Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[Witz]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination. I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it. Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

Unless I'm missing something, who are the 'some' that you are talking about who are talking about him not taking the stand? Going back I see that Pittstown asked a question on testifying with regards to your comments but that's about it. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing (it's possible), but your comments make it seem like 3 or 4 people just started posting that he didn't need to take the stand.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination. I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it. Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

 

[timschochet]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination. I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it. Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

Unless I'm missing something, who are the 'some' that you are talking about who are talking about him not taking the stand? Going back I see that Pittstown asked a question on testifying with regards to your comments but that's about it. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing (it's possible), but your comments make it seem like 3 or 4 people just started posting that he didn't need to take the stand.

Pittstown, jon_mx, Carolina Hustler all asked if the testimony by police would be enough to get Zimmerman's statement of self-defense admtted into evidence.

 

[Zow]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Doesn't sound like much has changed since I last checked in? Zimmerman's still a cross between Batman and Bronson whose statements won't match each other or the physical evidence when we get to court?

Sure sounds like he's just not a very good liar -- he didn't fool the lead investigator on the night of the murder, and he didn't fool the judge in the case. Probably won't be able to fool a jury either.

It would be in his best interest to let his attorney lead him, and only answer the questions he is asked.. His embellishments, if any, could even make a truth look like a lie...My cousin does it to himself all the time.. He actually lies so much you can't believe anything he says.. But when he's telling the truth, he over does it.. He gets all dignified "I'm telling the truth!!" Pretty much the joke of the family..

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination.

I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it.

Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

Unless I'm missing something, who are the 'some' that you are talking about who are talking about him not taking the stand? Going back I see that Pittstown asked a question on testifying with regards to your comments but that's about it. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing (it's possible), but your comments make it seem like 3 or 4 people just started posting that he didn't need to take the stand.

Pittstown, jon_mx, Carolina Hustler all asked if the testimony by police would be enough to get Zimmerman's statement of self-defense admtted into evidence.

Yea, it couldn't just be a willingness to discuss a previously posed question.. Or inquiring about how the system works technically.."Everybody's trying to free there hero!!" Your schtick is tiresome and irritating, but I fear thats your aim..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

 

[Witz]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination. I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it. Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

Unless I'm missing something, who are the 'some' that you are talking about who are talking about him not taking the stand? Going back I see that Pittstown asked a question on testifying with regards to your comments but that's about it. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing (it's possible), but your comments make it seem like 3 or 4 people just started posting that he didn't need to take the stand.

Pittstown, jon_mx, Carolina Hustler all asked if the testimony by police would be enough to get Zimmerman's statement of self-defense admtted into evidence.

That wasn't what I had asked though - you made the statement that pro-Zimmerman folks were looking for ways to avoid taking the stand - where did anyone make any statements about him not taking the stand (or were you trying to infer that by the discussion)?

 

[timschochet]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination. I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it. Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

Unless I'm missing something, who are the 'some' that you are talking about who are talking about him not taking the stand? Going back I see that Pittstown asked a question on testifying with regards to your comments but that's about it. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing (it's possible), but your comments make it seem like 3 or 4 people just started posting that he didn't need to take the stand.

Pittstown, jon_mx, Carolina Hustler all asked if the testimony by police would be enough to get Zimmerman's statement of self-defense admtted into evidence.

That wasn't what I had asked though - you made the statement that pro-Zimmerman folks were looking for ways to avoid taking the stand - where did anyone make any statements about him not taking the stand (or were you trying to infer that by the discussion)?

Yes, that was my inference. I wrote that they were starting to look for ways. I think that's accurate, but you're quite free to disagree.

 

[Charlie Frown]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination.

I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it.

Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

Unless I'm missing something, who are the 'some' that you are talking about who are talking about him not taking the stand? Going back I see that Pittstown asked a question on testifying with regards to your comments but that's about it. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing (it's possible), but your comments make it seem like 3 or 4 people just started posting that he didn't need to take the stand.

Pittstown, jon_mx, Carolina Hustler all asked if the testimony by police would be enough to get Zimmerman's statement of self-defense admtted into evidence.

That wasn't what I had asked though - you made the statement that pro-Zimmerman folks were looking for ways to avoid taking the stand - where did anyone make any statements about him not taking the stand (or were you trying to infer that by the discussion)?

Yes, that was my inference. I wrote that they were starting to look for ways. I think that's accurate, but you're quite free to disagree.

You're wrong as far as I'm concerned..Someone asked a good question. We've all assumed that Zimmerman would have to take the stand based on Christo's posting.. That was a question for Christo about one of the possible scenarios that could play out in court. A scenario that maybe Christo hadn't considered.. For me it was based purely on curiosity..

Discussing the plausibility of the tact the defense, or prosecution will take seems a worth while discussion to me. Inferring that someone has a motive in this discussion and then not entering the discussion, just comes off as antagonistic..

 

[Chaos Commish]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

 

[TexanFan02]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

 

[Zow]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I don't know why these "or's" are necessary as they are inclusive to my answer.

 

[Christo]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

 

[Zow]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..

Hypothetical:

Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

The "swearing" part of the charging document is the officer's affirmation to the court that he believes the allegations are more likely than not to be true. It doesn't mean that it is 100% or that the officer is committing perjury if he happens to be wrong.

 

[Zow]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination.

I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it.

Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

Unless I'm missing something, who are the 'some' that you are talking about who are talking about him not taking the stand? Going back I see that Pittstown asked a question on testifying with regards to your comments but that's about it. Maybe I'm not seeing what you're seeing (it's possible), but your comments make it seem like 3 or 4 people just started posting that he didn't need to take the stand.

Pittstown, jon_mx, Carolina Hustler all asked if the testimony by police would be enough to get Zimmerman's statement of self-defense admtted into evidence.

That wasn't what I had asked though - you made the statement that pro-Zimmerman folks were looking for ways to avoid taking the stand - where did anyone make any statements about him not taking the stand (or were you trying to infer that by the discussion)?

Yes, that was my inference. I wrote that they were starting to look for ways. I think that's accurate, but you're quite free to disagree.

You're wrong as far as I'm concerned..Someone asked a good question. We've all assumed that Zimmerman would have to take the stand based on Christo's posting.. That was a question for Christo about one of the possible scenarios that could play out in court. A scenario that maybe Christo hadn't considered.. For me it was based purely on curiosity..

Discussing the plausibility of the tact the defense, or prosecution will take seems a worth while discussion to me. Inferring that someone has a motive in this discussion and then not entering the discussion, just comes off as antagonistic..

HTHAlso, those of you suggesting that the defense and or state could elicit from the officers what Zimmerman told officers regarding how he felt threatened and that Martin attacked him are likely out of luck. While it's common for a defense atty to elicit from officers the positive things his client said (Ive done this plenty) technically such evidence is inadmissible hearsay and a sharp prosecutor would motion the court before trial to prevent the defense from doing this (unless it's for impeachment). The only reason the defendants "confessions" are admissible at trial is because there's an exception to the hearsay rule that allows "statements against interest" under the theory that a person wouldn't lie to hurt themselves and therefore the trier of fact could reasonably find the statements reliable. Here, since zimmermans statements regarding being threatened are in his interest, there are hearsay if repeated in court by police.

Zimmerman likely has to testify about what he told the police if the defense wants those statements heard

 

[TexanFan02]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

Can't refute the facts again?

 

[Zow]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

Can't refute the facts again?

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?You gotta realize your unwavering bias is shown to be in line with Carolina Hustler's with statements like this. No detective is "ambushed" by a discussion of a case he investigated. And if he is, the state isn't doing their job and the defendant going free is an unfortunate but necessary result of deterring the state from so poorly investigating a case which may ruin one or many people's lives.

 

[TexanFan02]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

Can't refute the facts again?

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

 

[Christo]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

Can't refute the facts again?

Facts?

 

[TexanFan02]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

Can't refute the facts again?

Facts?

Yes, facts. Which part do you dispute? Oh, that's right, you can't.

 

[Zow]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

Can't refute the facts again?

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. You don't understand my point that I was using an example of an officer's testimony not going the prosecution's way at trial. Oftentimes that is by the officer giving an inconsistent statement. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

 

[Christo]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

Can't refute the facts again?

Facts?

Yes, facts. Which part do you dispute? Oh, that's right, you can't.

 

[Gachi]

Didn't the 911 operator tell him to mind his own damn business?

THAT right there is all the reason to throw his ### in prison. I don't understand why people have this "savior" complex. The religious nuts are the worse.

 

[TexanFan02]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

 

[Zow]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

You're right, what do I know, I only do this for a living. Look, I agree with the sentiment that the officer's denial of knowledge at the bond hearing isn't a big deal. It's not. What stood out from your post was how you essentially villainized the defense for eliciting information relevant to the bond hearing from an officer and blindly excusing the officer from having any knowledge about the issue. If an investigating officer has done his job, he should be able to testify about major points at any moment.

 

[Zow]

Didn't the 911 operator tell him to mind his own damn business? THAT right there is all the reason to throw his ### in prison. I don't understand why people have this "savior" complex. The religious nuts are the worse.

The guy is an overzealous moron who probably has a God complex. But that's not a reason to throw somebody in prison or at least for the length that his charges permit if the person was justified in defending himself under the law.

 

[TexanFan02]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

You're right, what do I know, I only do this for a living. Look, I agree with the sentiment that the officer's denial of knowledge at the bond hearing isn't a big deal. It's not. What stood out from your post was how you essentially villainized the defense for eliciting information relevant to the bond hearing from an officer and blindly excusing the officer from having any knowledge about the issue. If an investigating officer has done his job, he should be able to testify about major points at any moment.

No I didn't. It was a good tactic on their part, but obviously one that is rarely if ever used, that's why the detective was unprepared. That's why his answers were so cagey as well, he was very careful. Watch it again, you're a PD, you can tell.

 

[Christo]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

You're right, what do I know, I only do this for a living. Look, I agree with the sentiment that the officer's denial of knowledge at the bond hearing isn't a big deal. It's not. What stood out from your post was how you essentially villainized the defense for eliciting information relevant to the bond hearing from an officer and blindly excusing the officer from having any knowledge about the issue. If an investigating officer has done his job, he should be able to testify about major points at any moment.

But he was ambushed!

 

[Zow]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

You're right, what do I know, I only do this for a living. Look, I agree with the sentiment that the officer's denial of knowledge at the bond hearing isn't a big deal. It's not. What stood out from your post was how you essentially villainized the defense for eliciting information relevant to the bond hearing from an officer and blindly excusing the officer from having any knowledge about the issue. If an investigating officer has done his job, he should be able to testify about major points at any moment.

No I didn't. It was a good tactic on their part, but obviously one that is rarely if ever used, that's why the detective was unprepared. That's why his answers were so cagey as well, he was very careful. Watch it again, you're a PD, you can tell.

1. You essentially accused the defense of ambushing the officer. Ambush carries a negative connotation. 2. The merits of the charge are almost always touched on during a hearing for a motion to release. And it appears the defense wasn't asking for specific details. The officer doesn't get a pass here as you suggest.

3. Anyone testifying under oath can appear cagey because of the accusatory nature of cross-examination. Heck, I've testified in court before and probable came off as cagey as some points despite being completely confident on my knowledge of what I was testifying to.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I said this waaay back in this thread...i believe that right after the fight started zimm grabbed his gun and treyvon was fighting for his life .I dont think he was trying to get the gun so he could shoot zimm, i think he was just trying to not get shot, hence the prolonged yelling before he was killed.

 

[Witz]

Didn't the 911 operator tell him to mind his own damn business? THAT right there is all the reason to throw his ### in prison. I don't understand why people have this "savior" complex. The religious nuts are the worse.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I said this waaay back in this thread...i believe that right after the fight started zimm grabbed his gun and treyvon was fighting for his life .I dont think he was trying to get the gun so he could shoot zimm, i think he was just trying to not get shot, hence the prolonged yelling before he was killed.

Certainly a possibility.. I guess my question would be how this scenario enters the court? Does the prosecution paint this picture by asking the defendant a serious of questions that he'll more than likely deny? And hope the jury understands the picture they're trying to portray? At this point, if that was the way this went down, who is there who can witness in court? Doesn't sound like any of our current witnesses have described this scenario..

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

Otherwise known as the lead detective who authored the report. Good God, if he was unprepared, who the #### is? How long has this case been going on now? It was a friggin two-page report, the idiot should have been able to recite the thing forward and backwards.

 

[Witz]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

Why couldn't the detective have just said he can't answer that at this time? Why did he have to give an answer at all ( especially one that could possibly hurt the prosecution)?

 

[jonessed]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I said this waaay back in this thread...i believe that right after the fight started zimm grabbed his gun and treyvon was fighting for his life .I dont think he was trying to get the gun so he could shoot zimm, i think he was just trying to not get shot, hence the prolonged yelling before he was killed.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I said this waaay back in this thread...i believe that right after the fight started zimm grabbed his gun and treyvon was fighting for his life .I dont think he was trying to get the gun so he could shoot zimm, i think he was just trying to not get shot, hence the prolonged yelling before he was killed.

Yes, because the typical tactic when someone has a gun is to pound their face into the ground. #### the gun, I want to break the SOB's nose.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..

Hypothetical:

Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I have always felt that this is how it is going to play out barring any evidence we haven't heard about.

The prosecution testified under oath that they have no proof George started the confrontation. However, the charging affidavit, also a sworn statement subject to perjury, clearly states that George confronted Trayvon.

Actually, one detective who was unprepared and ambushed at a bond hearing testified that he didn't know of any proof. That doesn't mean that's all there is.

This gets you perjury immunity?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Nobody. You don't understand my point that I was using an example of an officer's testimony not going the prosecution's way at trial. Oftentimes that is by the officer giving an inconsistent statement. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

I've had enough of this.. I have been arguing an opposing perspective.. You're posts assume the oppositions contention which isn't the case..Texanfan has easily been one of the worst and most bias posters in this thread.. There is no discussion in his posts.. Pure allegation and emotion based claims.. Not even in the same ball park..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

Facts are facts.. Whether he knows them or not is the question.. Should he have given an answer if he didn't know the facts? Do the facts change based on him knowing he would have been questioned or not? Does preparation change a yes to a no, or visa-verse on a question of "facts"?

 

[pantherclub]

Nobody. You don't understand my point that I was using an example of an officer's testimony not going the prosecution's way at trial. Oftentimes that is by the officer giving an inconsistent statement. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

I've had enough of this.. I have been arguing an opposing perspective.. You're posts assume the oppositions contention which isn't the case..Texanfan has easily been one of the worst and most bias posters in this thread.. There is no discussion in his posts.. Pure allegation and emotion based claims.. Not even in the same ball park..

 

[TexanFan02]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

You're right, what do I know, I only do this for a living. Look, I agree with the sentiment that the officer's denial of knowledge at the bond hearing isn't a big deal. It's not. What stood out from your post was how you essentially villainized the defense for eliciting information relevant to the bond hearing from an officer and blindly excusing the officer from having any knowledge about the issue. If an investigating officer has done his job, he should be able to testify about major points at any moment.

No I didn't. It was a good tactic on their part, but obviously one that is rarely if ever used, that's why the detective was unprepared. That's why his answers were so cagey as well, he was very careful. Watch it again, you're a PD, you can tell.

1. You essentially accused the defense of ambushing the officer. Ambush carries a negative connotation. 2. The merits of the charge are almost always touched on during a hearing for a motion to release. And it appears the defense wasn't asking for specific details. The officer doesn't get a pass here as you suggest.

3. Anyone testifying under oath can appear cagey because of the accusatory nature of cross-examination. Heck, I've testified in court before and probable came off as cagey as some points despite being completely confident on my knowledge of what I was testifying to.

Do you regularly cross examine Detectives during bond hearings? Yes or no.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

You're right, what do I know, I only do this for a living. Look, I agree with the sentiment that the officer's denial of knowledge at the bond hearing isn't a big deal. It's not. What stood out from your post was how you essentially villainized the defense for eliciting information relevant to the bond hearing from an officer and blindly excusing the officer from having any knowledge about the issue. If an investigating officer has done his job, he should be able to testify about major points at any moment.

No I didn't. It was a good tactic on their part, but obviously one that is rarely if ever used, that's why the detective was unprepared. That's why his answers were so cagey as well, he was very careful. Watch it again, you're a PD, you can tell.

1. You essentially accused the defense of ambushing the officer. Ambush carries a negative connotation. 2. The merits of the charge are almost always touched on during a hearing for a motion to release. And it appears the defense wasn't asking for specific details. The officer doesn't get a pass here as you suggest.

3. Anyone testifying under oath can appear cagey because of the accusatory nature of cross-examination. Heck, I've testified in court before and probable came off as cagey as some points despite being completely confident on my knowledge of what I was testifying to.

Do you regularly cross examine Detectives during bond hearings? Yes or no.

Should he have known what was in his report? Does his knowledge of the report change based on which hearing he's at?

 

[Christo]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

You're right, what do I know, I only do this for a living. Look, I agree with the sentiment that the officer's denial of knowledge at the bond hearing isn't a big deal. It's not. What stood out from your post was how you essentially villainized the defense for eliciting information relevant to the bond hearing from an officer and blindly excusing the officer from having any knowledge about the issue. If an investigating officer has done his job, he should be able to testify about major points at any moment.

No I didn't. It was a good tactic on their part, but obviously one that is rarely if ever used, that's why the detective was unprepared. That's why his answers were so cagey as well, he was very careful. Watch it again, you're a PD, you can tell.

1. You essentially accused the defense of ambushing the officer. Ambush carries a negative connotation. 2. The merits of the charge are almost always touched on during a hearing for a motion to release. And it appears the defense wasn't asking for specific details. The officer doesn't get a pass here as you suggest.

3. Anyone testifying under oath can appear cagey because of the accusatory nature of cross-examination. Heck, I've testified in court before and probable came off as cagey as some points despite being completely confident on my knowledge of what I was testifying to.

Do you regularly cross examine Detectives during bond hearings? Yes or no.

Does he regularly defend one of the most famous accused murderers in the country?There's nothing regular or normal about this case, you ninny.

 

[pittstownkiller]

It's kind of amusing that some of the "pro-Zimmerman" crowd are starting to look for ways to avoid their hero having to take the stand. They're beginning to realize the incredible risks this guy will take if he has to face cross-examination. I asked about this much earlier in the thread, because it's so unusual in these high profile cases that the accused ever takes the stand. But I was informed by Christo and others that Zimmerman HAS to testify if he wants to claim self-defense. There's no way around it. Sorry about that, Zimmerman fans.

Tim, don't be so silly; I asked the question and I am certainly not a Zimmerman fan. You usually bring at least a level of wishy-washyness to your posts that could plausibly pass for impartiality. You were the one stating the if Zimmerman seemed to be liar by the jury he would be found guilty, I was just asking why he has to testify.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I said this waaay back in this thread...i believe that right after the fight started zimm grabbed his gun and treyvon was fighting for his life .I dont think he was trying to get the gun so he could shoot zimm, i think he was just trying to not get shot, hence the prolonged yelling before he was killed.

Certainly a possibility.. I guess my question would be how this scenario enters the court? Does the prosecution paint this picture by asking the defendant a serious of questions that he'll more than likely deny? And hope the jury understands the picture they're trying to portray? At this point, if that was the way this went down, who is there who can witness in court? Doesn't sound like any of our current witnesses have described this scenario..

I dont think there is anyway to prove this as its only my theory. None of the witnesses would know if there was a gun until they heard a shot, at least nobody mentioned seeing one during the struggle. It was dark and trey and zimm were in close quarters fighting.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Tim, if the jury is convinced that zimmerman is lying about Martin beating him then of course they should convinct of at least manslaughter.

Or if Zimmerman's stories are chock full of obvious lies that don't match each other or the physical evidence.Or if the jury determines that by following Martin (twice?) Zimmerman actually initiated the confrontation, and Martin was reasonably defending himself.

I think it's been established in this thread (for what that's worth..) that Zimmerman could have initiated the fight, and Martin could have been defending himself, but at some point Zimmerman could still have the right to defend himself..Hypothetical:Zimmerman starts it with trying to detain or whatever.. Then Martin starts beating his @55.. Zimmerman getting wailed on gets scared because he's trapped under Tray, can't get away, calls for help, no help.. etc.. :gunshot:

I said this waaay back in this thread...i believe that right after the fight started zimm grabbed his gun and treyvon was fighting for his life .I dont think he was trying to get the gun so he could shoot zimm, i think he was just trying to not get shot, hence the prolonged yelling before he was killed.

Yes, because the typical tactic when someone has a gun is to pound their face into the ground. #### the gun, I want to break the SOB's nose.

Who said f the gun? i said i dont think if he was trying to take the gun away so he could shoot zimmerman, just trying to not get shot. Hes a 17 yo kid, i highly doubt hes ever been in that situation before. Im 48 and ive never had a gun pulled on me during a fight. If i did im trying to push the gun away and hitting with my free hand, or something, who knows.What i do know is id be ####ting bricks . You cant run because you cant out run a bullet, so you`re stuck in the moment to do whatever you insticts and oppertunity presents to you. Its as plausable as anything else in this thread thats been said.Remember the yelling went on for awhile, ive been in many many fights and seen as many first hand i ive nvere heard someone scream like like...ever.

 

[greenroom]

Will the detectives be unprepared and ambushed when they give inconsistent statements or testify to something in favor of Zimmerman at the trial?

Who gave an inconsistent statement? And no, they'll be prepared. You know this.

Nobody. But the way you qualified his testimony shows your blind bias. You sound like Carolina Hustler.

Do detectives normally get grilled at bond hearings? Seeing as how he said "I didn't expect to be testifying today" I'm going to guess not in Florida. But characterize it however you want.

You're right, what do I know, I only do this for a living. Look, I agree with the sentiment that the officer's denial of knowledge at the bond hearing isn't a big deal. It's not. What stood out from your post was how you essentially villainized the defense for eliciting information relevant to the bond hearing from an officer and blindly excusing the officer from having any knowledge about the issue. If an investigating officer has done his job, he should be able to testify about major points at any moment.

No I didn't. It was a good tactic on their part, but obviously one that is rarely if ever used, that's why the detective was unprepared. That's why his answers were so cagey as well, he was very careful. Watch it again, you're a PD, you can tell.

1. You essentially accused the defense of ambushing the officer. Ambush carries a negative connotation. 2. The merits of the charge are almost always touched on during a hearing for a motion to release. And it appears the defense wasn't asking for specific details. The officer doesn't get a pass here as you suggest.

3. Anyone testifying under oath can appear cagey because of the accusatory nature of cross-examination. Heck, I've testified in court before and probable came off as cagey as some points despite being completely confident on my knowledge of what I was testifying to.

Do you regularly cross examine Detectives during bond hearings? Yes or no.

Does he regularly defend one of the most famous accused murderers in the country?There's nothing regular or normal about this case, you ninny.

So YES or NO? Its not that hard of a question to answer? I just want to know, because I dont know.