Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (1 Viewer)

[jon_mx]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

In his defense, after hearing this witness, how could anyone not wonder if this trial will be stopped soon?

The question become why the prosecution knowing the best witness in the case supports Zimmerman's claim, went ahead with this sham of a trail. The essence of this information was public knowledge long ago.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

And you have the gall to call me "close minded."

You mean narrow-minded. And you are. But what does that have to do with what I just wrote?

You refuse to acknowledge that this might just have been a tragic set of circumstances and that GZ might actually have felt his life was in danger despite the evidence. You are willing to believe a proven liar as a witness. You have formed your opinion and are going to stick to it regardless of the evidence to the contrary. That's pretty much the definition of narrow/close minded thought. I find the irony amusing.

What I find ironic is that you would bring this up in response to a post in which I just basically stated that the defense has won.

And as usual, you are wrong. I HAVE acknowledged, several times, that this might have been a tragic set of circumstances, and that Zimmerman may have felt his life was in danger. I have stated that as a possibility from the beginning of this thread. I don't THINK that's what happened, but I always acknowledged I could never prove it one way or another. Now I have acknowledged that I don't think the prosecution can either, thanks to this witness. The definition of a narrow-minded person is someone who refuses to accept facts that might alter his previously held perceptions. For you to accuse me of that in this instance only shows your own bias and doesn't reflect at all on me.

I think his point is that you assume the Defense has won, but you still think Zimmerman is guilty.. Even after hearing a few reputable witnesses.. And some that don't sound reputable..

 

[jamny]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

Some of them.

I believed, as late as this morning, that Rachel's testimony of "Get off me" would be found credible by the jury. I don't believe that after this witness.

What did John say that changed your mind about this?

 

[pittstownkiller]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

I think what we learn from this is that it's reasonable to believe GZ was in fear for his life. He was being pounded ground and pound style.

Devil's advocate here....what if what this guy saw was Martin's reaction to seeing the gun?

I'll stick to the facts that are known and avoid speculating, as I've done throughout this thread.[/quote]

See, you are narrow-minded.

 

[timschochet]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

I don't think the Judge can take John's testimony as "fact", the jury may sense bias in any witness.

 

[The Commish]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

In his defense, after hearing this witness, how could anyone not wonder if this trial will be stopped soon?

I think the murder two is all but gone, but I believe there is still more to hash out. If on the jury, I'd still want to hear the evidence around how they met up, because there's still a part of me that keeps thinking, if Zimmerman had done what he was asked and followed the rules of his neighborhood watch, this kid wouldn't be dead today. We lose sight of this fact easily in this case. Zimmerman took a person's life. He may not have meant to, or gotten out of his truck thinking he was going to, but he did.

 

[jon_mx]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

In his defense, after hearing this witness, how could anyone not wonder if this trial will be stopped soon?

Do you think someone has the right to shoot someone because they're getting beat up?

Under the laws of Florida, yes. If they were in some north-eastern state, no. Personally, I favor laws which give people more right to defend themselves. Normal people don't go around beating people up.

 

[timschochet]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

Some of them.

I believed, as late as this morning, that Rachel's testimony of "Get off me" would be found credible by the jury. I don't believe that after this witness.

What did John say that changed your mind about this?

If Martin was on top, he's not going to be saying "get off me".

 

[StrikeS2k]

Prosecutor trying to minimize the ground and pound statements:

Prosecutor: Is it possible it was an investigator that used the words ground and pound and not you?

Witness: No, I think it was me because it was in my initial statement as well.

Prosecutor: Uh.......Ok.

 

[The Commish]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

John was asked by State if he saw a gun, John said no.

That's great....what does that have to do with whether or not Martin had seen a gun?

I'm just stating what is in evidence, would you rather we discuss your hypothetical scenarios with no evidence supporting it?

Sorry...was following your lead...didn't mean to step on your shtick...carry on.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

In his defense, after hearing this witness, how could anyone not wonder if this trial will be stopped soon?

The question become why the prosecution knowing the best witness in the case supports Zimmerman's claim, went ahead with this sham of a trail. The essence of this information was public knowledge long ago.

Possibly they have something and will ask to treat him as hostile on re-direct (which essentially makes it cross-examination).

 

[kentric]

Wait- is this "John"? I thought he was going to be a defense witness?

That's what I thought as well - but the comments appear to help the defense (just said Martin was on top).

Did he? What exactly did he say to indicate that?

I admit to being pretty confused here. I've been told over and over in this thread that this was the defense's key witness in this trial. Why would the prosecution call him? And what exactly is he saying here?

Lighter skinned person wearing the lighter jacket was on the bottom. Darker skinned person wearing the darker clothes was on top straddling (MMA style) and punching down.

Martin must have been a pansy then....the "wounds" on Zimmerman's face (even with a broken nose) were weak. This is the 'worst' photo I've seen, though there may be others. Wasn't aware of the hyperbole around all his "injuries"

They showed a number of photos of Zimmermans head the first day - aside from the injuries to the front of the head, he had lumps on both sides of his head and the injuries on the back of his head (along with the blood running down the sides of his head from the back of the head).

Yeah, I saw the scratches and nicks on the back of his head as well, but folks here were suggesting Zimmerman's face had been "smashed in". From what I've seen, the injuries he sustained happen in the first minute of an MMA fight. Not suggesting they weren't a bad, but not nearly as bad as portrayed here.

I've seen people walk away from ### whippings without blood of any sort... I don't see how you can judge how bad he was losing by those pictures..

Again....it's not a comment on the actual injuries....it's a comment on the hyperbole in this thread about the injuries. I agree we can't judge how bad he was "losing" or if he was losing at all by injuries. But I also don't see how someone is "losing" just by being on the bottom either. I've seen many who stayed on their backs until the fight was broken up and they looked fine compared to the person on top of them. That's why I'm a bit skeptical of the "since he was on bottom he was fearful for his life" routine. However, it was mentioned above that Zimmerman's statement indicated that Martin saw the gun and said he was going to kill Zimmerman....that's plenty to be fearful for his life.

I think this is what it boils down to at this point. If he shot Martin because he was getting his ### kicked, I think that's manslaughter. If Martin was going for Z's gun, then that's self-defense.

Zimmerman is going to have to take the stand to make that clear to the jury, imo.

Not sure that is manslaughter if Z could still show he shot out of fear of his life. Need a lawyer familiar with FL law to opine.

 

[jon_mx]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.

We have learned substantially nothing new from this trial.

 

[jamny]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

Some of them.

I believed, as late as this morning, that Rachel's testimony of "Get off me" would be found credible by the jury. I don't believe that after this witness.

What did John say that changed your mind about this?

If Martin was on top, he's not going to be saying "get off me".

Yeah but that was the initial confrontation which could have been before anything John had heard.

 

[timschochet]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

In his defense, after hearing this witness, how could anyone not wonder if this trial will be stopped soon?

I think the murder two is all but gone, but I believe there is still more to hash out. If on the jury, I'd still want to hear the evidence around how they met up, because there's still a part of me that keeps thinking, if Zimmerman had done what he was asked and followed the rules of his neighborhood watch, this kid wouldn't be dead today. We lose sight of this fact easily in this case. Zimmerman took a person's life. He may not have meant to, or gotten out of his truck thinking he was going to, but he did.

Well, you just explained here why I basically believe that Zimmerman is guilty. I believe that, in all likelihood, it was Zimmerman who precipitated this attack. But how can this possibly be proven without reasonable doubt? I don't see it. (I hope somehow it can, though.)

 

[jon_mx]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

Some of them.

I believed, as late as this morning, that Rachel's testimony of "Get off me" would be found credible by the jury. I don't believe that after this witness.

What did John say that changed your mind about this?

If Martin was on top, he's not going to be saying "get off me".

Yeah but the was the initial confrontation which could have been before anything John had heard.

Or Didi was drunk. Either way, her testimony was not all that important. Even she admits she did not think she would be an important witness.

 

[timschochet]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

Some of them.

I believed, as late as this morning, that Rachel's testimony of "Get off me" would be found credible by the jury. I don't believe that after this witness.

What did John say that changed your mind about this?

If Martin was on top, he's not going to be saying "get off me".

Yeah but that was the initial confrontation which could have been before anything John had heard.

Possibly. But I don't believe it any longer.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

According to George, he twisted his body from the bottom position, his shirt lifted exposing his gun, Trayvon saw it, threatened to kill him, George felt Martin's hand crossing his body going for the gun, George unholstered and fired. Unfortunately there is no other witness closer to this than John but George.

Is there a way to get George's account without putting him on the stand like an admittance of his statement or something?

bump

This has been a question all thread long.. They can ask witnesses what they heard Zimmerman say I think.. I've heard this a few times already.. As I understand it, there will be officers who were on the scene witnessing for the defense, who talking to Zimmerman..

 

[Chaos Commish]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

According to George, he twisted his body from the bottom position, his shirt lifted exposing his gun, Trayvon saw it, threatened to kill him, George felt Martin's hand crossing his body going for the gun, George unholstered and fired. Unfortunately there is no other witness closer to this than John but George.

Is there a way to get George's account without putting him on the stand like an admittance of his statement or something?

bump

It's up to the state. If they decide to show the walk through and other taped Zimmerman statements, George will be heard, apparently contradicting himself with ever changing accounts and without taking the stand. Oth, should they just keep the statements to themselves, George will likely take the stand.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.

That's fine and good. However, every time somebody comes across well, you switch to their side seemingly or give the entire trial weighted on one witness. Yes, this witness is good for the defense (and really Murder 2 was always a big stretch) but now you're saying to throw out the whole trial when he isn't even off the stand yet. This is a trial, not a heavy weight fight where you stop it once you think it may be over. The jury decides and there still is a lot to be determined.

 

[jon_mx]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

In his defense, after hearing this witness, how could anyone not wonder if this trial will be stopped soon?

I think the murder two is all but gone, but I believe there is still more to hash out. If on the jury, I'd still want to hear the evidence around how they met up, because there's still a part of me that keeps thinking, if Zimmerman had done what he was asked and followed the rules of his neighborhood watch, this kid wouldn't be dead today. We lose sight of this fact easily in this case. Zimmerman took a person's life. He may not have meant to, or gotten out of his truck thinking he was going to, but he did.

My take is if Martin did not go off and feel the need to beat up Zimmerman, he would be alive today.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

Some of them.

I was skeptical of the authenticity of John as a witness. I was wrong about that.

I believed that Zimmerman would have to testify. I think I was wrong about that.

I believed, as late as this morning, that Rachel's testimony of "Get off me" would be found credible by the jury. I don't believe that after this witness.

I believed that the prosecution believed that they would have a reasonable chance to secure a conviction, otherwise they never would have charged him. That appears to be wrong. I rejected jon mx and others when they claimed this was only done for political reasons, and I HATE to believe that. But I can't fathom that they could know about this witness and not think it would be impossible to convict him.

However, if you're asking me whether I still think Zimmerman is guilty of a crime here, probably manslaughter- I do. But that's neither here nor there. Unless there's something I'm missing or some evidence that is still out there and unrevealed, it's impossible to prove.

I know you get a lot of flack here, from me notwithstanding, so I give you credit here. This never should have went to trial for Murder 2. If instead he was charged with Manslaughter then I would need to review the legal precedents etc...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

I guess it comes down to who you believe more.. Who sounds more reputable.. Who was in a better position to see what was going on..

 

[jamny]

My initial impression here is that John has provided reasonable doubt for the defense, and just secured an acquittal for George Zimmerman. I have no idea why the prosecution would call him to the stand.

I hope I'm wrong about this, as you guys know what I think about this story. But rationally I can't see how the prosecution can possibly convince the jury at this point.

Does it change your previous views on this case (prior to trial)?

Some of them.

I believed, as late as this morning, that Rachel's testimony of "Get off me" would be found credible by the jury. I don't believe that after this witness.

What did John say that changed your mind about this?

If Martin was on top, he's not going to be saying "get off me".

Yeah but that was the initial confrontation which could have been before anything John had heard.

Possibly. But I don't believe it any longer.

Hence "the most easily convinced" comment. That's all it took to change your mind.

 

[Joe McGee]

I'm done with CNN. They are saying that DiDi held her ground with the defense attorney. Do they not realize that he kept getting her to make an a** out of herself and destroy her credibility with that attitude? He played her like a fiddle. That disrespectful, lying racist nimrod sank the case.

Paula Deen's career is in shambles, but CNN says Rachel Jenteal was "authentic" with her racism. Please.

I can't wait to hear what the jury has to say about her after the trial is over.

 

[timschochet]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.

We have learned substantially nothing new from this trial.

You don't believe YOU have, because you accepted John as a reliable witness from day 1. I didn't. The fact that George Zimmerman was charged with murder caused me to believe that (1) either John was not a reliable witness or (2) that the prosecution had other evidence that would either contradict John or make his testimony less relevant. That was my supposition, and I considered it reasonable, and still do.

But I was wrong on both counts. And never in my wildest dreams did I think that the prosecution would call John themselves, and eviscerate their own case. I know that there have been some speculative reasons given here, but I still can't fathom it.

 

[Witz]

I stepped away for a second - just saw the prosecution ask John if he was lying with an earlier statement. What was that about?

 

[jon_mx]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.

That's fine and good. However, every time somebody comes across well, you switch to their side seemingly or give the entire trial weighted on one witness. Yes, this witness is good for the defense (and really Murder 2 was always a big stretch) but now you're saying to throw out the whole trial when he isn't even off the stand yet. This is a trial, not a heavy weight fight where you stop it once you think it may be over. The jury decides and there still is a lot to be determined.

This witness is the only one who really saw the confrontation. What on earth could possibly offset what he saw?

 

[Joe McGee]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

According to George, he twisted his body from the bottom position, his shirt lifted exposing his gun, Trayvon saw it, threatened to kill him, George felt Martin's hand crossing his body going for the gun, George unholstered and fired. Unfortunately there is no other witness closer to this than John but George.

Is there a way to get George's account without putting him on the stand like an admittance of his statement or something?

bump

No, that's hearsay.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

She testified it was dark and she could not see. I don't think she actually got a good view of the event until after the gun shot. But I did not see her entire testimony, so i am not aware if or when she heard a gun shot.

She heard 3 gunshots.. lol

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Prosecutor trying to minimize the ground and pound statements:

Prosecutor: Is it possible it was an investigator that used the words ground and pound and not you?

Witness: No, I think it was me because it was in my initial statement as well.

Prosecutor: Uh.......Ok.

Prosecutor actually going for impeachment or worse by trying to get witness to say he LIED

 

[avoiding injuries]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

I guess it comes down to who you believe more.. Who sounds more reputable.. Who was in a better position to see what was going on..

Wasn't it Rachel who said she heard GZ on top punching TM? Or did she read that in cursive?

 

[jon_mx]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.

We have learned substantially nothing new from this trial.

You don't believe YOU have, because you accepted John as a reliable witness from day 1. I didn't. The fact that George Zimmerman was charged with murder caused me to believe that (1) either John was not a reliable witness or (2) that the prosecution had other evidence that would either contradict John or make his testimony less relevant. That was my supposition, and I considered it reasonable, and still do.

But I was wrong on both counts. And never in my wildest dreams did I think that the prosecution would call John themselves, and eviscerate their own case. I know that there have been some speculative reasons given here, but I still can't fathom it.

I accepted ALL facts as credible and tried to piece together what happened based on all of the evidence. There simply were no facts you could piece together which supported the claim it was Martin screaming.

 

[jon_mx]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

She testified it was dark and she could not see. I don't think she actually got a good view of the event until after the gun shot. But I did not see her entire testimony, so i am not aware if or when she heard a gun shot.

She heard 3 gunshots.. lol

I thought that was someone else, not the hot hispanic chic from yesterday.

 

[avoiding injuries]

I stepped away for a second - just saw the prosecution ask John if he was lying with an earlier statement. What was that about?

"Ground and pound" wasn't in his initial statement. The exact term, that is.

 

[The Commish]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

According to George, he twisted his body from the bottom position, his shirt lifted exposing his gun, Trayvon saw it, threatened to kill him, George felt Martin's hand crossing his body going for the gun, George unholstered and fired. Unfortunately there is no other witness closer to this than John but George.

Is there a way to get George's account without putting him on the stand like an admittance of his statement or something?

bump

This has been a question all thread long.. They can ask witnesses what they heard Zimmerman say I think.. I've heard this a few times already.. As I understand it, there will be officers who were on the scene witnessing for the defense, who talking to Zimmerman..

Is that not considered hearsay?? Guess not?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.

You are emotional Tim; I do not believe you ever change your mind, you just keep reframing your argument until it is unrecognizable from your original perspective.

 

[jon_mx]

HLN is shocked....even they are backtracking on their Zimmerman is losing this thing.

 

[pittstownkiller]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

She testified it was dark and she could not see. I don't think she actually got a good view of the event until after the gun shot. But I did not see her entire testimony, so i am not aware if or when she heard a gun shot.

She heard 3 gunshots.. lol

I thought that was someone else, not the hot hispanic chic from yesterday.

Big-titted blonde?

 

[jamny]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

She testified it was dark and she could not see. I don't think she actually got a good view of the event until after the gun shot. But I did not see her entire testimony, so i am not aware if or when she heard a gun shot.

She heard 3 gunshots.. lol

I thought that was someone else, not the hot hispanic chic from yesterday.

I thought it was Jane, the lady that lost it to the 911 operator.

 

[timschochet]

IF Zimmerman testifies, there is still a way the defense could lose this case, (though it seems more doubtful now.) But I don't see that happening now.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So at this point, we've established that Martin was on top for a period of time. What does that mean? Do we know if Martin had the gun pulled on him by that time? Had he even seen the gun?

John was asked by State if he saw a gun, John said no.

That's great....what does that have to do with whether or not Martin had seen a gun?

I'm just stating what is in evidence, would you rather we discuss your hypothetical scenarios with no evidence supporting it?

Sorry...was following your lead...didn't mean to step on your shtick...carry on.

lol

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

I'm done with CNN. They are saying that DiDi held her ground with the defense attorney. Do they not realize that he kept getting her to make an a** out of herself and destroy her credibility with that attitude? He played her like a fiddle. That disrespectful, lying racist nimrod sank the case.

Paula Deen's career is in shambles, but CNN says Rachel Jenteal was "authentic" with her racism. Please.

I can't wait to hear what the jury has to say about her after the trial is over.

Don't confuse CNN with HLN. The fact that HLN stories are tightly integrated into the CNN homepage has really changed my tune about CNN to the point where I want to look for a more reputable news agency that I can go to when I want unbiased news. Now I'm not trying to argue that CNN on TV is unbiased, I haven't watch it since this trial began, I've only seen the atrocity of coverage late night on the HLN channel.

 

[jon_mx]

CNN reminding viewers that this is the ONLY witness that says TM was on top of GZ.

Sheesh

There was one yesterday saying Zimmerman was on top.

She testified it was dark and she could not see. I don't think she actually got a good view of the event until after the gun shot. But I did not see her entire testimony, so i am not aware if or when she heard a gun shot.

She heard 3 gunshots.. lol

I thought that was someone else, not the hot hispanic chic from yesterday.

Big-titted blonde?

 

[jon_mx]

IF Zimmerman testifies, there is still a way the defense could lose this case, (though it seems more doubtful now.) But I don't see that happening now.

Never give up TIm....

 

[timschochet]

HLN is shocked....even they are backtracking on their Zimmerman is losing this thing.

They don't understand why the prosecution would call this witness.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?

Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.

You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.

Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.

We have learned substantially nothing new from this trial.

You don't believe YOU have, because you accepted John as a reliable witness from day 1. I didn't. The fact that George Zimmerman was charged with murder caused me to believe that (1) either John was not a reliable witness or (2) that the prosecution had other evidence that would either contradict John or make his testimony less relevant. That was my supposition, and I considered it reasonable, and still do.

But I was wrong on both counts. And never in my wildest dreams did I think that the prosecution would call John themselves, and eviscerate their own case. I know that there have been some speculative reasons given here, but I still can't fathom it.

It's becoming apparent that they saw him as one of the strongest (if not the strongest) Defense witness and their intent was to impeach him (at the least).

 

[ATC1]

I stepped away for a second - just saw the prosecution ask John if he was lying with an earlier statement. What was that about?

John felt the need to make a statement following the intial statement to the police that night. Because he "felt the need to give another statement" the prosecution is trying to say he had a change of opinion and lied initially. John stated that he wanted to clarify, so words were not put into his mouth.

 

[timschochet]

IF Zimmerman testifies, there is still a way the defense could lose this case, (though it seems more doubtful now.) But I don't see that happening now.

Never give up TIm....