(06-29-2013, 10:39 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ] (06-29-2013, 09:28 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]It wasn't just a Cracker, it was an Ass Cracker.
Ass Cracker
One who engages in anal sex.
That wanker is an ass cracker.
Trayvon and DD were talking about George being a pervert. Nothing to do with George's whiteness.
You know this isn't going well for the prosecution, right?
No I don't know that. But, then I have not been watching cable news coverage.
I'm just going thru the trial on youtube. Looks like the State is getting in the evidence needed. They are not spending much time with the witnesses. Just sticking to facts. But that is how direct evidence is presented. These are all witnesses for the State.
The defense, on the other hand, can use leading questions and try to get the witnesses to "speculate" on the what ifs. That is just the nature of cross examination. O'Mara is using lots of "...it could have been...right?" to create doubt. That is his job.
The jury will be instructed to only consider the
evidence that has been presented. So far, I have seen no evidence that George could have reasonably feared for his life after a 1 minute encounter with Trayvon.
That 1 minute is based on the evidence that has been presented in court. From the start of the verbal argument to the gunshot was 1 minute and 8 seconds.
(06-30-2013, 06:26 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ]
Will it be admissible that George is a lying liar? I want the jurors to know that lying comes easy to George. I want them to know that a shit ton of money was donated and that he tried, with his wife's help, to hide it. I want them to know that being honest isn't on George's list of attributes and that he will lie in an attempt to help himself. He can't be trusted to tell the truth.
I don't think the defense fund stuff will come in. It might, but I can't imagine how.
The detectives that questioned George will be able to testify as to what George told them. And the jury will be able to see that George is a big fat liar.
These are the timestamps on the phone records entered into evidence. They have them posted on the court website. I just pulled out the ones that go toward Rachel J's credibility.
GZ's NE911 call begins 7:09:34
GZ says "he's running" 7:11:40
TM call with Rachel dropped 7:11:47
TM call with Rachel again 7:12:06 (Rachel say's TM was out of breath)
GZ said "he ran" 7:12:12
GZ NE911 call ends 7:13:40
TM call with Rachel dropped 7:15:43
Gunshot 7:16:51
(06-30-2013, 08:37 AM)SIXFOOTERsez Wrote: [ -> ]I know your an idiot
This is the final time I am going to respond to you in this thread unless its about the court case in question because I know it gets on adubs tits which is fair enough.
A meathead who doesn't even know the difference between “you're” and “your” has no business calling anyone else an idiot.
And that is the end of that.
(06-30-2013, 09:19 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]the jury will be able to see that George is a big fat liar.
I sure hope so. Juries make me feel very anxious, I don't have a high level of faith when it comes to them.
Adub, I swear you'd do better prosecuting this case. It's great to see those phone calls laid out like that. Why hasn't the prosecution created something like that?
(06-30-2013, 11:08 AM)username Wrote: [ -> ]It's great to see those phone calls laid out like that. Why hasn't the prosecution created something like that?
They will. They just have to take it one step at a time. The timeline sucks for George and his fear for his life. As does the fact that George was the one following Trayvon. To the point where Trayvon ran from George. And that George had almost five minutes to make it back to his truck after he told dispatch he would stop following. The truck that was less than a minute away from where George said he was when the NE911 call ended. Way less than a minute.
On the NE911 call it only took George 30 seconds to walk from his truck to the T.
George's brother tweeted that George was repositioning himself. Great job there junior. What a way to help out your little bro.
I don't have your confidence in the prosecution. I hope they lay it out for the jury.
(06-30-2013, 10:55 AM)Duchess Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2013, 09:19 AM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]the jury will be able to see that George is a big fat liar.
I sure hope so. Juries make me feel very anxious, I don't have a high level of faith when it comes to them.
I hate that jury stuff too. The best that George can hope for is that they hang. And that George will be looking at a retrial.
Wonder if he will be able to come up with that $100k to bail himself out then. The dude has seriously went thru almost half a million dollars in the past year. That is a lot of $$$. But, I'm confident if the jury hangs that the racist gun nuts will be hitting the donate button.
The prosecution had to call the neighbor witnesses, even though none of them can say for certain what they saw or what they heard. If the prosecution hadn't called them, the defense would have called them. It was the right thing to do and I don't think de la Rionda was under any illusions that it would go any better than it did. At times, it felt like the witnesses were defense witnesses, imo.
I think that the two strongest neighbor witnesses cancelled each other out and DeeDee is kind of a wild card.
Jayne Sardyka is the woman who said she heard a boy crying for help and then saw Zimmerman walking around after the shooting as if he was asking himself what he'd just done. She couldn't say for sure whose voice she heard, but she held strong with her perception that it was the boy and didn't let the defense put words in her mouth on cross. Good for the prosecution.
John Good is the neighbor who says he saw the guy on top pummeling the guy on the bottom (in red) MMA style. He presumed it was the guy on the bottom who was screaming for help. He didn't let anybody put words in his mouth either. He was good for the defense, imo.
I do think that the defense was able to make self-defense seem reasonable during the prosecution's case so far, not good at all. But, next week should look more like a standard prosecution case; with the uncertain and conflicting neighbor witness accounts out of the way.
The prosecution should be moving on to the implications of the gun shot wound, blood spatter, time line of the incident and 911 calls, George's state of mind (including previous 911 calls which prosecutors will connect to "profiling"), etc... At least, that's what I've been waiting to see and think will make or break their case for either Murder 2 or Manslaughter.
The prosecution has a long way to go in disproving self defense to the jurors, but there's still a long way to go in this trial.
I want to hear Zimmerman directly explain the inconsistencies in his versions of events. I want to hear his story from his mouth under oath and subject to cross-examination. Judging by how the trial has gone so far, O'Mara would be a fool to put Zimmerman on the stand. Disappointing.
(06-30-2013, 01:05 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]John Good is the neighbor who says he saw the guy on top pummeling the guy on the bottom (in red) MMA style. He presumed it was the guy on the bottom who was screaming for help. He didn't let anybody put words in his mouth either. He was good for the defense, imo.
Good did not say that in his testimony. He did say something like that in his initial written statement. He changed it up a lot, for whatever reason. The defense has used Good's initial statement both in their opening, and in their arguments in court during pretrial hearings. He was a wash during his testimony the other day, imo.
Jenna L flat out lied. She is the one that called 911 during the screaming and the gunshot. The State did not release her. She is subject to recall.
But yeah, nobody saw what happened before the screaming and yelling. And even what the neighbors saw was all in the dark. Pitch dark.
I'm just starting to look at Manalo's testimony, the witness that went out after the gunshot and took pictures.
(06-30-2013, 01:39 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ] (06-30-2013, 01:05 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]John Good is the neighbor who says he saw the guy on top pummeling the guy on the bottom (in red) MMA style. He presumed it was the guy on the bottom who was screaming for help. He didn't let anybody put words in his mouth either. He was good for the defense, imo.
Good did not say that in his testimony. He did say something like that in his initial written statement. He changed it up a lot, for whatever reason. The defense has used Good's initial statement both in their opening, and in their arguments in court during pretrial hearings. He was a wash during his testimony the other day, imo.
I watched Good's testimony, Adub. Haven't been able to watch every bit of every witness yet, but I watched all of his direct, cross and re-direct.
I get what you're saying about his testimony and he was really careful in his wording and to clarify his previous statements. But, his previous written and verbal statements were brought up during his testimony, so they were in fact part of his testimony in my view.
He confirmed on the stand that he'd used the "pound and ground" and "MMA" references to describe his perception of what the guy on top was doing to the guy on the bottom. He also agreed with West when West asked if the guy on top, whom Good now knows to have been Travyon Martin, was "raining blows down on Zimmerman". I think he responded, "that's what it looked like".
Just a difference of opinion here; I think he was better for the defense than the prosecution. You could be right, however, and the jury might consider him a wash.
What did you think of Rachel/DeeDee's testimony, Adub? She was better than I'd thought she'd be on the stand.
Good has posted pro-Zimmerman links and Likes on facebook. He definitely feels that Zimmerman should never have been arrested. Seems to be mostly based on Sharpton and Jackson coming to Stanford.
But, his drawing is damning to the defense. It shows movement in the wrong fucking direction. And he started to slip up a bit when he said that he saw that guy on the bottom (GZ) slide out from the guy on the top ™. And that was during cross.
The look on O'Mara's face was priceless. So the mounted position, according to Good, only happened on the sidewalk, after GZ was doing the slip and slide, squirm, shimmy off the grass? George squirmed his fat ass toward the sidewalk? And was helpless to shove the savage known as Trayvon from on top of him?
The back of George's pants should show some evidence of grass stains if he was being brutally held down in the wet grass as he frantically squirmed toward the safety of the sidewalk. Wouldn't you think?
I don't like Z being called a Cracker.
Gives the rest of us 'real' Crackers a bad name.
He's a wannabe Cracker.
[/quote]
Found this pic and thought of the above post made by MS.
![[Image: cracker_zps8357e107.jpg]](http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc235/911JB/cracker_zps8357e107.jpg)
(06-30-2013, 02:19 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]The look on O'Mara's face was priceless. So the mounted position, according to Good, only happened on the sidewalk, after GZ was doing the slip and slide, squirm, shimmy off the grass? George squirmed his fat ass toward the sidewalk? And was helpless to shove the savage known as Trayvon from on top of him?
The back of George's pants should show some evidence of grass stains if he was being brutally held down in the wet grass as he frantically squirmed toward the safety of the sidewalk. Wouldn't you think?
These are the kinds of points that I'm hoping to see the prosecution address next week. I want to hear from qualified forensics/LE witnesses regarding the prosecution's theory in these areas:
-What the stains (or lack thereof) on both parties' clothes signify.
-The implications of the "contact" gunshot wound.
-The implications of the location of the gunshot in Travyon's body as compared to the location of the hole in his sweatshirt.
-The implications of neither Trayvon's nor George's hands showing any indication of having "rained down blows" or having defended oneself from such blows.
-How the time line of the incident (and location/distance) refutes Zimmerman's account.
-George's state of mind - evidence to support that he profiled Trayvon and intentionally killed him, or at least that his actions don't legally meet the qualifications for self-defense.
Hoping to see all of this strung together in a cohesive way to tell the prosecution's story of what happened before the defense's case begins.
So far, there's no prosecution narrative to support the charges and claims made in opening statements, imo. I expected that though. The neighbors all perceived things differently, but had to be called. Time to move on to facts and theory based on facts.
(06-30-2013, 03:29 PM)F.U. Dont ask again Wrote: [ -> ]Gives the rest of us 'real' Crackers a bad name.
He's a wannabe Cracker.
Rachel called him an Ass Cracker. Can ya'll relate to that? Any butt fuckers out there in Mockland? Ya'll relating to raping black teenage boys? That are walking thru your neighborhood? Or maybe race isn't an issue. Just random colored kids that look defenseless when ya'll chase after them.
^ I personally don't have expertise in buttfuckery, Adub, but Rachel didn't call Zimmerman an Ass Cracker.
She stated that Trayvon described the man who was following him, Zimmerman, as a "creepy ass cracker".
I took it to mean that some lighter skinned dude was following him in a creepy way. I guess it could have meant that Trayvon perceived the dude, regardless of color, to be creeping after his ass in a pervy way instead.
Either way, to me, it supports the fact that Zimmerman was following Trayvon and not looking for a street sign, but that's open to interpretation. I don't think Rachel made up that description; there are other terms she could have used to make the same point which would have been more favorable to Trayvon. She could have lied, but she didn't, imo.
Anyway, I don't see the "creepy ass cracker" as being harmful to the prosecution and don't think the jury will make the leap from Trayvon making that statement to Trayvon exacting a racially-motivated attack on George. JMO.
![[Image: 1013437_176950365814651_1786726037_n.jpg]](https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/p480x480/1013437_176950365814651_1786726037_n.jpg)
Rachel J most definitely said "rapist" and "pervert" when describing her reaction to what Trayvon was telling her on phone. It is what it is. Not my interpretation at all. West was just pleased as punch to see how may times he could say "creepy ass cracker" with out listening to a thing that Rachel was trying to tell him.
Are you listening to me?, SIR!
I definitely remember Rachel testifying that she told Trayvon that the guy following him might be a rapist.
IDK, Adub. If I was on the jury, I could see Trayvon having attacked someone that he perceived was going to sexually assault him way before I'd believe that he would have attached someone for being light skinned (as West was trying to imply).
So, I think it's best that the prosecution didn't belabor the "creepy ass cracker" meaning on re-direct.
The conviction of Murder 2 does not hinge on who attacked who.
![[Image: cracker_zps8357e107.jpg]](http://s215.photobucket.com/user/911JB/media/cracker_zps8357e107.jpg.html)