Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Ok... that made no sense. All that work, to ask her if a button was his, and nothing more. Talk about a lot of wasted time.

Where ca i see this trial?

just go to google and type in "Zimmerman Trial Feed".

Danke Schon

 djones520 wrote:
Ok... that made no sense. All that work, to ask her if a button was his, and nothing more. Talk about a lot of wasted time.

Does the fact that this button is his make any sort of material difference to the case?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ok... that made no sense. All that work, to ask her if a button was his, and nothing more. Talk about a lot of wasted time.

Does the fact that this button is his make any sort of material difference to the case?

Apparently their was a break in questioning, because they couldn't access the evidence at the time, so it is possible we missed a point they were trying to make with it. *shrugs*

 djones520 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
Ok... that made no sense. All that work, to ask her if a button was his, and nothing more. Talk about a lot of wasted time.

Does the fact that this button is his make any sort of material difference to the case?

Apparently their was a break in questioning, because they couldn't access the evidence at the time, so it is possible we missed a point they were trying to make with it. *shrugs*

Weird.

I hear the prosecution stands to rest this afternoon.

 djones520 wrote:
I hear the prosecution stands to rest this afternoon.

Rest, or throw in the towel?

Stop embarrassing themselves more like.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Stop embarrassing themselves more like.

In fairness it takes a lot of effort to sabotage your case so remarkably well before the Defense has presented their case.

Is there a glove they could get Z to try and put on perhaps?

Did y'all see the guy testifying via Skype that they televised his Skype address live so people were kept calling him non-stop during his testimony?

LOL

 SlaveToDorkness wrote:
Is there a glove they could get Z to try and put on perhaps?

Did y'all see the guy testifying via Skype that they televised his Skype address live so people were kept calling him non-stop during his testimony?

LOL

You think that after the SSN and driver's license screw up that they would have had more sense than that.

Arguments for dismissal of the case are occuring right now.

Prosecutor is sounding like a total toolbag to me. His argument would basically completely nullify the purpose of self defense.

Good. I'm interested in hearing whether the Prosecution have come anywhere near to meeting the burden of proof.

The guy just argued that the simple act of defending yourself means you have malice in your heart. Unbelievable.

 djones520 wrote:
The guy just argued that the simple act of defending yourself means you have malice in your heart. Unbelievable.

Yes, because as we all know defending yourself from another's aggression obviously means that you acted with malice.... With solid legal advice like that it's easy to see why be is a DA and not a public defender.

It's not like swaying a jury has anything to do with truth or accuracy.

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It's not like swaying a jury has anything to do with truth or accuracy.

Sure but if you mess up the legal part you can in fact get a kick in the gibblets from the Bench, or if you really screw the pooch the State Bar Association. They take legal procedure pretty seriously.


I still want to know why that one medical examiner who had only looked at photos was on the stand at all.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It's not like swaying a jury has anything to do with truth or accuracy.

Sure but if you mess up the legal part you can in fact get a kick in the gibblets from the Bench, or if you really screw the pooch the State Bar Association. They take legal procedure pretty seriously.


I still want to know why that one medical examiner who had only looked at photos was on the stand at all.

Right, but we're talking about a general thing they said to the jury, right? The prosecution can turn to the jury and say whatever cooky thing they want. Nobody is going to get disbarred for that.

If it happened in their closing, they have even more leeway.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Rented Tritium wrote:
It's not like swaying a jury has anything to do with truth or accuracy.

Sure but if you mess up the legal part you can in fact get a kick in the gibblets from the Bench, or if you really screw the pooch the State Bar Association. They take legal procedure pretty seriously.

Correct. If the Prosecutor errs in law the judge can give direction to the jury either clarifying what was said, or telling them to ignore it when making their deliberations. Should this not happen then it opens a not insignificant door for a future appeal by the Defense.
If Prosecutor is continually promoting falsehoods and giving egregious information to the jury then (s)he may face an inquiry by the Bar Association in that State, which could see a punishment of censure or disbarment.

As far as the facts go the Defense still has their closing arguments and the jury has to deliberate. And a lot of jurors don't take too kindly to being mislead, or outright lied to.

The defense has a lot more than just closing arguments left. I would expect several more witnesses to include a medical examiner type, and may be Zimmerman himself.

 CptJake wrote:
Honestly, the one round one kill thing in this case is what makes me believe Zimmerman was not looking for that much trouble and was poorly trained yet defended himself the best he could.

I automatically would have dumped at least two center mass then one into his head. Then if he twitched he would have caught more. I think Z popped a cap then almost crapped himself with the realization of what he had done and the sound of a round actually being fired. I can't imagine only engaging with one round.

Yea. The wife can put three center mass in one second at 7 yards and thats how she's trained-empty the entire 15 round mag and reload while getting out of there. Her police buddies told her that. Of course we were dealing with a stalker on vicodin...

With malice in his heart due to self defense or something silly

 CptJake wrote:
The defense has a lot more than just closing arguments left. I would expect several more witnesses to include a medical examiner type, and may be Zimmerman himself.

At this point. I doubt Zimmerman will testify. We might get some more character witnesses shrouded in something else. I don't think the defense is going to take long.

Be nice if they could get the DA on the standa nd ask him why the first one declined, and he was put on specially...

 Frazzled wrote:
At this point. I doubt Zimmerman will testify. We might get some more character witnesses shrouded in something else. I don't think the defense is going to take long.

Be nice if they could get the DA on the standa nd ask him why the first one declined, and he was put on specially...

Or failing that if they put the first DA on the stand, and ask him to outline his reasons for not pursuing the case. Maybe we can put Zimmerman's parents on the stand to testify that the screaming is their son's voice, and Martin's father on the stand to clarify why he thought that the screams were not initially his son's.

Both mother's already claimed it was their son screaming on the audio on the stand

Multiple defense witnesses today saying it was Zimmerman calling out. Defense also made a point of how Martins father originally said it wasn't his sons voice on the tape.

Was that in front of a the jury? How did the defense get that statement in? (about TM's father's original statement?)

Prosecuter open the door on that by having M mother and brother testify it was her son/brother voice on the recording. Then Z mother claim it was Z...same as a couple co-workers....former boss of Z...and his best friend attest it was Z voice on the recording. SO defense threw doubt into being it was M voice from the initial statement of M father.