(07-01-2013, 05:45 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2013, 05:37 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]They posted his social security number on his written statement.
Oops! That's bad. The one up on the big screen?
Yep. It was on t.v. for a minute.
The lead investigator just said he believed George was telling the truth, Adub. I think George is walking for sure.
(07-01-2013, 04:13 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]As it stands now, the State is forcing the defense to present a case. Despite O'Mara and his "...couldn't it have beens..." on cross.
So far, I still think that O'Mara could get away with calling no defense witnesses and have a chance of an acquittal. He's doing a damn good job on cross-examination. I don't know why O'Mara lets West talk, ever. The prosecution witnesses to date have not been difficult for O'Mara to turn into semi-defense witnesses.
I do, however, think that the prosecution has shown that George profiled and followed Trayvon. I think that will be even more evident when the state plays Zimmerman's previous 911 calls for the jury.
But, again, proving that George profiled and followed isn't gonna get the prosecution any conviction.
I still believe that the forensic evidence is where it's at. If the prosecution has strong incriminating forensic evidence contradicting George's version of events (and solid committed witnesses to present it), that's when the defense will have a crisis on its hands.
No matter what though, I don't think O'Mara's putting George on the stand. I'd bet on that. And, that's such a disappointment to me. The forensic evidence and George's testimony are what I've always thought would most help a jury render a verdict that reflects the truth of what happened on February 26, 2012.
If there's going to be a lynching, I wanna stock up on popcorn! And maybe some skittles.
I could go back and find it, but I am pretttttty sure I said this was an extremely weak case for murder 2... and that it was way overcharged. So far, that is how it is playing out it seems.
Having your witnesses become ammunition for the defense is a very bad sign.
Plastering a defendants SS# and address is just icing on the incompetence cake.
Oh Angela Corey, where are yooooooouuuuu? In hiding somewhere from embarrassment?
(07-01-2013, 06:00 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2013, 05:45 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2013, 05:37 PM)username Wrote: [ -> ]They posted his social security number on his written statement.
Oops! That's bad. The one up on the big screen?
Yep. It was on t.v. for a minute.
The lead investigator just said he believed George was telling the truth, Adub. I think George is walking for sure.
I haven't read any further down. But Serino has issues. He is employed with SPD. They got the boot, and are being investigated by the DEE OHH JAY. Not surprised at all. Serino hired Jose Baez as his attorney for his deposition. Really? Jose Baez. But anyways, I have read Serino's statements to the EFF BEE EYE. He believes that George fucked up. Kind of in a panicky way. And that George is a wuss.
(07-01-2013, 08:21 PM)Maggot Wrote: [ -> ]If there's going to be a lynching, I wanna stock up on popcorn! And maybe some skittles.
Do you have any idea how racist you sound? Hmmm?
(07-01-2013, 08:48 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]Oh Angela Corey, where are yooooooouuuuu? In hiding somewhere from embarrassment?
She has been sitting in the courtroom throughout the trial.
How would an acquittal be an embarrassment? It happens everyday in the good ole USA. It is called the justice system.
Don't be childish, and get all silly on us here Jbone. Manslaughter is a lesser included, along with a few other options.
(07-01-2013, 09:17 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]She has been sitting in the courtroom throughout the trial.
How would an acquittal be an embarrassment? It happens everyday in the good ole USA. It is called the justice system.
Don't be childish, and get all silly on us here Jbone. Manslaughter is a lesser included, along with a few other options.
I haven't been watching... but she hasn't be jabbering on like she usually does. You know the most dangerous place in Florida? It's the space between news cameras and Angela Corey.
He's likely going down for manslaughter because the jury is going to be afraid to not convict him of something. Riots and all...
You all will get your pound of flesh one way or another, don't worry.
And if he gets totally acquitted, it will be because the state brought a shit case to the court and charged it as murder 2.
(07-01-2013, 10:00 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ]He's likely going down for manslaughter because the jury is going to be afraid to not convict him of something. Riots and all...
I'm really curious as to why you think the jury is going to consider such a thing when deliberating a verdict.
It makes no sense to me at all and there's no such history of that kind of collaborative jury misconduct that I am aware of.
What's your rationale and why do you think every juror would betray their oath and secretly conspire against the court?
(07-01-2013, 10:19 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm really curious as to why you think the jury is going to consider such a thing when deliberating a verdict.
It makes no sense to me at all and there's no such history of that kind of collaborative jury misconduct that I am aware of.
What's your rationale and why do you think every juror would betray their oath and secretly conspire against the court?
I don't believe it's misconduct, or that they are even collaborative about it. No conspiracy or betrayal of oath either... I think it's simple human nature.
There's no chance these jurors had been or are currently completely unaware of the enormous racial pressure that surrounds this case. The coverage this case generated long before jury selection certainly will have an effect. An argument to the contrary completely discounts the bias or influence we experience as human beings.
So now psychologically they are in a position now that they feel they can let both sides win... they can find a guy not guilty of 2
nd degree murder, and convict him of a lesser charge.
There is no vacuum. They are fully aware of all the emotional and racial tension here.
IMO, it will absolutely affect the decision they make.
(07-01-2013, 11:04 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2013, 10:19 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]I'm really curious as to why you think the jury is going to consider such a thing when deliberating a verdict.
It makes no sense to me at all and there's no such history of that kind of collaborative jury misconduct that I am aware of.
What's your rationale and why do you think every juror would betray their oath and secretly conspire against the court?
I don't believe it's misconduct, or that they are even collaborative about it. No conspiracy or betrayal of oath either... I think it's simple human nature.
There's no chance these jurors had been or are currently completely unaware of the enormous racial pressure that surrounds this case. The coverage this case generated long before jury selection certainly will have an effect. An argument to the contrary completely discounts the bias or influence we experience as human beings.
So now psychologically they are in a position now that they feel they can let both sides win... they can find a guy not guilty of 2nd degree murder, and convict him of a lesser charge.
There is no vacuum. They are fully aware of all the emotional and racial tension here.
IMO, it will absolutely affect the decision they make.
Maybe JBone thinks that Black people are scary? the Zimmerman syndrome? Boo!
(07-01-2013, 10:00 PM)Jimbone Wrote: [ -> ] (07-01-2013, 09:17 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]She has been sitting in the courtroom throughout the trial.
How would an acquittal be an embarrassment? It happens everyday in the good ole USA. It is called the justice system.
Don't be childish, and get all silly on us here Jbone. Manslaughter is a lesser included, along with a few other options.
And if he gets totally acquitted, it will be because the state brought a shit case to the court and charged it as murder 2.
If GZ is acquitted it will be because he had an effective defense? Ya ever thought of that?
Thanks for explaining, Jim.
The potential jurors were asked about their fears of public backlash in voir dire. Many potential jurors were dismissed based on their response to that question.
It is not simple human nature to lie during questioning. It's not simply human nature to ignore a sworn oath, which would in fact have to be a deliberate action as the issue has been addressed outwardly in advance.
The impaneled jurors swore not to consider any extraneous factors when deliberating a verdict. It would indeed be juror misconduct, and subject to appeal, for them to render any verdict based, even in part, on fear.
If one juror made a suggestion of a "compromise" verdict based on something not presented at trial (or if it was clear that's what he/she was doing) all of the others would have to agree to that misconduct and not report it. It would, by default, require collaboration unless you're suggesting that all 6 jurors are afraid and none of them did/would admit it to each other or the court. They'd all have to be cowardly liars for your theory to hold any water. Unrealistic, at the very least.
Yours is a far-fetched notion that discredits the jury in advance, imo. It sounds more like, "if Zimmerman is found guilty of manslaughter, it won't be based on the evidence, it will be based on the jury's fear to acquit". Strikes me as hedging for anyone who doesn't care what the evidence reveals and is instead fully committed to the belief that George Zimmerman never should have been charged and/or did no wrong.
If Zimmerman's acquitted, which I think is more likely than I did before the trial started, then what? By your logic, that would mean that the jurors are abnormal; they all will have bucked human nature and should be viewed as superhuman for simply being honest and doing what they swore to do?
At this point, the least likely verdict in my mind has gone from being acquittal to being Murder 2. Whether or not the state can get Manslaughter is now resting firmly on their ability to hit it out of the park with forensics, imo.
In any event, I don't think they'll be any riots regardless of the verdict. It's not a cut and dry case and those who are that passionate about it can see what we're seeing at trial.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
(07-01-2013, 11:38 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]If GZ is acquitted it will be because he had an effective defense? Ya ever thought of that?
If he's completely acquitted, it's because the jury couldn't even convict him of a lesser charge... and honestly I think it has less to do with an effective defense as it has to do with a shit case for the prosecution.
Am I the only one who remembers they weren't even going to charge Zimmerman until the race hustlers whipped up the political frenzy?
There is a reason they weren't going to charge him, and that is because they knew it was crap and the odds of conviction were low.
(07-01-2013, 11:36 PM)Adub Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe JBone thinks that Black people are scary? the Zimmerman syndrome? Boo!
Black people aren't scary.
Although Michael Jackson was pretty creepy.
(07-01-2013, 11:43 PM)HairOfTheDog Wrote: [ -> ]Thanks for explaining, Jim.
The potential jurors were asked about their fears of public backlash in voir dire. Many potential jurors were dismissed based on their response to that question...
*snip for space*
...In any event, I don't think they'll be any riots regardless of the verdict. It's not a cut and dry case and those who are that passionate about it can see what we're seeing at trial.
It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
Believe what you want... I'm not hedging on anything.
So there was this case I know of... gang banger misidentified a car coming down the street, shot it up, and killed two innocent kids in the car. Case goes to trial, 1
st degree murder charge... jury gets empaneled, knows it's a death penalty case, listens intently throughout the trial. They see the victim families in the courtroom. They see the defendant and his supporters as well. They find him guilty of 1
st degree murder... then they have to decide on the death penalty. Going into it, they were in favor of the death penalty because it was a horrible crime.
During deliberation about the penalty phase, a juror points out to the other jurors that their names will be publicly available... and that they all have to sign the document. That same juror points out the gang supporters who have showed up in court everyday will have access to that, and points out instances in the past of retaliation in other cases where gang members have gotten the death penalty.
That's all it took. The room turned, and life without parole was the decision.
A jury of 12 decent people make a decision based on bias and fear, despite promising it wouldn't affect them and swearing the oath. You can't take their reality out of the situation, and you can't assume that one person can't sway the rest.
We'll see soon!
![[Image: laughing-chimp_51581_zps9929e792.gif]](http://s215.photobucket.com/user/911JB/media/laughing-chimp_51581_zps9929e792.gif.html)
