable the sort of argument one expects of a defense seeking to create a reasonable doubt, not a prosecutor attempting to obliterate one.
The Return of Rachel Jeantel, part deux

He came back to Rachel Jeantel, informing the jury that he had brought this admitted perjurer to the witness stand so that he could deliver to them the truth. He noted how she had spent hours in the witness stand, and if for what other purpose than to tell the truth?

One could not help but wonder if he was unaware that Jeantels presence was compulsory, as she was under subpoena like all the other witnesses. Further, could he really believe that the jury would not recall the exasperated sighs, the eye rolling, the head rocking, the mumbling, the outraged WHAT! at learning that she would have to return again the following day? By any objective perception, Jeantel was there against her wishes, not in compliance with them.
Recalling Martin Luther King, Jr.

Then we reached perhaps the single most bizarre moment of BDLRs already shockingly odd closing argument, when he paraphrased Martin Luther King Jr. to tell the jury that they should not judge Jeantel on the color of her skin but on the content of her testimony. Was he implying that the jurors must take care to overcome their implicit racism? Who knows.
The Uncertainty of the Evidence Emphasized Again

Next was a series of questions in which BDLR not only failed to make a point, he was explicit about not making a point. Did the operator [sic] tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin, or not? YOU decide, he told the jury. If the beating of Zimmerman was as severe as he claimed, how did it occur? W can only speculate, he answered his own question.

What? If BDLR had nothing to say about the issue, why bother mentioning it? If there was no evidence on the issue, why point out the uncertainty to the jury? This was literally the creation of reasonable doubt, not its elimination.

Prosecution closing argument slide Translation U.S. Marshall
Helping the Defense by Recounting Goods Testimony

BDLR then recounted John Goods testimony, in which he had described Martin mounted atop Zimmerman and raining blows down upon him MMA-style in a ground-and-pound attack. But, BDLR noted triumphantly, Good did not actually see fist strike face, nor hear the sound of blows landing. Is the jury to believe that Martin merely mimed the motions of punching Zimmerman about the head and face? How does that jibe with the bloody photos of Zimmermans injuries, seen by the jury dozens or scores of times? The very notion is ridiculous.

There was at one point a short recess, and when BDLR returned his affect was markedly changed. Counter to his usually energetic style, he now appeared flat and lackluster, as if hed learned during the recess that, in fact, the States got nothing.

Lack of Aggression as Evidence of a Depraved Mind

Next, BDLR came to the gun, with some odd points. If Martin was as dangerous as Zimmerman claimed, why didnt he have his gun out earlier? Why did he later holster it before he knew Martin to be dead? The fact that Zimmermans virtual testimony, introduced by the State, had repeatedly made the point that he neither knew he was entering a confrontation nor wanted one, or that a man lying prone on his face in the grass in the rain after having been shot is unlikely to need to be kept at gun point, did not seem to occur to BDLR.
The Powerpoint from 1995

Around this point BDLR transitioned into a Powerpoint that appeared to have been built on templates from 1995, and that simply re-iterated his fact-less talking points from earlier in the close, up to when BDLR mercifully concluded.

Prosecution closing argument slide evaluating the evidence
What a Prosecutions Closing is Supposed to Accomplish: Not This

Throughout the entire closing it was as if BDLR had no recognition of the fact that the State was required to affirmatively prove each and every element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt, rather than simply raise some doubts or questions about the defense.

Some commentators are suggesting that the State could come back strong with Mr. Guys rebuttal closing following the defenses presentation of their own closing statement. Anyone who can recall Mr. Guys cross-examination of defensive force expert Dennis Root, however, ought to reconsider such optimism.

Well, thats it for us for tonight. Well be back tomorrow morning with live video coverage in Court at 8:30AM to hear the defenses closing argument, likely the States rebuttal., and perhaps hear the jury charged and sent into deliberations in the afternoon.

Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book The Law of Self Defense, now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/states-closing-argument-two-hours-of-raising-doubt/
Click to expand...

exotix · Jul 12, 2013

DonGlock26 said: ↑

The prosecution put on a low information voter emotional presentation.
Click to expand...

Yes but O'Mara is admitting to assumptions on everything ... including the making of the animation .... LOL

Foolardi · Jul 12, 2013

DonGlock26 said: ↑

The jig is almost up, then the attack on the jury will begin earnest.
Click to expand...

Not until after.The Jury will be judged entirely on the given verdict of the
Truth seekers vs. the Pound of flesh mob.
The Jury will be treated accordingly.If a guilty verdict they will be heralded
and given reality shows and book deals and maybe even some Presidential medal.
If a non-guilty on all charges then they will treated Exactly as Zimmerman has.
It's that simple.That written in stone.

SourD · Jul 12, 2013

exotix said: ↑

Yes but O'Mara is admitting to assumptions on everything ... including the making of the animation .... LOL
Click to expand...

No, he is using the evidence/testimony. Something Bernie avoided.

DonGlock26 · Jul 12, 2013

Foolardi said: ↑

I've just started going to HLN. I get a kick out of that silly " THE LION's Den ".
That Jane-Valez is a trip.She excentuates every doggone word.It's called
Sensationalism.LIke Nancy Grace and her hourly " Bombshell " warning.
I think that Jane Valez is a Geraldo wanabee. No Debbie Dimond { Geraldo
colleague. And we all know how Geraldo has a thing about Nancy Grace.
Can't stand her guts.Not as badly as Michelle Malkin probably cuz Grace would
sue the pants off Geraldo.And we don't need to go there.
Click to expand...

I think Nancy Grace and Frank Taaffe are going to start a torrid affair. She cannot get enough of her Taaffe pulling every night on HLN.

Foolardi · Jul 12, 2013

DonGlock26 said: ↑

The prosecution put on a low information voter emotional presentation.
Click to expand...

Hmm ... I never thought of that.I think yer onto something.

Angedras · Jul 12, 2013

exotix said: ↑

Ok, the animation ... LOL
Click to expand...

This is exactly why O'Mara is considered one of the best defense attorneys in the state.

Animation not allowed into evidence. So, he brings it in closing.

Bernie de la Rionda, is outclassed by this guy.

SourD · Jul 12, 2013

Angedras said: ↑

This is exactly why O'Mara is considered one of the best defense attorneys in the state.

Animation not allowed into evidence. So, he brings it in closing.

Bernie de la Rionda, is outclassed by this guy.
Click to expand...

O'Mara is a brilliant attorney from what I've seen so far.

Log in or Sign up

Zimmerman Trial (Friday July 12th.) MOD ALERT

exotix New Member Past Donor

Whaler17 Well-Known Member

exotix New Member Past Donor

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

exotix New Member Past Donor

MCCP Banned

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

slashbeast Banned

AceFrehley New Member

Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

exotix New Member Past Donor

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

exotix New Member Past Donor

RP12 Well-Known Member

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

exotix New Member Past Donor

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

SourD New Member Past Donor

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

Angedras New Member

SourD New Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Zimmerman Trial (Friday July 12th.) MOD ALERT

exotix New Member Past Donor

Whaler17 Well-Known Member

exotix New Member Past Donor

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

exotix New Member Past Donor

MCCP Banned

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

slashbeast Banned

AceFrehley New Member

Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

exotix New Member Past Donor

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

Eighty Deuce New Member Past Donor

exotix New Member Past Donor

RP12 Well-Known Member

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

exotix New Member Past Donor

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

SourD New Member Past Donor

DonGlock26 New Member Past Donor

Foolardi Well-Known Member Past Donor

Angedras New Member

SourD New Member Past Donor

Share This Page

Useful Searches