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: 174
25
<< 171  172  173    175  176  177 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by ButterCookie
My only guess is that the Defense wants the jury to heatr at least ONE person on the prosecution side to say that the screaming voice was not Trayvon...

it lends their side credibility....

Again, well done, Defense


But after two weeks of testimony, now he's saying it was TM's voice after initially saying it wasn't.




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Oh, so they screwed up the proper procedure of playing the audio it seems.

Zimmerman looks depressed as hell.
edit on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:22:44 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:20 PM
link   
reply to post by UnBreakable
 



Originally posted by UnBreakable
But after two weeks of testimony, now he's saying it was TM's voice after initially saying it wasn't.


No, the second time he heard the tape, he listened to it 20 times and then said that yes, it was Trayvon. That was March of 2012.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by UnBreakable
 



Originally posted by UnBreakable
But after two weeks of testimony, now he's saying it was TM's voice after initially saying it wasn't.


No, the second time he heard the tape, he listened to it 20 times and then said that yes, it was Trayvon. That was March of 2012.


I stand corrected then on the timeline. So then he initially said "No", it wasn't TM's voice, then said it was in March of 2012.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by UnBreakable
 


He testified that originally, he said he couldn't tell.

I'm thinking they asked him, "Can you identify that voice"? And he said "no".

Now, all this time later, the cops are saying that the question was instead, "Is that your son's voice"? And he said "no".

Something like that.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
State is looking weak as hell right now lol.....



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by UnBreakable
 


Which of the 4 people in the room would have been most likely to be going through extreme mental turmoil? I'll give you a clue - it's not Serino or Singleton and Brandy Green is the least likely of the remaining 2. He shouldn't be the one expected to ask for a second hearing in the moments immediately after hearing his son shot dead. Confirmation of what his answer to the question Serino asked was, should have been carried out before Tracy Martin left the room, however long he needed to compose himself. Especially with such an ambiguous response that obviously need clarifying.

edit on 8-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Well there is another blow to the state, motion denied to strike the testimony saying it was Zimmerman's voice.
edit on Mon, 08 Jul 2013 15:45:23 -0500 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Welcome: The Toxicology report....




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Nooo...the state cannot say that this is prejudicial evidence since Zimmerman did not know Trayvon's drug levels before the incident..

Zimmerman CLEARLY told the police "He looks like he is on DRUGS or something,"

GO DEFENSE



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:54 PM
link   
The state would then just bring in an expert to testify about HOW that drug affects a person. The most Trayvon would have done is laugh at George and ask him for something to eat.


Peace, man...



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
so are they talking about the toxicology report? right now? i came late into the stream of the trial and am not sure what is going on right now? i had thought the toxicology report was not allowed in



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
If the defence can mention Trayvon's drug use to argue about his state of mind, can the state then bring in George's drug use? Could this be a well cast hook and bait that the prosecution has thrown out for the defence to bite on?



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   
www.sacbee.com...
Kinda related lol. Big surprise eh?



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
If the defence can mention Trayvon's drug use to argue about his state of mind, can the state then bring in George's drug use? Could this be a well cast hook and bait that the prosecution has thrown out for the defence to bite on?


Doesn't matter one bit Zimmerman's 'drug use'...he could use every drug in the book all week;

THAT day he was not on any....Trayvon was.

Strike one



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:00 PM
link   
reply to post by ButterCookie
 


How do you know this? Are you his doctor? His psychiatrist, maybe? If you're the latter, the jury would be interested to hear your diagnosis.

ps. Not being on drugs he'd been prescribed for mood swings would be very relevant.

edit on 8-7-2013 by IvanAstikov because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Oh boy, another blow across the bow. The state is taking on a lot of water after today.



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by IvanAstikov
 


Do you have a drug test that says otherwise?



posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
The state is LOSING!!

Go DEFENSE


The toxicology expert will be allowed to testify on the effects of high drug use. Plus it is just yet ANOTHER piece of evidence that backs up Zimmerman's testimony that Martin was acting as if "he was on some drugs or something".




posted on Jul, 8 2013 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by RalagaNarHallas
 


That judgment was for the opening arguments only. The judge has ruled that Trayvon's toxicology report can be admitted. The Defense will have an expert to talk about the effects. The Prosecution will have the opportunity to bring a witness to rebut or whatever.

The jury is not in the room.

So much for the judge being biased for the state, eh?

edit on 7/8/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 171  172  173    175  176  177 >>

log in

join