It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Zimmerman Trial

page: 125
25
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Why is the prosecution insisting that DNA should be left on a gun if someone touches it?




posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Gordon Pleasants LONGWOOD, FL about 1 year ago Liked 13
It seems as though all we are hearing from uninformed citizens and
commissionsers is as follows:

We are angry! We want justice! We wanted Chief Lee and the Sanford
Police Department to arrest and convict George Zimmerman for the
murder of Trayvon Martin! However, Chief Lee, who himself felt the
incident was morally reprehensible, failed to do what we wanted.
Therefore, the Sanford City Commission made a majority vote of “no
confidence” in Chief Lee which resulted in him temporarily stepping aside.

Chief Lee did not listen to our emotions. He refused to make an arrest
when the family, citizens, commissioners and press demanded it. Why do
we have a chief of police if he isn’t going to perform as we dictate? The
answer is easy. Chief Lee is honest and morally sound. The Chief of Police
is supposed to ensure the rights of the citizens are protected during
criminal investigations. I hate to be the bearer of bad news but that
includes the suspect in this case. Chief Lee has an obligation to ensure a
thorough investigation is conducted, ensure the rights of the suspect are
not violated and to present the case to the State Attorney’s Office for
determining prosecution; not determine guilt as many of have already
done without a trial. Chief Lee has been the only person in Sanford who
has stood up for the rights we cherish. The only problem is we tend to
only want these rights to apply to “us” and not those we “think” are guilty.

Gordon Pleasants

Retired Casselberry Police Lieutenant and current Professor of Criminal
Justice



www.change.org...

Who is Gordon Pleasants?

Yet another prosecution witness for the state.

He was called today, via Skype, for testimony, from California.

For anyone that watched the trial today, the Professor was promptly call bombed during his testimony. The witness was promptly switched to a cellphone, where he continued his testimony.

This was "Prove Zimmerman was a wanna be cop day", and this was the second professor the state called.

The professor left behind an exaaperated prosecution when he testified, "George wanted to be a prosecutor.", and was abke to present no evidence that Zimmerman read or used self defense (SYG) materials given in the course book. It was not covered in the online portion of the course, or in the workbook. Zimmerman was present for all online courses.


legalinsurrection.com...



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
So let me get this straight.. in the simplest of terms.

I go out one night, armed. I see someone, confront them and a fight happens. I then kill the person.

Your telling me, that in no way shape or form I should be held accountable for that?

Okay.. maybe Zimmerman didn't set out that night to kill someone. But the fact is, he did. The fact is, had he not followed or approached TM, the kid would still be alive. But Zimmerman's actions caused a confrontation, and the direct result was the shooting death of TM.

Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone. What classification under law it should be I don't know. But let's face facts. It's not as if Zimmerman was minding his own business and TM attacked him out of no where. Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

I know he is going to go free. Because the "girlfriend" or "jabba the hutt" or whatever she was TOTALLY blew the case for the prosecution.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by Grimpachi
If self defense is enough to keep murder2 from sticking I am fairly sure it would also exclude manslaughter from sticking as well.

I read that from some legal eagles.


You are correct. If you may remember, last night, I expressed some confusion over a post that I had read about being able to press forward with a manslaughter conviction. I was able to seek a bit more clarity on that today.

When they seek murder 2 charges on willful ill will or a depraved mind, as they have, the manslaughter negotiations are off the table automatically, as manslaughter cannot be sought under those grounds, it rules it out. At least that is my understanding. The prosecution will actually have to drop, reduce, the charges.

The law gets a bit confusing when you start going down the ranks, ruling in/out, but that is my takeaway from the discussion.

The best they can get without murder 2 is I believe justifiable homicide, which falls under self defense.

Homicide and murder being two different things.

A person can die by homicide, but not be murdered.

There is a good, short article you can look for, if interested, about why the media calls it a killing, and certain media had to stop calling it murder. Until it is ajudicated as murder, it is not able to be labeled as such. So, for now, it is a killing.

www.poynter.org...


Why journalists call Trayvon
Martin death a shooting, but not
a murder


edit on 3-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)


The part you seem to be missing is that a Jury can be given instructions that allow for them to convict on a lesser charge.

No dropped charges, no reduced charge. Simple jury instruction is all that is needed.


A lesser included offense shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater criminal offense. Therefore, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. For example, Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, assault is a lesser included offense of rape, and unlawful entry is a lesser included offense of Burglary.

The rules of Criminal Procedure permit two or more offenses to be charged together, regardless of whether they are misdemeanors or felonies, provided that the crimes are of a similar character and based on the same act or common plan. This permits prosecutors to charge the greater offense and the lesser included offense together. Although the offenses can be charged together, the accused cannot be found guilty of both offenses because they are both parts of the same crime (the lesser offense is part of the greater offense).

When a defendant is charged with a greater offense and one or more lesser included offenses, the trial court is generally required to give the jury instructions as to each of the lesser included offenses as well as the greater offense. However, a defendant may waive his or her right to have the jury so instructed. If the jury finds guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt as to a lesser included offense, but finds reasonable doubt as to the defendant's guilt with regard to the greater offense, the court should instruct the jury that it may convict on the lesser charge.


The law is very clear on this point and always has been.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 10:52 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


The only evidence is Trayvons' own words, in his texts, circumstantial evidence, like the majority of the prosecutions case is.

He spoke of it often, he spoke of dropping marijuana in favor of it to reduce the chances of getting arrested, and he spoke of it mere days prior to his death.

Coincidence, perhaps, but a striking one, at that. Considering he has thc in his system, and had texted that just before he left to go to his fathers' home he hid his stash, one can deduct he was likely looking for a "more legal" intoxication.

Anyone know for sure? No. But, when someone talks about, texts about, and acts on a certain perpensity, the one can deduct they will continue to do so unless stopped by an outside force.

Isn't that, afterall, exactly the entirety today of the prosecution attempt to paint George as a wanna be cop?

They are attempting to take his past actions, group them together, and prove a finality. Except, in George's caae, it is more complicated than Arizona Watermelon and Skittles.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


I don't think I am missing any point. The point I am attempting to discuss, thatis being discussed by attorneys is, that if they charge with murder2, which is a depraved mind, under Fla. statute, manslaughter is ruled out, as it cannot be RULED IN as a lesser charge due to the depraved mind aspect.

I understand the Fla code, I do not understand the legalities of if, ands, and buts about it.

The ifs, ands, and buts about it is the depraved mind. The lesser charge of manslaughter cannot be sought qithout dropping that charge.

Hence, why I am bringing it to the table for discussion. I am not a lawyer, so I am seeking other opinions on this, not stating itas fact. I find it rather interesting, IF this ia the case, however, not being a lawyer, I don't know enough to rule it in or out as a possibility.

I posted, saying this is my understanding of the discussion.

If, indeed, this is true, it will be a fascinating fact to find out.

I also read the judge is NOT required to instruct the jury in all lesser charges. Is this true as well?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:08 PM
link   
reply to post by MrWendal
 


She = Rachel Jeantel. I did say she lied, she lied in the interview, and during the deposition. I think she likely lied on the stand too, but she wouldn't lie about something that made Trayvon look bad. She said he was beside his house. If she was going to lie she wouldn't have said that.

Several minutes.. they can probably determine based on the phone calls. He ran home, she called back and he talked for a few more minutes. So that call would tell the story.

He wasn't scared. Had he been scared he would have gone in his house rather than staying outside. People have tried to say he was scared of Zimmerman, but if that's why he ran he would have gone in his house instead of waiting and confronting Zimmerman.
edit on 3-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:10 PM
link   


Well first off, they have not testified (which was my point), secondly, it is common
knowledge that they were not there at the time of the incident.
reply to post by MrWendal
 


That was my point, as well. Why is one thing accepted as "common knowledge", but if it supports George, you want testimony?

That is why I said I would wait. Obviously, his mother wasn't there, and Brandy hasn't testified, but she made a statement on video, claiming "he went to the store and came home. He was sitting on the front porch, and some man shot him."

So, was she lying when she said he came home and was sitting on the front porch?

Why is her video taped statement any less worthy of examination than George's?



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Check this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems like automatic inclusion applies



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   


But Zimmerman's actions caused a confrontation, and the direct result was
the shooting death of TM.
reply to post by DerekJR321
 



See. There is the problem. Assumption of guilt without evidence. That is your opinion, and nothing more.

The argument is simply, prove it. His entire defense is, he did nothing to provoke it.

Following is not illegal.

So tell, exactly, what did he do to cause it?

From all appearances, testimony, and evidence thus far, it appears the opposite.

Trayvon went near his home, according to matching both phone records, he had ample time to retreat. Why is it one persons fault, but not the others?

From the evidence thus far, it does appear Trayvon went back looking for George, so the same can be said of him.

But as I said, that is the crux of the trial, and why people are innocent until proven guilty.

He is having his day in court, and if the prosecution fails to provide enough evidence to prove their case, then either tbere never was enough evidence, or they suck.


edit on 3-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:22 PM
link   
The only reason chargers were filed on Zimmerman is because the liberal media and african american community screaming racism. Young black men die ever day from black on black gang members and it doesn't make the news. Trayvon was no saint. I believe Trayvon jumped Zimmerman. Trayvon was tried of Zimmerman calling the police on him hanging around at night doing who knows what. Decide he was going to beat up the cracker watchman. Look at dudes face. You punch me in the face like that Im going to shoot you too. Zimmerman called the police. Why go after someone to murder them after you call the police that could show up anytime while your in the act of "murder". Zimmerman didnt approach Trayvon with is gun pointed at him. Only one shot. Very close range body to body while he was getting beat up.



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
reply to post by Libertygal
 


Check this post.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Seems like automatic inclusion applies




3.510. Determination of Attempts and Lesser Included Offenses

On an indictment or information on which the defendant is to be tried
for any offense the jury may convict the defendant of:

(a) an attempt to commit the offense if such attempt is an offense and
is supported by the evidence. The judge shall not instruct the jury if
there is no evidence to support the attempt and the only evidence
proves a completed offense; or

(b) any offense that as a matter of law is a necessarily included
offense or a lesser included offense of the offense charged in the
indictment or information and is supported by the evidence. The
judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which
there is no evidence.


www.joffelaw.com...

If murder 2 does not stick, and the judge must make this determination personally before she instructs the jury, correct? Then she cannot instruct the jury on lesser charges.

" The judge shall not instruct on any lesser included offense as to which
there is no evidence."

There is much more to a trial and conviction than one code.

I am not certain if it is really me not understanding this, or others.

edit on 3-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:51 PM
link   
NM
edit on 3-7-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 3 2013 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Mother was not called.

The ME that actually did the autopsy, Shiping Boa, and mother, will be called Friday.

The girlfriend being referred to is Brandy, Tracy's girlfriend. Trayvon's father.

DeDe Diamond Eugene Rachael Jeantel was not Trayvons' girlfriend. She testified as such.


edit on 3-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by jaynx
The only reason chargers were filed on Zimmerman is because the liberal media and african american community screaming racism. Young black men die ever day from black on black gang members and it doesn't make the news. Trayvon was no saint. I believe Trayvon jumped Zimmerman. Trayvon was tried of Zimmerman calling the police on him hanging around at night doing who knows what. Decide he was going to beat up the cracker watchman. Look at dudes face. You punch me in the face like that Im going to shoot you too. Zimmerman called the police. Why go after someone to murder them after you call the police that could show up anytime while your in the act of "murder". Zimmerman didnt approach Trayvon with is gun pointed at him. Only one shot. Very close range body to body while he was getting beat up.


I agree with your assesment....

Trayvon Martin family lawyer Benjamin Crump accused of lying to court


In order to avoid this deposition, Crump is said to have “provided the court with an affidavit affirming the recording he gave to the Zimmerman defense team was the full original copy of the audio recordings he made”.
An ABC News audio recording of Crump’s conversation with Witness #8 reveals inconsistencies with what was claimed in the affidavit.

Sundance says that Crump “lied” in the affidavit and “painstakingly prepped the witness, rehearsed the parts he wanted to record, gave her instructions on what to say….and intentionally cut out his instructions and interjections.”

Crump has yet to respond to these very serious allegations.

Whatever that response might be — if it is ever made, of course — Sundance holds that “what’s factually evident is the ABC recording shows Ben Crump’s affidavit to be false in its content and presentation.”


I believe the following opinion surmises the reasons behind the murder charge accurately.


From the Archives in April 2012 – The search for truth brings us to where we are today. Again, it bears repeating Nothing substantial ever changed regarding factual evidence against George Zimmerman. Not since the original Sanford Police Department delivered their initial findings on March 5th, 2012.

The historical outline, the known truths, we now share, are a general understanding of the manipulative narratives, and agenda driven interests, formulated by a professional team and spearheaded by Benjamin Crump Esq.

On Tuesday February 28th after meeting with lead detective Serino, Tracy Martin contacted Benjamin Crump, from the law firm Parks and Crump. In turn Crump hired Sanford attorney Natalie Jackson.

Subsequently by Monday March 5th, two days after Trayvon was laid to rest, a specific and intentional strategy to manufacture “media evidence” was created by Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson. That outline was then presented and sold by the hired Publicist Ryan Julison.


How and Why The Media Got It So Wrong – The Zimmerman Case – Packaged and Sold By Ryan Julison, Benjamin Crump, Natalie Jackson



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
So let me get this straight.. in the simplest of terms.

I go out one night, armed. I see someone, confront them and a fight happens. I then kill the person.

Your telling me, that in no way shape or form I should be held accountable for that?

Okay.. maybe Zimmerman didn't set out that night to kill someone. But the fact is, he did. The fact is, had he not followed or approached TM, the kid would still be alive. But Zimmerman's actions caused a confrontation, and the direct result was the shooting death of TM.

Zimmerman is guilty of killing someone. What classification under law it should be I don't know. But let's face facts. It's not as if Zimmerman was minding his own business and TM attacked him out of no where. Zimmerman instigated the confrontation.

I know he is going to go free. Because the "girlfriend" or "jabba the hutt" or whatever she was TOTALLY blew the case for the prosecution.



Basically you have it right.

You can verbally confront anyone without breaking the law.

If that person then attacks physically you can defend yourself by any means available in order to stop that attack.

Once that person is no longer a threat (attacking) any aggression on your part must halt. THAT IS LAW.

In this case even if Z had started the fight once he was on the ground defending Trayvon legally had to stop.

I said even if Z had attacked and that is what the prosecution needs to prove in order to even get a manslaughter charge and of course he said that didn’t happen. Reasonable doubt is all that needs to be shown by the defense about who attacked who. So ask yourself is there enough doubt.

Up until the first punch was thrown Z was within his legal rights to follow and even verbally confront however by the states own witness the one who confronted the other was Martin then she thinks she heard someone get hit however we do not know who hit who.

So let’s look at what you wrote again this time we take what we know is true from the prosecutions own witness(jabba the hutt in your words).

You said



I go out one night, armed. I see someone, confront them and a fight happens. I then kill the person.

Your telling me, that in no way shape or form I should be held accountable for that?


But in fact we know

You go out one night, armed. You see someone, they confront you a fight happens, you wind up defending yourself. You then kill that person.

Do you still feel the same way about who is at fault?

edit on 4-7-2013 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321
So let me get this straight.. in the simplest of terms.

I go out one night, armed. I see someone, confront them and a fight happens. I then kill the person.

Your telling me, that in no way shape or form I should be held accountable for that?



This is exactly what you are dealing with. The person does not even need to have received the slightest injury, all they have to do is say they feared for their life and they expect to be free to go if there is no immediately available evidence to contradict them. This presents a problem, especially when Florida cops are being accused of trying to keep crime numbers down(Trayvon's "burglaries".).

In this particular instance, you have a lead detective who didn't even check out the witness to George's claim that he saw Trayvon first outside Frank Taafe's house, namely, the person backing out in their car that allegedly caused George to slow down and pay attention to TM. What self-respecting detective could miss such an obvious way of determining if Zimmerman was telling the truth right at the outset of his involvement with the person he killed?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 02:42 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Let me see if I've got this right. Everything RJ said was a lie except the bit about Trayvon reaching where he was staying, and the bit where she says Trayvon calls George a "cracker," amirite?



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Drunkenparrot
 


Me too. I posted about this last night, Meet The Scheme Team.

No one has wondered or uttered a sound about why they haven't seen Crump in court.

That is because he is listed as a witness.

He is due to be deposed by the defense, was supposed to be tonight, but has managed to put it off until this Sunday at 6pm.

I posted a theory about the two DeDe's, and no one cared, but it ties in directly with the whole thing. If it is proven, and the defense has found the real 16 year old DeDe, it is going to blow the case out of the water, and some people, not George, will be going to jail.

The rabbit hole on this is terribly deep.

Let's not even mention the mother's testimony due Friday, who didn't even know her own son. That would upset too many peole that have bought into the media blitz.

The whole thing is, people want justice for Trayvon, but the real injustice is what is going on, the use of his name nefariously, and the manipulation of the people in general that should have them enraged.

Yet, nothing. It is terribly sad.

Disclaimer: this is my opinion

edit on 4-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2013 @ 03:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


Let me see if I've got this right. Everything RJ said was a lie except the bit about Trayvon reaching where he was staying, and the bit where she says Trayvon calls George a "cracker," amirite?



No everything she said wasn't a lie. It is very complicated if you haven't kept up, but she massively lied on several occasions.

The person on the stand that testified may, or may not be, the real DeDe. The person that testified may be covering for someone. We will find out more once Crump has been deposed, which is to happen this Sunday night.

This explains the confusion of a 16 year old DeDe. It explains differences in testimony, and above all, it explains why DeDe in the Crump recording sounds nothing like DeDe in court. Her entire personality and affect are different.

Even the attorney asked her if she was ok, she seemed ao different.

From there, when the defense presents their case, Rachael will be called again.

The testimony given thus far I believe to be the truth, to the best of her ability, because she is saying basically what she was told to say. She had memorized every exact time, day, and date. Yet, when asked a question that went beyond the realm of the Crump recorded call, she was unable to answer.

The defense has obviously caught on to this, hence why they have been attempting to depose the slippery Crump.
We will only find out the real truth once that is done, and the defense moves forward.

Did you see Tracy burst into fits of laughter while Rachel was testifying? Did you hear all the coughing and choking every time she was asked sensitive questions, from the prosecution side of the court room? Only happened when she was on the stand. She was constantly looking at them for clues during testimony, and yes, people noticed, including the jury. Twitter is a wonderful thing.

Disclaimer: this is my opinion
edit on 4-7-2013 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 122  123  124    126  127  128 >>

log in

join