George Zimmerman "testified" in his Second Degree Murder trial today. He won't have to again.

[cherokeeprogressive]

We heard the first interview after it happened, conducted by Ms. Singleton.

We heard and saw the videotaped walk-through the following day.

We heard Serino interview Zimmerman. We heard Serino say he thought Zimmerman was truthful.

Zimmerman's story didn't deviate in any way that might raise a red flag with the investigators. They testified as much.

What defense lawyer in his right mind would put Zimmerman on the stand after THAT?

ETA: I listened to the trial on XM CNN today, as I drive for a living. Now, I could be in the same situation as those who listened to Nixon debate Kennedy... Those who listened on the radio thought Nixon won the debate, those who watched on TV and saw Nixon sweat and saw his eyes going back and forth thought Kennedy won.

I didn't HEAR anything that would lead me to believe Zimmerman was being deceptive. Granted, my driving is interrupted by my need to maneuver my truck, and my attention may have been diverted at times, but that's what I heard when I was listening.

[dkf]

1. They overcharged. Stupid.

Should have gone with manslaughter.

[cherokeeprogressive]

2. I totally agree. The MOMENT he pulled the trigger it was manslaughter.

The MOMENT they charged him with Second Degree Murder they almost guaranteed he'd beat the charge.

[pipoman]

3. Public pressure, not facts of the case drove this prosecution..

[Skittles]

96. PUBLIC PRESSURE FOR JUSTICE

[pipoman]

100. RIGHT

or perceived justice based on what we were being told. The public was demanding "justice" based on speculation and news reports, the prosecutor had the facts (reality) of the case...all of them..and was having difficulty finding a criminal case based on the evidence...SYG or no SYG...this is now apparent in the accounts I have read about the case the prosecution presented..

[Skittles]

101. no

the public was demanding justice based on the fact a teenaged boy was walking on a public street near the residence he was staying, MINDING HIS OWN BUSINESS, when he was shot dead by a gun-humping vigilante wannabe

[pipoman]

106. Rants work on the DU..

they have no bearing on a criminal trial..the facts of the case do, and so far it seems they are lacking..not saying that's a good thing or that a guilty person may not go free, but if the guilty person goes free it is because of laws designed to protect the innocent from conviction based on emotional responses vs analytical truth..I believe it better for a few guilty to go free than more innocents convicted...thus the scales of justice..

[Scootaloo]

108. I often wonder...

How many "reasonable, objective, uninvolved" DU'ers swearing to the harship of Zimmerman and his clearly justified and defensible actions, who chide us that he's going to get off and we're all so silly for thinking and reasoning otherwise...

...Swear O.J. Simpson is absolutely guilty of murder no matter what a court says. or that Michael Jackson was a pedophile.

[Skittles]

111. Zimmerman is a gun-humping vigilante COWARD

and I think OJ is definitely guility but I do NOT believe Michael Jackson was a pedophile

[TheMadMonk]

120. 23 million in secret payouts to dozens of overnight "houseguests"...

...would suggest otherwise.

[Skittles]

144. people go after people with money

and Michael Jackson, while no pedophile, CERTAINLY did not behave in a normal fashion regarding children.........because he essentially stayed a child himself. That opened him up to lawsuits.

[TheMadMonk]

148. Show me another celebrity with a REMOTELY SIMILAR history...

...of out of court settlements.

[Skittles]

149. show me another celebrity with a REMOTELY SIMILAR upbringing

[TheMadMonk]

150. Not many children of celebrity suffer a NORMAL upbringing.

However, most settle for self destruction.

[Skittles]

152. er........what?

[TheDebbieDee]

153. Skittles, I totally agree with you about MJ.........

While I don't think MJ was a pedophile, I do think that he was a person with mental health issues. People with mental health issues tend to keep repeating the same behavior or make the same mistakes over and over agaain.

Any normal person that got into the public spotlight for their behavior with children would thereafter take precautions not to be caught with another child without a chaperon. A person with unresolved mental health issues would continue to repeat the behavior and continue to be sued......

[Skittles]

154. thank you

you understand

there is no denying his behavior as a grown man around children was inappropriate, but he was not a pedophile

[TheMadMonk]

155. And FAMOUS people with "issues" are given free passes...

...from those who have too much invested in them all the time. Whether it's fanatical adulation or the profit motive. Cripes, you only have to look at the polarisation here on DU over certain hot button topics.

Anyone who wasn't a MJ would have found themself in jail, pulped by a parent or at the very least "friendless" and abandoned to the fates far, far earlier in the piece.

[TheDebbieDee]

157. Famous people with power and money don't get a free pass............

They use their money to buy their way out of trouble. That's the benefit of having more money than you need - you pay other people to deal with your problems for you.

[TheMadMonk]

158. I'm talking of the millions of fans who deny the evidence.

Bushbot, Obamabot, or thrillbot.

You,re right it's not a FREE free pass. It's worse. It's the sort of pass, where someone who believes they have something to gain, is oblivious or uncaring of the price others (innocents) pay to bring them what they want.

New song, a chance in a lifetime concert, or control of a $20 billion deposit of rare minerals, it doesn't really matter.

[Skittles]

109. I think that coward may very well walk

waiting for him to take the stand riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight

[dpibel]

11. Lesser included

I take it that you have it on good authority that manslaughter is not a lesser included offense in Florida?

[dkf]

16. You can't make both arguments at once. A second degree closing won't be the right one to get

A manslaughter charge.

[dpibel]

18. Then those instructions must all be wrong

Juries are regularly instructed on lesser included offenses. They seem to be able to deal with it.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

125. Sure you can.

All second degree murder requires is that Zimmerman acted with a callous disregard for human life, that he went there not caring about any potential lethal consequences his behavior might have.

Manslaughter requires that Zimmerman acted recklessly, that he knew about potential lethal consequences and still did what he did.

There's not much of a distinction between the two. It's a pretty small jump. The state can argue that Zimmerman's actions that night fell into both catagories without contradicting itself.

We're not talking about the Casey Anthony case, where the state pretty much locked itself into a first degree, premeditated murder charge and really couldn't argue outside of its own box wherein they would have to say, "Well, even if Casey didn't intentionally and premeditatedly kill her daughter because she wanted to return to her partying lifestyle as we claim she did, she...um....acted recklessly or with a depraved heart."

This is a much different case.

[VanillaRhapsody]

146. Actually YES it can....I was on a jury for a murder trial. The accused was charged with first degree

and ended up with manslaughter but got the book thrown at him with a 15 yr sentence....he also got an automatic appeal.

Editted to add....that We were told that in order to find a verdict of manslaughter we had to agree that the victim had provoked the attack. (I disagreed but that is another story).

[JDPriestly]

114. I think it is. I think I found a chart saying that manslaughter is

a lesser included offense.

Zimmerman contradicted himself in some of his testimony.

Check out post #60 in this thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023142229

These contradictions are kind of basic.

[Tx4obama]

22. Manslaughter is on the table. If the jury finds him guilty of manslaughter he'll get 30 years. nt

[Voice for Peace]

102. I read that for aggravated manslaughter of a child, involving a gun,

mandatory minimum of 25 yrs

[Tx4obama]

107. They said on TV tonight 30 years, so that's all I know.

Not sure if was Toobin on CNN or someone else on MSNBC.

[JVS]

112. How does a self defense plea work against one charge but not the other?

I don't see how the lesser charge would stick either.

[dkf]

128. Self defense does work for either.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

124. He is charged with manslaughter. Lesser included charge.

And there's not much of a rhetorical leap by saying someone acted with a depraved heart, i.e. with a callous disregard for human life (2nd Degree murder) and someone acted recklessly (manslaughter).

Neither 2nd Degree Murder nor manslaughter require proof of premeditated intent, so it's not like the state has to make inconsistent arguments to argue for either charge.

Not sure why people don't get this. The state charged Zimmerman with the highest charge they thought could be proven by the evidence, while still allowing for a conviction on the lesser charge if the jury doesn't agree with the higher charge.

[demwing]

127. AGAIN?

You don't have to charge manslaughter in a Florida 2nd degree murder case. It is an automatic lesser charge. The jury instructions will include information that they can convict on either Manslaughter, or 2nd Degree Murder, but not both.

Further, Manslaughter does not apply in cases of justifiable homicide, such as Self Defense. Zimmerman is claiming Self Defense. Manslaughter can not, by definition, result in Self Defense.

The prosecution is not stupid, but having to answer this point on a daily basis IS.

[dkf]

130. You really do not understand what my point is at all.

Yes it's a lesser included charge, but the prosecution is making the argument for 2nd showing a depraved mind. That won't address the nuances that would best address a manslaughter charge.

It's easier to discount the prosecutions arguments when their main one does not pan out.

[Boom Sound 416]

4. The state must have known

it was a nearly impossible burden given the circumstances.

The long game has to be Stand Your Ground law

[cherokeeprogressive]

5. Don't be stupid. SYG was taken off the table a long time ago by Z's lawyers.

This isn't a case IN ANY WAY connected to SYG.

Have you been paying attention?

[Lex]

6. Stupid?

He said, "The long game has to be Stand Your Ground law." He didn't say THIS case is SYG.

[Boom Sound 416]

7. Easy writer

the long game is not the trial. the trial would be described as "the trial"

The long game could be the state legislature amending or repealing laws so that if this scenario happens again, someone is going to jail. SPD didn't arrest him. No DA or SA charged him with any crime after the shooting because everyone agreed SYG defense would prevail. He was indicted by a grand jury weeks afterward. I could have argued the case to the GJ by then

Right now its 50/50 at best for the prosecution. The prosecution is not stupid, but they have to call these people and sit there watch them get reduced below a reasonable doubt. They had to know Murder 2 was not going to stick, but the long game for the state as a political sphere may be to right the next wrong.

[cherokeeprogressive]

8. That's a pretty cynical view if you ask me; the State giving up a life for a "loftier" goal.

"They had to know Murder 2 was going to stick" pretty much negates your premise completely.

Let's not forget who makes laws in Florida.

[Boom Sound 416]

9. post edited/updated

[cherokeeprogressive]

12. I thought as much... but my opinion stands: This isn't about SYG nor were the charges. n/t

[Boom Sound 416]

14. The state responded to the pressure of the people

As they should and convened a grand jury.

I dont know enough to know if murder 2 or manslaughter or what was the best charge. I just know what they charged him with and what they have to prove. I think the Attorney General or similar wants to defer to the legislator and debate the fix.

the thorn in this case is GZ had the gun legally. If the state had weapons chargers against him as well, life would be easier I presume. At very least some jail time assured.

[dkf]

17. Wouldn't that mean redefining self defense? Is that what you want?

[Boom Sound 416]

23. I think thats the headline of the fix

SYG is the face of the fix. its where the state will tinker for press. Its why GZ was not arrested (it seems)


in this case both parties are claiming self defense. One is dead. Killed with a legal firearm. One claims to be creeped out and attacked, the other claiming caution and attacked as well.

I'm not sure anything will really change except the a tightening of the law so SA's have a little more teeth when faced with public outcry

[dkf]

30. What does it matter how long it took to charge? Isn't it more important to get it right?

[Boom Sound 416]

38. Of course

But the length of time is not the issues. It's not as if grand jury's are only convened when their's public outcry. In this case it took public outcry because prosecutors didn't feel they had a very strong case given the laws.

So it's a problem of and for the legislature.

[dkf]

50. If he isn't convicted maybe that was the right call.

They might have had enough for manslaughter, but they would still have needed to prove it wasn't self defense and do it beyond a reasonable doubt. I don't think they have the evidence.

[dkf]

61. The NSA defines that as 51% so a coin flip plus one, not all that high a bar.

I think he has got that. Then the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense.

[dkf]

78. The injuries, and his statement that he was afraid TM would go after his gun seem enough to me.

[dpibel]

83. You're fading a bit

It's late and you've been hard at work. You're now resorting to diversionary tactics.

Let's walk through this:

In #50, you said: "but they would still have needed to prove it wasn't self defense and do it beyond a reasonable doubt."

In #55, I pointed out that there is no requirement for the prosecution to prove a negative BRD.

In #61, you defined (more or less correctly) the meaning of "preponderance." Then you reasserted your erroneous claim: "Then the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not self defense."

In #74, I pointed out again that the quantum of proof required by both parties is a preponderance.

Now, in #78, you state what seems enough to you.

As a first matter, what seems enough to you sounds more like a preponderance. But, more to the point, you have tried to slip away from the fact that, as is so frequently the case, you state with confidence a legal standard that simply doesn't exist. You said there is a requirement that the prosecution prove lack of self defense BRD. Now you simply say that the evidence you've seen is pretty darned good, as far as you're concerned.

The simple fact is, you inaccurately stated the legal requirement for defeating a self-defense claim.

[lumpy]

98. If he was afraid for his life he could have gotten off of Martin and taken a hike

back to safety and wait for the police to finish the job. But no, he was intent on capturing his 'criminal'. That would be too embarrasing.

[JDPriestly]

115. I personally think Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2, but he gets the

benefit of the doubt and is presumed innocent until proven guilty and juries are unpredictable, so I can't guess whether he will be convicted.

There are inconsistencies in Zimmerman's testimony.

Someone pointed out these in Post #60
in this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023142229

I was surprised by the Murder 2 charge although I think Zimmerman should be convicted on it. It's just very hard to show it.

However, the prosecutor can prove it by showing reckless disregard for human life, and Zimmerman's calloused attitudes might turn the jury against him. In addition, Zimmerman was out with a gun and on his own followed Martin who was unarmed. Zimmerman used his gun although he certainly knew that Martin was unarmed. If Martin had actually beaten Zimmerman as badly as Zimmerman claimed, Zimmerman would not have fared well. Further, there is no indication from Martin's autopsy that he had been involved in such a ferocious fight.

So we shall see. You can never predict.

The jury might have some moms or grandmothers who think to themselves that they would not want a Zimmerman out their stalking their unarmed grandchild. You never know. I would think that although it was in fact Murder 2, the manslaughter charge will stick. But you never know.

I have read that the prosecutor has not been as strong as he should have been.

[Skittles]

103. it was TRAYVON who was STANDING HIS GROUND

he was INNOCENT and was STALKED AND MURDERED

[pintobean]

133. He was not indicted by a grand jury

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2012/04/09/grand-jury-will-not-hear-trayvon-martin-case/

Special prosecutor Angela Corey's office released this statement last year:

State Attorney Angela Corey has decided not to use a Grand Jury in the Trayvon Martin shooting death investigation.

The decision should not be considered a factor in the final determination of the case. The Grand Jury, set to convene on April 10, 2012, was previously scheduled by the former prosecutor.

Ms. Corey was appointed as the Special Prosecutor on March 22, 2012, by Governor Rick Scott. From the moment she was assigned, Ms. Corey noted she may not need a Grand Jury.

At this time, the investigation continues and there will be no further comment from this office.

[Boom Sound 416]

138. I stand corrected

[demwing]

131. You throw out that word "stupid" as if you knew what it meant

Here's some news:

"During Tuesday's motions hearing, Zimmerman defense attorney Mark O'Mara told Judge Debra Nelson there was nothing in the law that required the immunity hearing to take place before Zimmerman's trial. O'Mara said the hearing could be requested after the defense has presented its case, but "we'd much rather have the jury address the issue of criminal liability or lack thereof."

Benjamin Crump, attorney for the Martin family, said Zimmerman's decision to "merge" the hearing and the trial "is very telling of his defense, or lack thereof."

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/30/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense

SYG was NOT taken off the table. Only the Pre-Trial Hearing was waived. As the above quote from both the defense and prosecuting attorneys shows, Zimmerman can (and plans on) making his "Stand your ground" appeal directly to the jury.

Have you been paying attention?

[TorchTheWitch]

10. then clearly you missed all the numerous inconsistencies and lies

by Zimmerman in all that information.

[cherokeeprogressive]

15. Apparently, so did the first interviewer and the Lead Detective.

Please feel free to point them out though!

BTW, "all the numerous" is a little redundant.

[TorchTheWitch]

116. well, let's start with Z's re-enactment

So, nothing much interesting happens until around 6 minutes in where Z says that he couldn't remember the name of the street. This ties in with what he said later about his supposedly getting out of the car to try to get an address rather than getting out of the car to chase Martin which we all can tell from his 911 call (or non-emergency line he called) was the real reason he got out of the car. Right there is where he starts trying to cover up what he was really doing. Now, this guy has lived here for 3 years and there are only 3 streets in the complex. He's also the neighborhood watch dude who has been spending a lot of time cruising around the complex looking for stuff to report to the police. The very idea that he doesn't know the name of the street or can describe where he is and how police can find him is ludicrous.

Next thing is that he tells the operator (911 or non-emergency line) that police can meet him at his car, but he omits that he told the operator later in the call to have police call him when they get there and he'll tell them where he's at. It's pretty clear that the reason he did that was because he was going to continue looking for Martin and would not be waiting for police at his car.

Next thing is that he starts explaining that he gets to the top of the "T" and Martin materializes from nowhere right next to him and asks him if he's got a problem, he says no, and he says that Martin replied "You've got a problem now" and punched him in the face. This is all contrary to Rachel's testimony of what was said and how to two encountered each other. Martin was also still holding his phone and had his headset on and we know this because a) he was talking to Rachel, and b) both his phone and headset were found in the grass not far from where his body lay. Who picks a fist fight with someone while talking on their phone to someone while holding their phone and with their headset still on?

Further, Z is explaining where this took place on the grass a good many feet away from the sidewalk. He says he either fell down or was pushed down, starts saying that Martin then got on top of him then realizes he's not anywhere near the sidewalk where he claims to have Martin climb on top of him and supposedly was pounding his head into the sidewalk and walks a good many feet to another spot where he says it was in that spot where Martin got on top of him and did this supposed head pounding. But Martin's body was much farther down the walkway of the long arm of the "T" and quite a distance from that walkway. How on earth could Martin's body ended up there when we know he was shot directly in the heart, that Z claims he didn't get up and travel any distance on his own and that he just rolled Martin's body off of him. How could Martin's body ended up that far from the sidewalk when even Z claims that all he did was roll Martin off of him? That alone makes it obvious that they were not close enough to the sidewalk for this supposed head pounding on it and never mind the obvious lack of injuries from having one's head repeated slammed into concrete.

Now the lies start coming fast and furious... he claims that Martin has him by the head with both hands pounding his head into the concrete and Z claims this is when he starts to scream and Martin lets go of his head and covers his bloody mouth and nose with both hands yet we know from the 911 call from one of the witnesses that the screaming does not stop once it started until the gunshot. How does Z continue to scream with his mouth and nose covered? And let's remember that there was not only not a speck of Z's blood on any portion of Martin's hands but not even a single cell of his DNA when he supposedly covered Z's bloody mouth and nose with both hands. There is also not a speck of Z's blood on Martin's shirt where having his arms and hands beneath his body may have wiped off some of that blood nor was it raining so hard or the grass so wet that it could possibly have removed every speck of Z's blood and DNA from Martin's hands. He is also unable to explain this when going through that 911 call with the police. He has no explanation for how he was able to continuously scream with both his mouth and nose covered.

All this time Z's arms and hands are free. He has no explanation for what he was doing with them while all this was going on. Why does he not try to hit Martin or try to get his hands off his head to stop the pounding or try to pry his hands off his mouth and nose or go for his gun with one of them? We're supposed to believe that while Martin is doing all this to him that he didn't do anything at all with his arms and hands to defend himself??? Ridiculous. We're supposed to believe that he did nothing at all with his arms and hands to try to stop this attack until at the last moment he suddenly remembers he has a gun on him. Baloney.

Then Z says he starts screaming for help but has no explanation how he could do that with Martin covering his mouth and nose with both hands. If Martin let go of his mouth and nose he never says that nor does he say what Martin started doing with them. Either we're supposed to believe that Z started screaming for help with his mouth and nose covered by both of Martin's hands or that Martin removed his hands from his mouth and nose and did nothing else with them... didn't hit him, didn't start pounding his head again, didn't try to strangle him, nothing. And we know from the photos that there was no smeared blood around Z's mouth and nose from having his bloody mouth and nose covered nor any other smeared blood anywhere on him.

Now he says that his jacket started riding up of its own accord. First of all, Z's jacket was unzipped. Had he been lying on his back the two sides of the jacket would have fallen back to the ground exposing the holstered gun. And we know that from testimony from his own defense attorney, O'Mara, that all he had to do to expose his gun holstered in his pants was to thrust that hip forward a bit which made that side of his jacket fall away toward his rear because that's exactly how O'Mara demonstrated how Z showed the officer where his gun was so the officer could take it from him.

Then he said he could feel Martin's hand moving down his side toward the gun, and this is when Z becomes speedy Gonzales and is able to whip his own hand down there and grab it himself all the while screaming himself while Martin is doing nothing at all with his other arm and hand. Rubbish. The whole time Martin was straddling him doing all this pounding and smothering he would have felt that gun with his thigh that was right on top of it. How did Z get to his own gun in his pants and so quickly either with Martin's leg right on top of it or up higher on Z's chest so that Z's hand couldn't have gotten past Martin's leg to get to it himself. Or are we supposed to believe that Martin straddled him so car down near Z's knees while all this was going on that no portion of his legs or knees could have been in the way? Are we supposed to believe that Martin didn't have any legs??? Or that he had such a "wide stance" straddle that either one of them could have quickly gotten to the gun with their hand??? Didn't happen. And it didn't happen because Z long since already had his gun out in his hand. His first explanation to police was that Martin was fighting with him to get his gun out of his hand.

Now comes some more Hollywood silly movie lines... Z claims that with the jacket riding up all on its own instead of having been flapped back against the ground from being unzipped that Martin sees the gun after already letting his hand travel down Z's side for no reason while the other arm and hand did nothing at all and with no leg in the way of it, reaches for it and says "You're going to die tonight, motherfucker.". He says he grabs his gun out and shoots Martin at point black range right into his heart and Martin delivers the classic movie line "You got me". Never mind the fact that Martin was probably already dead or nearly so. In Z's first sit down interview with Serino Z tells him that Martin continued to talk after delivering this Hollywood movie line even when Z flipped him over and got on top of him. Didn't happen. Martin was already dead.
https://www.txantimedia.com/?p=999

Then here's a whopper... Z then says that Martin either fell off of him or he pushed him off of him, and gets on top of him and spreads his arms out straight. Huh? How could that possibly be when we know Martin was discovered face down with both arms and hands tucked under his body? He was dead. He couldn't have moved his arms and hands under his own body himself, and every witness who saw him following the shot testified that Martin never moved. Unbelievably, Z also says that at this point when he is on top of Martin holding his arms away from his body that he didn't think he had hit him! How in the world could he NOT have hit him with the bullet at point blank range into his chest??? Totally unbelievable and totally contradicts what we know about how Martin's body was found and that Z can't be so stupid as to believe that he didn't hit him at that range and in that huge chest target. This is the same kind of outrageous claim by shooters as the "the gun just went off" excuse to try to make it appear that they didn't really mean to shoot the person and is even more ridiculous.

Then he says that Martin had been repeatedly punching him in the face. WHAT? Z never said that Martin ever punched him more than the first supposed punch while they were still standing and how he explains they landed on the ground with Martin on top of him. Further, there is zero evidence that Z was repeatedly punched in the face from his photos at the scene and Martin's pristine unbloodied hands. Right hear Z totally changes his story adding in these repeated punches to the face that we know from physical evidence of his face and Martin's hands as well as Z's previous story of what happened on this very video a few moments prior that Martin never punched him in the face even once by the time they were on the ground. Z doesn't explain how he missed this supposed punching with his explanation and it shows where he's confusing his stories because his first explanation to police before the recorded ones with Serino. In that first explanation he claimed Martin punched him in the face 35-40 times. We know that all these punches to his face never occurred because his own face pictured at the scene while he was still bloody does not in the least show repeated punches to his face. I guess he forgot to drop that bit with this story though he remembered not to mention all these supposed punches just a few moments before as he was going through his step by step version of events. That's one fucking HUGE ENORMOUS whopper of an inconsistency.

Now he thinks Martin had something in his hands which is why he moved his arms away from his body. First, he never did move his arms away from his body as Martin died nearly instantly and his arms and hands were tucked beneath his body. Second, how on earth could Z believe he had something in his hands and still be able to grab his head and pound it into the ground as well as cover his nose and mouth? We're supposed to believe that Z actually thought this??? This is where Z's story really starts going completely off the rails.

Now the Asian guy with the flashlight shows up and Z notices him. But we already heard testimony from this man as well as others that testified that the guy with the flashlight did not show up until Z was long since standing up off of Martin's body. Z goes into an imaginary scenario of the entire conversation with Asian flashlight man by first saying that he was still sitting on Martin when that guy testified that he first came into contact with Z when Z approached him and the guy noticed his face had blood on it. Another witness testified that saw Z pacing up and down the walkway several times before the guy showed up which IIRC was his wife.

Then Z goes into this imaginary conversation that happens between him and Asian flashlight man that is not only completely contradictory to that man's testimony but also reverses much of which of them said what in their conversation. First, Z was not on top of Martin when the guy showed up nor was there any conversation about his helping Z hold Martin down. For example, Z says it was himself that asked the guy to call 911 when it was that man's testimony that it was HIMSELF that asked Z if he should call 911 and that Z told him he already did. Asian flashlight man testified that he first encountered Z as Z was walking up to him, he noticed that Z was on his cellphone as he had it to his ear, that he asked Z if he needed to call 911 and that Z told him he already did. Z's saying that all this fictitious conversation with the guy occurred while he was still sitting on Martin and holding him down when we know from that guy and at least one other witness that this is not what happened. We also know from Asian flashlight guy's testimony that what little conversation they had included nothing about helping Z hold Martin down, nor was it Z who asked him to call 911. Z also mentions nothing about asking the guy to call his wife which the guy testified he did and that Z interrupted that call by telling the guy to "just tell her I shot someone." Z totally fabricates the encounter with Asian flashlight guy in both where he was and what he was doing as well as their conversation and which of them said what... all in an effort to try to make himself appear like the good guy by claiming it was himself that wanted the guy to call 911 and omitting the part where he asks the guy to call his wife interrupts the call and tells the guy to "just tell her I shot someone."

Then Z says that the police officer's arrival was when he got up off of Martin's body when that officer testified that he encountered Z and the guy talking together while both were standing some distance from the body. More fabrication from Z.

Z then demonstrates how he just moves his right arm upward exposing his gun and telling the officer that's where his gun was. Z had his jacket unzipped, so it was unzipped while he was on the ground tussling with Martin so there was no riding up of his jacket that took place at that time for Martin to see only at that time that he had a gun. If it was that easy to see that by just that little movement as even O'Mara described in court for Z's gun to be seen than it would have been just as easy for Martin to have seen it when he and Z first encountered each other if Z didn't purposely expose it or draw it at that time. Martin having the gun drawn on him or seeing it at the start of their encounter would have certainly given Martin every reason to believe that this creep who was following him and chasing him through the complex intended on shooting him and therefore, every reason to fight for his life.

Further, in Z's first explanation to police not only does he claim he was repeated punched in the face about 35-40 times he also said that Martin was going for the gun in his hand during their struggle on the ground.

And that's just this re-enactment. Why on earth the defense wanted it in evidence I have no idea as clearly there are so many lies and inconsistencies by Z in his own words in it.

[JI7]

117. this is a great post and i think you should start a thread on it

[Tommy_Carcetti]

126. I pray to God you are either Bernie De La Ronda or John Guy and you use this in your closing.

If not, please forward it to them because it is an excellent, excellent summation of the evidence.

[TorchTheWitch]

147. You can send something to them?

How would one go about doing that?

I thought it was just me but I really think taht prosecutors are just missing so much obvious stuff they should be making clear. But maybe it is just me after having recently watched Martinez in the Jodi Arias case. Not sure I really like his style but he's the most detailed prosecutor I've ever seen. And he has all the info about everything right in his head! Never once did he use notes, and every single document was right at his fingertips. I've never seen any attorney be able to do their entire case with no notes especially cross-examining witnesses that went on and on and on days or even over a week. After watching that I kind of feel like these two prosecutors are stupidly missing important points.

Oh, and I just did the OP of my reply since you and someone else asked. I never think to do OP's.

[Little Star]

132. Wish this was a OP so I could rec it.

[Roland99]

134. Wish I was following the trial like others up here

my neighbor was over last night saying Zimmerman was purely in self-defense mode, that no evidence suggests anything other than Martin coming at Zimmerman first and being the aggressor. That there was no forensic evidence of injuries to Martin and only Zimmerman showed signs of having his face beaten and his head bashed against the street.

Said Zimmerman was consistent in his testimony with his statements at the station and that the lead investigator thought Zimmerman was truthful and that he, himself, had felt pressured to come up with a certain conclusion


totally different picture from him

[yardwork]

151. No forensic evidence of injuries to Martin except that he was shot dead by Zimmerman.

Probably in cold blood.

[NatBurner]

137. this was great

[Voice for Peace]

142. Torch the Witch I hope the jury gets it..

great analysis.

[giftedgirl77]

13. This case has had its highs & lows

& I have avoided most of it because it gives me rage. I'm not sure if they have brought up the fact yet that their clothes were pristine which can be used to discredit Z's account of the rolling around on the ground. The other issue that needs to come into play is the trajectory that the bullet traveled. Just based on how ppl think the physical evidence can have a lot bigger impact then the witnesses.

If all else fails typically the jury is instructed to consider lesser charges i.e. manslaughter, prior to deliberation.

[cherokeeprogressive]

19. I guess you missed the part of the testimony where the first officer on the scene described Z's

clothes being wet in back and having cut grass sticking to them.

[giftedgirl77]

139. Have you seen the photos?

They don't show anything of the sort. My first statement was I haven't listened to the entire trial. However, the clothes don't indicate a struggle i.e. mud, dirt, grass stains. Anything to show those two were rolling around in an altercation.

[premium]

141. That's not what the first interviewing officer said

on the stand, the testimony was that the back of his shirt and pants were wet and had grass on them.
Not my words, the officer's words.

[giftedgirl77]

145. I'm not disputing that,

physical evidence speaks loud & clear. Of course he would be wet it was raining & having some grass on you is very different then what would occur during a knock down drag out fight on wet grass. Not to mention NO DNA evidence of Z found on M.

The pictures are very clear & the autopsy is very revealing. You should check it out.

[premium]

20. Ummm, GZ's clothes were not pristine,

the 1st interviewing officer stated on the stand that the back of his shirt and pants were wet and had grass on them, indicating that he was on his back struggling.

[Tx4obama]

26. All it proves it that they were both rolling around on the ground before Zimmerman shot Trayvon

It was raining so they were both wet.

[premium]

27. And I was just correcting the poster that his

clothes were not pristine.

[uppityperson]

42. No you weren't. You were also drawing conclusions.

[uppityperson]

54. No, I'll just quote your conclusion "indicating that he was on his back struggling."

See? Conclusion.

And no, wrong sex and age and beside Johnny Carson is dead. Sorry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Carson
John William "Johnny" Carson (October 23, 1925 – January 23, 2005)

[premium]

57. Hahahahahaha,

that wasn't my conclusion, it was the officer's conclusion.
Epic Fail.

[uppityperson]

59. In which case I was mistaken. He drew a conclusion and I was wrong in saying it was you. They way

you wrote, I thought it was you. I was wrong.

Let's see if you accept or insult me.

[premium]

66. I accept it,

your a bigger person than some around here, even when proven definitively wrong, they stick to their belief and refuse to admit it, when I'm wrong, I'll admit it and apologize profusely.
Thank you. I'll go ahead and delete my earlier post.

[uppityperson]

67. I've been wrong before, will be so again. Thanks. ETA, won't slink off

and not answer because I was wrong either which is annoying to me. I've not kept up with everything on this case, been busy elsewhere for a bit.

[Hoyt]

48. Yeh, and the first intervening officers were ready to shoot Trayvon who was aready

lying dead on the ground from Z's frigging gun.

[premium]

52. I said interviewing officer, not intervening officer. nt.

[Tx4obama]

21. Zimmerman has NOT testified UNDER OATH in a court of law.

Yes, he does have the right to not testify in Court during this trial.

But he has NOT testified at all yet.

And I am sure that the prosecutor will remind the Jury that Zimmerman was not under oath when he made those statements on the tapes.

[Rex]

24. He already buried himself.

If they let him get up and actually testify, he is toast.

[premium]

29. He buried himself,

not according to the majority of lawyers who watched and commented on the prosecutions case today, most said that the prosecution had a bad day today.

[Rex]

33. No much earlier, not today.

He just looked foolish today.

[premium]

37. So far, the prosecutions witness' are helping the defense

more that them, Zimmerman won't even have to testify after today. The DA overcharged him, they should have gone with the lead charge of Manslaughter, like the lead det. wanted and recommended.

[Rex]

39. Manslaughter still on the table, could get 30 years.

Nothing written in stone yet.


EDIT - maybe a wrongful death suit, who knows this is just starting up for Zim. I suspect he will be in and out of jail for years to come.

[premium]

40. Yep,

that's the lesser included charge, which the jury may very well consider as a compromise, but, like you said, nothing is set in stone yet.

[Skittles]

105. he is a COWARD - he won't testify

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Nor does he have to. He did, however testify today, without significant inconsistencies.

Without a lawyer, I might add.

[Tx4obama]

28. But you are not using the LEGAL definition of the word 'testify'

Testify
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testify

[jberryhill]

31. You might consider quotes around "testify"

I gather that you mean that what the jury got to see of him today might be taken by them as a proxy for actual testimony.

And while I am sure they will be instructed, they likely have a gut reaction, of one kind or another, to what they heard.

[cherokeeprogressive]

36. As per usual, you are correct. Edit made. n/t

[jberryhill]

47. Your point is valid

But the prosecution is not over, and having Zimmerman "tell his own story" can be a setup for shooting holes in it with what is to follow.

Now, again, the trial is not about whether "Zimmerman's story is right", but by the very same token by which you use "testify", if the jury gets the impression Zimmerman's story is demonstrably false, then it can cut the other way.

[pnwmom]

68. Would it be possible before the jury is dismissed to deliberate

for the prosecution to add an additional charge of manslaughter, or is it too late for that?

[jberryhill]

70. Beats me

I do not know the Florida rules of criminal procedure.

[pnwmom]

72. Do you know of any state where it would be possible? I was following

a murder case in Colorado last year where they suddenly added, at the end of the trial, a second degree charge in addition to the original first degree charge.

[jberryhill]

80. All I know is...

...every thing I learned in law school ended with "except Louisiana". I think anything is possible in Louisiana.

Well, except for one night when I was on a college road trip to New Orleans during the world's fair. They were giving out free packs of cigarettes if you can believe it. But my friend and I met these two ladies who were working at the Gospel and Jazz music tent and they took us out for gumbo and a couple of hurricanes in go cups. Pretty much anything was possible, but nothing illegal happened, to the best of my knowledge.

[pnwmom]

32. You think the dying black youth said, "Oh, gosh, you me you got me"?

Gee whiz, really?

[cherokeeprogressive]

34. You think you can put words into my mouth? Gee whiz, really?

[pnwmom]

35. I'm not putting words into your mouth. You said he didn't say anything to indicate

he was being deceptive.

So do you really believe that after he got shot through the heart, Trayvon SAT UP and said, "oh gosh you me, you got it, you got me, you got it"?

I think this is just a made-up -- that is, deceptive -- story. Because I can't imagine any Florida teen in this century saying that as he died, much less a black teen. And I don't think he sat up after the bullet got shot into his heart.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/george-zimmerman-recalled-trayvon-martin-gosh/story?id=19543886#.UdJajjn3CYM

"He was on top of my…I shot him, and I didn't think I hit him because he sat up and said, 'oh gosh you me, you got it, you got me, you got it," Zimmerman said to lead investigator Chris Serino during a video re-enactment that was shown to the six women on the jury for the first time.

[cherokeeprogressive]

43. I don't know what the dying black youth said. Nor do you. Is it possible he said "You SHOT me"?

Yeah, I know what Zimmerman SAID. Have you ever had your ass royally kicked? I have. I know I couldn't count the blows, where they came from, or what the guy (Mr. Wrong Guy to Pick On) might have said as he was showing me his knuckles. In the end though? I was the one being picked up off the floor and taken into custody.

I was in a bar in Palma, Spain. I was a little drunk and a little stoned. The guy on the stool next to me was bragging about fucking Sailors' wives when they were at sea. I was a married Sailor, at sea... I took exception. I called him out, stood up, and wound up in cuffs. The inbetween? I heard about ten different stories.

[pnwmom]

46. But things would have been much clearer for Zimmerman because he wasn't drunk or stoned.

There's the video taken of him in the police station and he was walking around and looking pretty together to me. Not like he'd gotten his ass royally kicked.

[uppityperson]

49. So you are saying that what Zimmy "testified" to today was not really what happened?

"He was on top of my…I shot him, and I didn't think I hit him because he sat up and said, 'oh gosh you me, you got it, you got me, you got it," Zimmerman said to lead investigator Chris Serino during a video re-enactment that was shown to the six women on the jury for the first time.

You believe Zimmy is telling a "different story" than what really happened?

From your OP:

"We heard Serino say he thought Zimmerman was truthful.

Zimmerman's story didn't deviate in any way that might raise a red flag with the investigators. "

If he was truthful, if his story didn't deviate, then you believe Trayvon sat up and said "oh gosh, you got me, you got it, you got me, you got it"

[cherokeeprogressive]

58. I'm saying he may have "misunderHEARD" given the gravity of the moment and adrenaline.

And I'm saying it takes time to die from a shot to the heart and Trayvon might have been talking from adrenaline himself.

The bottom line is neither you or I were there, so there is NO WAY TO KNOW.

Hello Reasonable Doubt.

[uppityperson]

62. He misheard "oh gosh, you got me" and testified that is what he heard? Any possibility he is not

truthful or accurate with anything else?

How can you mishear "oh gosh, you got me"? I can see "you shot me" but "oh gosh". wtf?

Maybe he mis-remembered the tussle? Or why the fuck he was following Trayvon in the first place? But noooooooooooooo. Let's instead believe all the bits we want to and something that doesn't fit his narrative is "misunderheard" whatever the fuck that word means.

[Llewlladdwr]

99. Are you for real?

You don't believe a man with a sucking chest wound, aspirating blood into his lungs and throat, could possibly be saying "Oh God, you shot me, you shot it, you shot me, you shot it" and have it come out garbled enough to sound like "Oh gosh, you got me, you got it, you got me, you got it"?

[uppityperson]

110. Well, that is the first time I've read that is what he said and while that makes more

sense, Z did not say TM said "Oh god" but "oh gosh". And I do not think someone shot like TM was would have time to say all that, especially with collapsed lungs (no ability to breathe or speak). If anything, he'd had time and ability to say something like "gargle". I do want to reassure you, I am for real, not an automatic typing/posting program.

[pnwmom]

63. If there's reasonable doubt, and there might be, it's because the police

immediately believed him and did everything they could to make the case go away. They let him freely wander around in the station house, uncuffed; they sent him home after a few hours; didn't secure the crime scene; didn't bother interviewing witnesses till they had plenty of time to forget things.

But I believe Rachel's story over Zimmerman's. She's not being deceptive; he is. Martin's dead because Zimmerman's a wannabe cop with a gun, who wouldn't stop after the 911 operator told him to. He's morally guilty whether or not the court finds reasonable doubt.

[cherokeeprogressive]

69. The question isn't whether or not Zimmerman KILLED Trayvon. We know he did.

The question is LEGALLY, was it manslaughter or Second Degree Murder.

You may claim all day long that Zimmerman left home that day with the hope of killing someone, namely a young black man in a hoodie, but that can NEVER be proven.

He's guilty of manslaughter all day long. Second Degree Murder, not so much.

[pnwmom]

71. We agree that manslaughter would have been the better charge.

I was disappointed when he was charged with murder, because by then too much evidence had been destroyed or otherwise eliminated.

[cherokeeprogressive]

76. He's guilty of manslaughter and I will clap with glee if that's what he's convicted of.

He's not guilty of Second Degree Murder though, not by Florida law.

[Rex]

45. Zimmerman dug his own grave.

Gonna do some hard time.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. It takes about 15-45 seconds to die from being shot in the heart.

There is still oxygenated blood in the brain and muscle tissue.

Sometimes an animal such as a deer or elk runs more than 100 yards after being shot straight through the heart. If that's possible, what makes you think a human can't talk in the first moments after it happens to him or her?

And, given the trauma of being shot in the heart, what makes you think someone won't talk gibberish before they die?

Reasonable doubt. Objectivity.

What does THIS CENTURY have to do with the price of tea in China?

[uppityperson]

56. The language. Have you heard a Teen say "oh gosh" any time recently? In the 21st century?

The language is wrong. Even "you got me" after getting shot is rather last century.

[cherokeeprogressive]

60. How about "Rather LAST BREATH"?

[uppityperson]

64. Trayvon said "last breath, you got me"? What? How about "let's splash, you are all wet"?

[uppityperson]

75. Excuse me but Mr. Uppity is NOT stupid. eom

[cherokeeprogressive]

77. I apologize. That came across WAAY more sarcastic than I meant it.

After you read this, I'm deleting the post.

[uppityperson]

91. Thank you.

[ThePhilosopher04]

94. Zimmerman must be a fan of the movie Used Cars ...

particularly the part where Marshall Lucky blew the shit right out of High Prices ... starts around the 1:05 mark:

[lumpy]

89. Humans are not deer or elk and no way can they run 100yards.

Zimmerman did not testify that Martin talked gibberish; on the contrary, Zimmerman made I,m sure we would like to see proof that a dying person can sit up and and make statements such as 'you got me, man' carrying a bullet straight through the heart.

[lumpy]

81. The bullet entrance wound should indicate whether the bullet entered

through the back of the victim or in the chest. That should put to rest whether Zimmerman was underneath the victim or on top of the victim when he pulled the trigger.

[Captain Stern]

123. I didn't realize there was even still any question about this.

I thought the autopsy report that's been public for months, indicated that the bullet entered Martin's chest.

[uppityperson]

65. Downthread he says TM said "rather last breath, you got me". Golly jeepers!

[Skittles]

79. not even REMOTELY believable

[lumpy]

85. There is so much wrong in Zimmerman's statements of what happened

after the shooting for instance, after Martin was shot directely through the heart; Zimmerman said Martin sat up (???) and made up bravado statements as coming from Martn,supposidely. The statement that Martin said something to the effect 'you got me, etc; it might be that Zimmerman embellished his statements concering Martin last words to indicate that Martin was making some sort of a confession that he was up to something criminal and was caught in the act. Right out of the movies.

[Skittles]

86. I have to tell you lumpy

ALL of Zimmerman's statements smack of stuff he made up when he realized his ridiculous vigilante efforts actually KILLED SOMEONE - jail flashed in his head and he came up with all kinds of bullshit to make Trayvon the villian......Zimmerman is a liar and a killer

[lumpy]

93. Yes, personally I believe it didn't go down the way Zimmerman painted it.

No doubt Zimmerman was doing some crucial thinking while he was walking back and forth with his hand on his head after he got off straddling Martin who remained on the ground This was observed by an eye witness who witnessed the two people struggling on the ground one on top of the other. After the shot the person got up from straddling the other and proceed to walk around, the other person remained enert and unmoving. So many other discrepancies in his Zimmerman's account. Martin ambushing Zimmerman out of the bushes, yeah...
It is damned fortunate that this did go to trial in spite of investigators wanting to shuffle the case.

[ram2008]

41. He will be found innocent, hopefully the verdict will be respected..

no matter what the outcome..The last thing we need is more racial tension in the US

[BklnDem75]

143. You mean like the Diallo verdict? King? Bell? Zongo? Chamberlain?

We sure love seeing justice denied in racially motivated cases. No racial tensions here.

[Azathoth]

44. Last questions from the day's testimony

O'Mara: Everything he had told you to date had been corroborated by other evidence you were aware of in the investigation that he was unaware of?

Serino: Correct.

...

O'Mara: Do you think he was telling the truth?

Serino: Yes.

This after a long "challenge session" in which Serino repeatedly lied to Zimmerman in an attempt to rattle him and get him to change his story.

If the State keeps putting witnesses like this on the stand, Zimmerman may have to start paying attorney fees to Bernie de la Rionda.

[Just Saying]

84. Interesting the part of O'Mara's question you left out

His whole question was:

"So if we were to take pathological liar off the table as a possibility, just for the purpose of this next question, do you think he was telling the truth?"

I remember because when I heard it I though it was a very bizarre way to ask a question.


More here: http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=IcLHPcHcBek&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DIcLHPcHcBek

[Azathoth]

87. Interesting you didn't feel the need to include the part of the transcript

that would give that additional clause meaning.

O'Mara: His statement, what did that indicate to you?

Serino: Either he was telling the truth, or he was a complete, pathological liar. One of the two.

O'Mara: Okay, now let's look at overall. Is there anything else in this case where you got the insight that he might be a pathological liar.

Serino: No.

O'Mara: Matter of fact, everything he had told you to date had been corroborated by other evidence you were aware of in the investigation that he was unaware of?

Serino: Correct.

O'Mara: Okay, so if we are to take pathological liar off the table as a possibility, just for the purposes of this next question, do you think he was telling the truth?

Serino: Yes.

[Just Saying]

88. Nice try

I don't have to post the entire transcript for you- that's on you. I simply corrected your obvious "mistake" posting that particular question. As I said it's bizarrely worded and as I juror I wouldn't know how to take his response. And to add weight to MY post, I added a link to the testimony. A I was both accurate and thorough, you-not so much.

[Azathoth]

92. I don't think most jurors would have a hard time figuring out how to take his response

It was pretty clear.

[premium]

90. Thank you,

I was going to post this but got caught up on something else.
Puts it into context. It seems that the prosecution witness' were more helpful to the defense that to the prosecution.

[lumpy]

95. Perhaps that was because they might be covering up their asses because

they were thinking of just letting the incident slide and getting Zimmerson a pass regarding the case without trial ?

[graham4anything]

113. Your editing of the transcript did very much so, shift the meaning

The full and unedited testimony directly states Officer Serano did NOT believe Zimmerman was telling the truth.

Which means- Officer Serano THOUGHT ZIMMERMAN WAS LYING

As I have thought from day one, GUILTY of Murder. Hope he is sentenced to the max.

I have a feeling the higher-ups covered this up.

Wonder if Zimmy's father the Judge, placed a phone call to the higher-ups at some point.

Do we know if Zimmy placed any calls in the day to his father? Or would that be something that was hidden from the public?

(and of course, zimmy, knowing that specific area quite well, might have used a different phone, perhaps a pay phone or something
and of course, he could have in that day used 1000s of other phones as he wasn't charged at that time.)

[naaman fletcher]

118. huh?

How do you get that Officer Serano thought he was lying from that? Have you watched his entire testimony? He didn't say a single thing that was negative for Zimmerman.

[graham4anything]

119. Yes, I saw it. 100% zimmerman guilty and Serano thought so. Zimmy is a pathelogical liar imho

and if he walks, he will do it again at some point.

he is a ticking time bomb.

[pintobean]

122. Back that up.

I watched the whole thing and never heard Serino say anything close to him thinking Zimmerman was guilty. In fact, he said several times that he thought Zimmerman was being truthful.

[graham4anything]

135. he qualified it with saying "if you don't believe he is a liar" well, zimmy lied and Trayvon died.

[premium]

136. Get it right.

O'Mara: His statement, what did that indicate to you?

Serino: Either he was telling the truth, or he was a complete, pathological liar. One of the two.

O'Mara: Okay, now let's look at overall. Is there anything else in this case where you got the insight that he might be a pathological liar.

Serino: No.

O'Mara: Matter of fact, everything he had told you to date had been corroborated by other evidence you were aware of in the investigation that he was unaware of?

Serino: Correct.

O'Mara: Okay, so if we are to take pathological liar off the table as a possibility, just for the purposes of this next question, do you think he was telling the truth?

Serino: Yes.

Det. Serino is saying that he thinks Zimmerman is telling the truth.
The fact is that the prosecutions witness' have been a boon for the defense, I'd be shocked at this point if they even put Zimmerman on the stand.
This is the most inept prosecution team I've ever seen, and I've seen alot of them during my career.

[premium]

129. Serino never said he thought Zimmerman was guilty,

he said he thought he was being honest.
You can't get anything right, including the lead det. name.

[ThePhilosopher04]

82. Defense Will Have To Overcome ...

Zimmerman indicating to Detective Singleton that he didn't realize Trayvon Martin was dead. That notion simply doesn't pass the laugh test. If he was fearful for his life when he pulled the trigger, he would have made sure he was dead, and certainly wouldn't have holstered his weapon had he any inkling he was still alive. He also showed signs of guilt IMO when he made reference to Singleton's cross ... some may take it just the opposite, but it's definitely a sign of a guilty mind IMO.

They'll also have to overcome the fact TM was shot directly in the heart, yet was able to speak coherently and move for at least several seconds afterwards according to Zimmerman. They will also have to overcome the fact he told investigators he spread Martin's hands out, away from his body, yet when he was discovered by police, he's face down with his hands underneath. And if he didn't think he was dead, why would he even attempt to do such a thing?

He also made the statement during the walk through, that "I shot him," yet a breath later said, "I didn't think I hit him," or something to that affect. If he really didn't think he shot him, he wouldn't have said "I shot him." he would have said "I shot at him" or simply "I pulled the trigger."

Combined with the undisputed facts that he identified Martin as a "up to no good," stalked him through the neighborhood, with a weapon, then used the weapon to kill him, I think it's pretty evident that he's guilty in my mind. Not to mention his supposed head bashing wounds are nothing more than bobos ... as far as the broken nose, anybody who's ever suffered one knows it doesn't take much of a blow to break, especially at the wrong angle.

The dude is guilty as charged.

[lumpy]

97. If the jury is awake, thinking and listening perhaps it can be helpful that

they might realize that Zimmerman's testimony is flawed and the right verdict will be met. The big flaw in this case is that the police/investigators were going to take Zimmermans word for the truth and didn't want to look forward, apparently, to a jurt trial.

[Skittles]

104. YOU KNOW IT, PHILOSOPHER

yes INDEED

[KurtNYC]

121. Serino nailed him -- "What's behind that?" "That's not fear."

"why didn't you identify yourself as neighborhood watch?"

Zim knows the law which is why he tells the story one way the first time -- the HE was in fear of the victim -- and then Zim resists moving from that story. Even when the phone tapes show him acting in a way that was not fearful, Zim still sticks with pretending that for some unknown reason, as neighborhood watch, with a gun on his hip and police on the way, and him getting out of the car and running after TM, he was in fear the whole time. Not just when it got physical but from the time he was sitting in his SUV talking with non-emergency.

It doesn't make any sense. If you are in your SUV and afraid of some random person, when they run away from your veehicle, you don't say "oh shit, he's running" and immediately jump out and run after them.

[CatWoman]

156. cause he's a fucking idiot

and I just had to revisit some of these ridiculous pro Zimmerman threads just to see what the authors have to say after today's session.

They're no where to be found