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: 146
25
<< 143  144  145    147  148  149 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   
Does anyone think when jurors go home for the weekends that they sneak peeks at what happened in the courtroom when they aren’t there?

I imagine it would be tough to seclude yourself from this circus.




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrWendal

Don't shoot the messenger, I'm just reciting the testimony.

I wouldn't dream of it. I'd use my fists, as god intended.


Originally posted by MrWendal
I personally don't buy that line for a second.

I know you don't.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:32 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   
notice the media bias when the mothers testified...

When Sybrina testified, everyone was praising her and etc

When George's mother testified, not even a peep about how 'strong' she is for getting up on the stand to testify in a case where her son is being accused of murder and is facing life in prison pretty much...



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
By the way, seriously... the acquittal should have been granted... If that's ALL the prosecution had then at least throw out the 2nd degree and go for manslaughter, but to not throw out 2nd degree at all? The state absolutely failed in proving malice or depraved mind.

This is such a farce trial...



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


One of those mothers is either lying through their teeth or is mistaken. I'll be kind and sympathetic to Mrs Zimmerman by saying it's the latter. As for the uncle who can't lie because he's a cop, he lied right there.

Originally posted by AlexG141989
By the way, seriously... the acquittal should have been granted... If that's ALL the prosecution had then at least throw out the 2nd degree and go for manslaughter, but to not throw out 2nd degree at all? The state absolutely failed in proving malice or depraved mind.

This is such a farce trial...

That's just your opinion, like. It's not just a "Which mom is telling the truth?" contest, there is factual evidence proving that George's dna wasn't where it should be if he'd been telling the truth. And other things like his unnaccounted for time after the ending of the nen call, and a recounting of the tale that would have had the fight over before the first 911 call came in.
edit on 5-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
notice the media bias when the mothers testified...

When Sybrina testified, everyone was praising her and etc

When George's mother testified, not even a peep about how 'strong' she is for getting up on the stand to testify in a case where her son is being accused of murder and is facing life in prison pretty much...


Racial double standard... sad but true.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I haven't posted much on this thread, all of which was technicalities, as will be this... This all boils down to resonable doubt. If there is any at all, then there can be no conviction. The fact of the matter is that there is a plethora of doubt. No one can deny this. So no matter what ones side of the story the purport as the truth, there is never the less, reasonable doubt. That should be something that everyone should agree on.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Please Disregard, wrong forum.
edit on 5-7-2013 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I'm playing a bit of catch up from mid-day trial coverage, and want to start with Trayvon's mother's testimony.

For anyone else, here it is:




posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by BellaSabre
 



Originally posted by BellaSabre
Maybe during the recess somebody will give him a crash course in courtroom procedure.


I'm pretty sure that's not allowed. I could be wrong, but I don't think he's permitted to discuss it, either.



....People cant remember things from two years ago? Wow. Obvious language issue, you know he didn't mean that.


Ok. Let's see. He is an ME, so he does autopsies as a regular part of his work every day. You eat every day, right? Please give me an account of everything you ate and did on July 5, 2011. Can't remember? OK, tell me ANYTHING that happened in your life on July 5, 2011.


edit on 7/5/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)


Of course not. I was thinking about "when there is an objection, you have to be silent until the Judge makes a ruling on whether you can answer the question", and "pay attention to the ruling so the Judge doesn't have to tell you the same thing repeatedly." "If you bring notes into the courtroom, the attorneys have a right to copy them". Most things people learn in college when they are going into a profession that could require court appearances.

You know -- as I said, Basic Courtroom Procedure.

This physician testified that people cannot remember things that happened two years ago. I can remember details on cases I had ten years ago. He's off mark with this. What I had for lunch two years ago? That's a rather poor parallel as stated, unless you tell me what you are specifically looking for. The day my friends took me to such and such restaurant, and it was my birthday? Yeah, I might be able to remember what I had. Most people could.

Small details are typically cast aside once they leave the short-term memory, but in important issues, they usually remain as long as they are needed. The information is retained, otherwise we wouldn't be able to function as well as we do, having not learned anything.

Anyway, this is all tangential to my point. He said outright that people cannot remember things that happened two years ago, which is obviously a misstatement, or he has memory deficits which will cause him to lose his profession before long, I suspect. Maybe he does have memory problems. Perhap's it's the reason he has forgotten basic courtroom procedure, and had such a hard time with his testimony. However, even if he can't remember things that happened two years ago, as a physician, he should know that other people can.




edit on 7/5/2013 by BellaSabre because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by NotAnAspie
 


There was no time. Unless you mean he should have wandered around the whole area with his gun drawn like a cop in a movie. Otherwise he had no time to pull it. He was ambushed, had he had his gun drawn it probably wouldn't have stopped it and he may very well be dead.

Your points are way off the mark.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:38 PM
link   
How long does it take to walk from 7-11 to TM pops house.

What time was TM shot. How many minutes variance between when TM was shot and when he was supposed to be home. Subtract how many minutes to walk from TM pops house to where he was shot.

Tell you pretty much what TM was doing. I would do the homework myself but I don't care all that much about it.
edit on 5-7-2013 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)


Ps plus I know one of you guys could do it just by the pictures we have of what happened. It's like it's own little court room in here. Too bad a lot of us don't really care there are some good minds on here.
edit on 5-7-2013 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)


If TM ambushed the time from when he left 7-11 would be off from when he was supposed to be at the T walking home.
edit on 5-7-2013 by marbles87 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotAnAspie
Had Martin been the initial threat, the fact that Zimmerman had a gun means if he had used it correctly for self defensive.... NO CONTACT WOULD HAVE EVER TAKEN PLACE.


No way, that is soooo wrong. First Martin was the initial threat, but aside from that YOU DON't PULL YOUR GUN UNLESS YOU INTEND TO USE IT. You don't pull your gun to keep someone at a distance, cops might, but citizens aren't cops. Zimmerman absolutely correctly used his gun for defense.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WonderBoi
 


He put his house 70 yards behind him. He was likely much closer to his house before he waited and wandered and then eventually approached, confronted, and assaulted Zimmerman.

Zimmerman could have had the flashlight.. you know.. to see.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexG141989
By the way, seriously... the acquittal should have been granted... If that's ALL the prosecution had then at least throw out the 2nd degree and go for manslaughter, but to not throw out 2nd degree at all? The state absolutely failed in proving malice or depraved mind.

This is such a farce trial...


I totally agree with you. He should have been acquitted. However, the jury will not convict him on either charge because at the end of the day only two questions need to be answered.

1. Was Zimmerman attacked and having to defend himself.

2. Could any reasonable person believe that his life was in danger.

And the jury will answer those questions. It cannot be murder for obvious reasons such as the state failing to prove beyond any reasonable doubt. And it cannot be manslaughter because Zimmerman would have had to have the elements of that charge such as malace, hatred, etc. and he was clearly the one with the wounds and on the bottom screaming help me! help me!.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Lol.. but you KNOW it's Trayvon's mom that is lying. You sincerely think Martin approached Zimmerman started beating him up and was screaming for help while beating the guy up and not receiving any damage himself?

You think that Martin's dad was mistaken when he said no that's not my son?

And finally, between the two voices you really think it sounds more like Trayvon? That's a total laugh, it is undoubtedly Zimmerman. I think people are actually afraid to call it like they see it because of the tension this case has brought.



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Lol.. but you KNOW it's Trayvon's mom that is lying. You sincerely think Martin approached Zimmerman started beating him up and was screaming for help while beating the guy up and not receiving any damage himself?

You think that Martin's dad was mistaken when he said no that's not my son?

And finally, between the two voices you really think it sounds more like Trayvon? That's a total laugh, it is undoubtedly Zimmerman. I think people are actually afraid to call it like they see it because of the tension this case has brought.


I agree.

Why would Trayvon be screaming and yelling for help if he is the one on top and beating the other guy up?



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:25 PM
link   
I am watching the coverage from the Medical Examiner from this morning...

The Medical Examiner states that NO ONE knows more about Trayvon's autopsy more than he does, then the Defense slams dunk by saying "Except that you don't know ANYTHING about it, remember?" Then the Medical Examiner says, "Yes."

LOL



posted on Jul, 5 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


Oh man! lol. Poor guy. He was in way over his head. Either incompetent, or communications skills not sophisticated enough to handle courtroom banter. You would think who ever interviewed him for a possible witness would have picked up on it.

Never put anyone on the stand if you don't know what they are going to say!




top topics



 
25
<< 143  144  145    147  148  149 >>

log in

join