853 users online (136 members and 717 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 105 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 2029
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    5,866
    I think Mr. O'Mara is doing something very important here: He's cautioning the jurors to not make assumptions, to not say "what if' or "could have been". He's reminding them to look at the evidence and to not presume things that aren't in evidence to try to fill in the gaps.
    To understand the soul of a horse is the closest we humans can come to knowing perfection.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    426
    Quote Originally Posted by Mollyandme View Post
    yes i submit it is better than BDLR's very loud closing. IMO it's fine to use loud voices to emphasize certain points, but to use it constantly as BDLR used yesterday takes away the importance of any point BDLR was trying to make. MOM is a breath of fresh air to me, IMO...

    I'm glad he's now calling the state out on their closing yesterday and the words they used yesterday such as "maybe, what if, i hope so, could have been, you figure it out" IMO.
    Just thinking that in CA's trial, the defense was more like the prosecution and the prosecution was more like the defense in the way they are presenting information.

    JMO

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    12,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Mollyandme View Post
    yes i submit it is better than BDLR's very loud closing. IMO it's fine to use loud voices to emphasize certain points, but to use it constantly as BDLR used yesterday takes away the importance of any point BDLR was trying to make. MOM is a breath of fresh air to me, IMO...

    I'm glad he's now calling the state out on their closing yesterday and the words they used yesterday such as "maybe, what if, i hope so, could have been, you figure it out" IMO.
    Yes, Though Juan hammered at witnesses, when he addressed the jury he emphasized but did not yell at them.

    He spoke to them, Lead them.

    I think people want to ignore a lot of facts to get to a guilty verdict and you can not. The fact is that TM beat up on GZ and GZ had a right to shoot to protect himself.

    That is the facts under the law.
    Atticus Finch: “You never really understand a person . . . until you consider things from his point of view.” To Kill A Mockingbird

    All my posts are my opinion only.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by katiewonders View Post
    Anybody else's feed going out?
    Yes, it's annoying.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    102
    Quote Originally Posted by ScarlettScarpetta View Post
    Not the facts in the case. TM was not shot for having skittles. He was not shot because he was walking home. He was shot because he was beating on a man in the dark and he shot him to defend his person.

    The shopping at 7-11, the walking, the skittles have nothing what to do with the fact that TM is dead.

    The facts are, He beat on GZ, and GZ shot him after being beaten up in the dark backed down on the sidewalked, No way to get away.
    Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by ?noanswer View Post
    Just thinking that in CA's trial, the defense was more like the prosecution and the prosecution was more like the defense in the way they are presenting information.

    JMO
    This whole trial has been like that. The roles have been reversed in ways I've never seen before.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    12,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    If I were on this jury, he would aggravate me worse than the prosecution. He should state that everything they hear is not necessarily the truth. THEN, he should present his version of the TRUTH. He needs to quit going into the psyche of the jury. Right now I would like to swat him.

    This case has a LOT of evidence, give it. THEN, go into the spheel of don't believe everything you hear, and blah, blah, blah. Blah, blah, is saying less than the prosecutor did, and that takes a lot.

    Ah, the first thing I heard of ANY value, "the burden is on the state". KEEP THAT UP. Tyvm.

    My opinion only
    He is doing his job. He needs to explain clearly what reasonable doubt is. I am listening as a juror. I find it helpful for me making my decision.
    Atticus Finch: “You never really understand a person . . . until you consider things from his point of view.” To Kill A Mockingbird

    All my posts are my opinion only.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,959
    Maybe he should have STARTED with "living the Constitution"?

    IMO, he should have.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    West Coast
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by Trident View Post
    He NEEDS to get to the point, to make a memorable statement. What I'm hearing is a lot of nothing. GET ON WITH IT, to the point, these people aren't stupid.
    I understand how you feel, but cases live and die on reasonable doubt. Most jurors really do not understand how that concept works. It's dry stuff, but I think he's done ok getting thru some of it... I think he's worked off the jitters and getting in to it now.

    IMO, MOM is one of the calmest and most respectful defense attorneys that I've ever watched.

    IMO
    Visit my blog at: www.juror13lw.wordpress.com

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Perthgirl62 View Post
    Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.
    The facts/evidence of this case has not disproved GZ's version of events IMO.


  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    558
    I was watching some program last night and the host listed the things that the prosecution had to prove to show 2nd-degree murder and manslaughter. For BOTH, the prosecution has to prove that Zimmerman did NOT shoot in self-defense. If he shot because he was in fear for his life or in fear of great bodily harm, the jury has to acquit him.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    7,556
    Quote Originally Posted by Perthgirl62 View Post
    Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.
    You don't convict a man of murder based on ' could have's....

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Getting to the evidence now.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    12,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Perthgirl62 View Post
    Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.
    No. The facts are that TM beat on GZ. The facts as per witness testimony is that GZ got up bloodied and bruised after he shot TM. He was seen under TM by a neighbor with TM over him on the ground.

    That is facts in evidence.

    There is nothing from the state that proves anything else. To me that is the core.

    GZ was on the ground being pummeled and bloodied. He shot him to save himself from more harm. His right under self defense laws in FL.

    OMO
    Atticus Finch: “You never really understand a person . . . until you consider things from his point of view.” To Kill A Mockingbird

    All my posts are my opinion only.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Perthgirl62 View Post
    Those facts of yours are merely heresy based on GZs testimony. There is actually no evidence to confirm that TM was the original aggressor and he could in fact have been defending himself.
    That's right. There is no eye/ear witness who witnessed everything that happened. There is zero proof that TM started the physical altercation.

    Even if TM threw the first punch, if it was because GZ was grabbing his arm trying to detain him or because GZ showed his weapon...TM was justified in throwing the first punch.

    That to me is much more logical than TM trying to get away from GZ and suddenly going back to hit him for no reason.

    Unfortunately, there is not hard evidence for that scenario either.

    But IMO, there is definitely NO evidence that TM hit GZ for no reason, unprovoked...
    Unless I post a link to a fact, everything I post is my opinion only. Thanks!

Page 5 of 136 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 105 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin Real Time Trial Thread *NO DISCUSSION* Friday July 12
    By Tricia in forum George Zimmerman Trial/Trayvon Martin
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 07-12-2013, 06:32 PM
  2. George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #13 Thursday July 11
    By Tricia in forum George Zimmerman Trial/Trayvon Martin
    Replies: 1497
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 04:57 PM
  3. George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #12 Wed July 10
    By Tricia in forum George Zimmerman Trial/Trayvon Martin
    Replies: 1311
    Last Post: 07-10-2013, 08:07 PM
  4. George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #11 Tues. July 9
    By Tricia in forum George Zimmerman Trial/Trayvon Martin
    Replies: 1309
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 07:38 PM
  5. George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General Discussion Thread 9 (For Friday)
    By Tricia in forum George Zimmerman Trial/Trayvon Martin
    Replies: 1076
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 05:33 PM