George Zimmerman: Opening Statements

After 15 months of following the George Zimmerman case here and at our forums, the time for trial has arrived. Opening arguments begin at 9 am ET, 7 am MT. Virtually every station in mid Florida is carrying a live feed online. I recommend skipping the shows with commentary.

Don West will open for the defense. I'll be covering significant developments here, and there will be much more detailed coverage at our forums. I doubt I'll have time to follow the trial, work and blog, so you may see a lot of open threads until evening during the trial.

I'm sending good thoughts to Mark O'Mara and Don West. I think they are ready, and I hope they win. [More...]

I hope the state's attorney's office comes down off its high horse and the meddling family lawyers learn they can't buy their way into the criminal justice system with unfounded, accusations, misrepresented facts, sketchy witnesses and baseless attacks on anyone who doesn't jump on their wagon.

Does anyone think Witness 8, the prevaricating "Dee Dee" will even show up at trial? I hope she does, so her story can be tested the way it should be tested -- by cross-examination in a courtroom, under oath and spoken clearly into a microphone. But I have my doubts that we'll ever see or hear a word from her at trial.

Comments are welcome so long as they follow our commenting rules. If in doubt, save your comment on your computer in case it gets deleted for not following the rules. I don't want you to lose your work, I just don't want blatant anti-defense screeds filled with misrepresentations spread through this site.

< U.S. Asks Russia to Detain Snowden | Monday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Guy's big opening (and the states best ammo) (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:39:52 PM EST
    1. GZ did not say "effing punks" like a homicidal maniac the way Guy wanted to portray it as.

    2.  If the phone conversation ended right after GZ said that, it would admittedly be somewhat compelling on GZ's mindset,  INSTEAD we have over two full minutes of GZ talking very calmly to NEN after he said that.  There is zero indication that GZ is a crazed lunatic out to shoot a kid for no reason from listening to the NEN call in it's entirety.

    3. Considering the very suspicious behavior TM was displaying directly before GZ muttered the infamous "effing punks" line...it was completely appropriate.  TM gave an aggressive walk past GZ's car pretending he had something in his waist (which scared GZ who begged NEN to get police immediately), then TM ran off.

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#139)
    by ackbarsays on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:51:31 PM EST
    The defense got the non-emergency operator Sean Noffke to tell them several times that he thought nothing of George Zimmerman saying "these assholes" or "f'ing punks" since he's heard that kind of language many times before and GZ didn't seem to be saying it in a way that indicated specific anger or intent to act.  

    The prosecution had to try to rehabilitate by getting Noffke to say that it "could" be evidence of ill will or spite.


    Nobody is saying that Zimmerman ... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:59:42 PM EST
    ... said "f*cking punks" and "those a$$holes" like a homicidal maniac. But the fact of the matter is that he did indeed use those very words in clear reference to Martin, which could be construed as profiling.

    If it was an offhand comment muttered under his breath, then it's one that he probably dearly wishes hadn't been uttered at all, or at least, had not been recorded by Sanford PD dispatch.

    And honestly, since when has walking back home from a 7-11 been deemed "very suspicious behavior" -- unless, of course, it's being done by a young black male?


    The injection of race is not necessary (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:15:33 PM EST
    and shouldn't have anything to do with this case.

    Thank you Jack203 (none / 0) (#225)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:53:50 PM EST
    Thank you very much.

    So, now we have (none / 0) (#143)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:15:38 PM EST
     "very" suspicious behavior, "aggressive" walking," and "pretending" something in his waist.

    So, why was the only guy with a loaded gun so scared?


    GZ showed apprehension in the NEN call (none / 0) (#146)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:25:33 PM EST
    when he told Sean he didn't want to give his address in case the suspect was lurking around. (which GZ was right about).

    Just because you have a concealed gun doesn't mean you are going to control the course of events.

    Clearly, after seeing GZ's injuries you should realize that GZ was not controlling the course of events.


    zimmerman (none / 0) (#224)
    by morphic on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:49:23 PM EST
      How would Zimmerman know he was the only one armed?

    And you feel the same way regardless of trial (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:59:10 PM EST
    Do you really think Trayvon was screaming for 45 seconds?   Was he on top screaming?  What scenario happened in your mind?

    I understand reading some of the Pro-lynching propaganda, you have such gems as no Trayvon DNA under George's fingernails....so GZ was guilty.

    But who do you really think was screaming?  And are you beyond a reasonable doubt (>95%).  Because if it was GZ screaming, there is no other scenario but self defense.

    I'm about 99% sure it was GZ screaming.  It is completely illogical to think it was Trayvon.  Besides the obvious (witnesses and injuries).  GZ told everyone he was screaming directly after the event.  I don't think Hannibal Lector or a career criminal would have thought up that lie within seconds of the event in view of an entire apartment complex and interrupted by at least two people.  This isn't the movies.

    I don't want to debate (5.00 / 2) (#166)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:20:07 PM EST
    you on this whole issue. But, just to one point you made:

    You said, "I'm about 99% sure it was GZ screaming.  It is completely illogical to think it was Trayvon."

    Think about that for a minute. IF you're the teenager, and you've expressed fear about the self-confessed fact that you were being followed by this stranger, and the stranger doesn't identify himself as would a police officer, and this stranger outweighs you by 50+ pounds, and an anger filled physical altercation breaks out, during which this stranger pulls out a handgun and points it right at you...............

    And, you think "It is completely illogical to think it was Trayvon?" (doing the screaming, "please, I'm begging you...."

    Now, I wasn't there, and neither were you, but "completely illogical?.....Really?


    Not speaking for the post you referenced, but (none / 0) (#168)
    by leftwig on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:48:54 PM EST
    I think the circumstantial evidence (aside from the statements of GZ and W8) is that TM was at the location where the argument and fight began of his own choosing.  He had 4 minutes to go 120 yards (at least 2 minutes while GZ was calmly taking with the dispatcher.  I don't know how to place odds on it, but I can't think of any circumstance that the argument and struggle began where it did without TM choosing to be in that ope area with GZ when he could have been somewhere else (ie, he wasn't in fear of GZ).

    The anger filled altercation (none / 0) (#171)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:56:11 PM EST
    One side wanted to fight and was prepared to fight. Not both parties.

    If GZ was a crazed bezerking racist lunatic...my odds would be a lot different.  But there is no indication he is any of the above.

    He would have to be crazy to get in a closeup sprawling on the ground battle with a loaded gun at your side to begin with.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#193)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:49:16 AM EST
    ...and this stranger outweighs you by 50+ pounds

    Where did you make up that fact from?  Zimmerman had about 10 pounds on Martin, but Martin had several inches of height on him.


    "About" 10 pounds?!? (5.00 / 2) (#194)
    by Yman on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:25:24 AM EST
    Where did you make up that fact from?

    Zimmerman's weight according to his own medical report was 204 lbs.  Martin's weight according to his autopsy report was 158 lbs.  A difference of 46 lbs.  The height difference was 3.5 inches.


    And now that Zimmerman has (none / 0) (#201)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:56:01 AM EST
    gained a lot of weight, the jury may be looking at him now and thinking he looks less able to defend himself physically from a younger, leaner Martin.

    And for those ready to jump down my throat, I'm not suggesting Zimmerman deliberately gained weight, I'm just acknowledging the difficulty the jury may have remembering that at the time of the event, Zimmerman was considerably thinner and appeared to be more fit.


    My bad (none / 0) (#202)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:57:06 AM EST
    On the night of his arrest, George Zimmerman's weight was listed as 185 pounds.

    Actually, no witness has stated that Zimmerman (none / 0) (#167)
    by nemerinys on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:20:35 PM EST
    was screaming at any time, both before and after the shot. W06 stated that Zimmerman shouted "help" or "help me" 2-3 times before the witness went back inside. Afterward, a number of witnesses stated that, after the shot, Zimmerman was rather calm and cool.

    IMO, it was Trayvon screaming. It doesn't make sense that a man whose head was allegedly being beaten into the ground, and whose nose and mouth were allegedly covered by Trayvon's hands, would be able to scream so consistently. Certainly, he couldn't say when all that was occurring during the 02/9/12 interview with Serino and Singleton.


    contradiction (none / 0) (#169)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:48:55 PM EST
    Your first two sentences contradict each other.

    "It doesn't make sense that a man whose head was allegedly being beaten into the ground"

    Correct!  It doesn't make sense the person being beat up is yelling for help.  Right.....

    And "Allegedly"....You did see the pictures right? Or what conspiracy theory do you have?  Were the injuries self inflicted.

    "And whose nose and mouth were allegedly covered by Trayvon's hands, would be able to scream so consistently. Certainly, he couldn't say when all that was occurring during the 02/9/12 interview with Serino and Singleton. "

    The police were trying to trip GZ up (as they should have been) hands covering nose and mouth during PART of the time Trayvon was on top does not exclude GZ from screaming "consistently".  And why do you think Trayvon was trying to cover GZ's mouth?  Answer = Because GZ was screaming


    One thing we can all agree on (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:59:25 AM EST
    Most of the TV commentators are idiots. Listening to two of them totally mis-state what was just said in court.

    The only side I root for at trial ... (4.67 / 3) (#6)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:10:50 AM EST
    ... is justice. A teenager is dead, and a man's life now hangs in the balance because of it. I'm sorry, but this isn't a baseball game.

    I'm content to let the truth lead us where it will over the course of these proceedings during the next few weeks, and will trust the jury to reach an informed opinion and deliver a fair verdict.


    I think you are being a bit dishonest (3.40 / 5) (#7)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:19:48 AM EST
    sorry Don, but you never fail to mention Martin's youth. I think you do have an opinion and I think Martin's youth is a motivating factor in your opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. But don't pretend we are not all motivated by a sense of justice please.

    No, she wasn't. (4.50 / 2) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:00:53 AM EST
    She didn't exclude the audio itself, just the accompanying "expert" testimony. I've heard it, and I can tell you who I think is screaming, but I certainly won't swear by it with 100% certainty -- and neither can Trayvon Martin's parents, who are trying to make sense of their son's death and are going to hear what they're emotionally predisposed to hear. The defense should not allow the prosecution to belabor that point, and the judge should back them up if necessary.

    I won't call the art of voice recognition "junk science," but nevertheless, if a professional opinion is not 100% conclusive, i.e., beyond any reasonable doubt, it should not be presented to the jury in court as though it were fact.


    By your standard (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:08:42 AM EST
    Then we would never have experts testify, because as well all know, many trials have "competing experts" who have completely different outcomes.

    The whole point is that, if the science is accepted 9not "100% conclusive"), then it's up to the jury to decide what is fact and what is not.


    Owen & Reich Not Experts (none / 0) (#18)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:25:12 AM EST
    ...The scientific methodologies and techniques used by Mr. Owen and Dr. Reich are not reliable as they are not sufficiently established and not generally accepted in the scientific community....

    ...the State's witnesses to the samples from the 911 call in this case is a scientific technique that is new and novel. There is no competent evidence that the scientific techniques used by Mr. Owen and Dr. Reich are generally accepted in the scientific field. There is no evidence to establish that their scientific techniques have been tested and found reliable.



    Right (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:28:00 AM EST
    But Donald's comment was about ANY expert (in ANY case).

    ...if a professional opinion is not 100% conclusive, i.e., beyond any reasonable doubt, it should not be presented to the jury in court as though it were fact.

    Correction (none / 0) (#89)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:45:03 PM EST
    From Jeralyn
    Owen is an expert in voice and video. I've used him before. He's testified in several cases. He's got specialized training and experience. His methodologies were unreliable in this case but that doesn't mean he is not an expert.

    I think some "science" is more (none / 0) (#19)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:27:11 AM EST
    art than science. Some "fact" more speculation. So I think it is fair for a judge to make a determination which is which.

    You all should read the extensive discussion.. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:33:40 AM EST
    re: this in the forums.  IMHO the judge made the right call.  The issue was that one "expert" was using software to analyze the 911 call tape which captured screams in a "new and novel" manner. This expert, Owen, looped the scream together to get a long enough sample in order to analyze it with the software, and this method is not "tried and true".  The other "expert" Reich, well, his method was to repeatedly listen to the tape...until he heard words he claims were stated by Martin.  It was really just whacko and certainly not "recognized science".  The defense had, I believe, "4" of their own "experts" who refuted the experts for the prosecuton.  I believe the judge felt the defense experts testimonies were more believable...by a long shot.

    The defense attorney's opening.... (4.50 / 2) (#75)
    by magster on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:46:25 PM EST
    .... has twice made me cringe as callous or insenstive. He opened with a knock knock joke -- no big deal if only thing, but he also just said the forensics on Trayvon Martin's bullet hole was frankly "fascinating". I guess the defense has to describe TM as a homicidal crazed monster at the time of the shooting, but even in a self-defense situation, to not be cognizant of the tragedy that TM is a dead teenager (and the jurors inclination to be automatically sympathetic to TM because of his age) is not doing GZ any favors.

    Judge sustaining multiple objections (none / 0) (#85)
    by magster on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    ... in defense counsel's opening. Not good first impressions for jury.

    Defense twice incorrectly referred to .... (none / 0) (#87)
    by magster on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:34:21 PM EST
    a Trayvon Martin friend named Chad Greene as disgraced domestic abusing football player Chad Johnson.

    I missed the prosecutors' opening. How did that go stylistically? I thought defense did poor job just in terms of having 10 objections sustained against him, telling a joke that bombed and making insensitive remarks.


    Well (none / 0) (#136)
    by ackbarsays on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:47:47 PM EST
    You've just misidentified him as Chad Greene, when he said his name is Chad Joseph.

    Does anyone have recomendations (none / 0) (#2)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:48:42 AM EST
    for a cable channel that will cover the trial without obnoxious talking heads? I too hope the defense wins. It seems to me this has been a case about racial outrage being drummed up against a man who thought he had to defend his life. I think the media coverage has been a disgrace, particularly at the beginning. In fact it has been so bad that even people who think he is innocent believe he will be convicted.

    Cable News (none / 0) (#187)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:56:02 AM EST
    I think the only hope for that would be if TruTV's In Session covers part of the trial. I know they aren't covering all of it, because I see from the listings their time slot hasn't been expanded from its regular two hours.

    I don't think they have covered any of the recent hearings. They have moved on to more recent crimes. The trial might revive their interest. I didn't check to see if they covered the opening statements.


    William (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:55:40 AM EST
    The arguments as I heard them said that voice recognition works on conversation because it recognizes word pronunciation, variations in tone etc.... screaming is not the same thing. As far as family members, several have already said that the screams were or were not their family member and so they are going to be able to testify to what they said. I have no problem with that. All they have to do is tell the truth about their initial reaction to what they heard on the tape.

    The judge did the prosecution a favor (none / 0) (#12)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:46:52 AM EST
    Those experts were such lousy witnesses even a mediocre cross examination would have destroyed them on the stand.

    Not to take anything away from their expertise, they may have actually been geniuses, but the guarded, qualified, cautionary way they talked took obfuscation to a whole new level.


    I too have a lot of faith in the ability (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:53:21 AM EST
    of the jurors to give both the screaming itself and the witnesses' opinions about it the proper weight and relevance.

    yup (none / 0) (#17)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:18:51 AM EST
    that is what we have juries for to decide what matters and how much it matters. They also decide what and whom can be trusted. I was a juror on a murder trial in Florida back in the early 90s. It is not an easy job, but not because you are easily baffled by bullshit.

    William has been banned (none / 0) (#83)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:07:52 PM EST
    and his comments zapped. Flagrant and repeated violations of the comment rules. 10 in this thread. I think he just registered to do guilt-monger.

    watch the trial (none / 0) (#5)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:03:07 AM EST
    you might get some facts. Such as the fact that Zimmerman's head was opened up and bloody. How do you suppose that happened?

    It happened ... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:33:51 AM EST
    ... because George Zimmerman lacked the common sense to stay in his vehicle that night after he called in his report, and to not play policeman and thus violate his own homeowner association's neighborhood watch rules in the process.

    Regardless of the trial's outcome, Zimmerman's wholly responsible for having clearly initiated the tragic chain of events that night by alighting from his vehicle with a gun. He is most certainly not the victim here. At the very least, his ego and recklessness brought about a dangerous and completely unnecessary confrontation, which placed him in potential jeopardy.



    Well Don.... (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by CuriousInAz on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    keep in mind prior to GZ exiting that vehicle that the call taker told him twice to let him know if the subeject "....does anything else"

    again...common sense would have told him (none / 0) (#24)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:36:35 AM EST
    the call taker did not mean that he should put himself in danger to keep them informed.

    Why hold Zimmerman to special standard? (none / 0) (#115)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 04:03:49 PM EST
    I'm baffled that so many people regard Zimmerman simply exiting his vehicle as reckless behavior. Before this case, I never heard anyone suggest that a person who sees someone they regard as suspicious should hide inside a motor vehicle. By that logic, shouldn't bouncers in bars hide in a closet when a fight breaks out, and shouldn't store employees do the same when they see a shoplifting suspect?

    True, I am using hindsight there (none / 0) (#119)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 04:19:42 PM EST
    since it did turn out to be dangerous. And of course having a gun at your hip presumably lessens the risk, else why carry it?

    Exactly.... (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:45:43 AM EST
    Talk about speculation...  on much of this particular thread.  I am very anxious to watch how this trial plays out to finally see the evidence that will be presented to the jury.  I plan to try to form my own judgment as to Zimmerman's innocence or guilt from what is presented at trial (although I realize I come in with a biased opinion already and would have likely been rejected as a juror).

    Well, thank you, Cashmere (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    How refreshing.

    I, too, have a "biased opinion," and, I believe that virtually everybody following this story also have a "biased opinion." The question, of course, is how many would change their minds should the evidence at trial prove their opinions wrong?

    And, that's why "hoping" for this, or that, side to win is so wrong. So, admittedly, being biased, I hope my side wins but, ONLY IF THE EVIDENCE PROVES IT.

    I truly question how many followers of this story could say the same.


    ummmm, what? (none / 0) (#133)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:33:24 PM EST
    you hope the trial turns out the way you think it should but only if the evidence upholds your opinion. What makes you think you have said anything different that I said or Jeralyn said or anyone else? That reminds me of all the women who used to protest outside of the women's health clinic where I worked. Every so often one of them would be there as a client for an abortion. Of course they had the one and only good reason for having an abortion....not like all those "other women" who were just using it for birth control. I doubt there is a person here who doesn't hope for a certain outcome and very few who wouldn't change their mind if the evidence was convincing the other way. Were you aiming for superior self righteousness?

    Donald, you need to state your (none / 0) (#81)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    opinions as opinions and not fact. "It all happened because" is your opinion and I will delete opinions that misrepresent disputed matters as undisputed truths. You have done this throughout this case and I've reminded you several times. Save your comments on your computer if you want your work retained.

    Sure...he was asking for it. (none / 0) (#129)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    Donald, here's the problem: (none / 0) (#211)
    by woodchuck64 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:37:04 AM EST
    You can't judge an action by it's outcome in isolation or you end up with completely incoherent rule of law.  

    Many neighborhood watchmen have done exactly what George did and more, but as a result have successfully prevented theft and violent crime.  By keeping an eye on suspicious characters--which is no more than what George says he did--they have protected innocent victims.  

    Zimmerman did not confront and he did not approach (according to his account and no evidence to the contrary has emerged to my knowledge), he maneuvered to watch which way the suspect was running.  What else does Neighborhood Watch entail if it does not involve watching suspicious characters?

    But, yes, sometimes suspicious characters are actually innocent and probably infuriated by the proverbial "hairy eyeball" -- prolonged attention and suspicious gaze of another person.

    So should Neighborhood Watch laws be changed so that people won't feel bad being stared at?  Maybe have the Neighborhood Watch people wear sunglasses day and night in your view?


    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:58:53 PM EST
    William is limited to 4 comments a day but I suspect he'll be banned before I get through this thread. As I said, people need to read the comment rules, guilt mongering is not allowed here.

    Does anyone know of an audio only stream (none / 0) (#8)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:28:51 AM EST
    that I can listen to on my phone? I have a video stream from a local TV station, but it shuts off when I lock the phone, and I don't want the display on at work!

    iHeartRadio? (none / 0) (#134)
    by ackbarsays on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:38:45 PM EST
    You should be able to find Orlando News 96.5 on iHeartRadio.  They're carrying gavel to gavel coverage, I believe.

    thanks! I'll check them from ime to time (none / 0) (#196)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:40:24 AM EST
    Apparently not gavel to gavel.

    So far the data-heavy video streams are the best bet.


    That denial was as easy a decision (none / 0) (#23)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:35:16 AM EST
    as a judge could have.  The "science" was actualy what lawyers call a "net opinion", i.e., one in which the standards are personal to the expert and not widely accepted in the relevant community.  "Net opinions" should always be excluded.  Period.

    And besides - the decision has been made.  Time to appeal it or move on.

    Here are the links to watch that Jeralyn posted (none / 0) (#30)
    by Cashmere on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:53:29 AM EST
    My cursory research reveals that in FL state (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:24:05 AM EST
    courts, the proper term is "opening statement," not "opening argument."  

    Opening line to prosecutor's... (none / 0) (#39)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:43:57 AM EST
    opening statement..."F*cking punks.  These a**holes. They always get away."

    Gotta admit, as far as the sport of it goes, that's well played.


    I've said from the beginning (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:05:00 AM EST
    "These a**holes they always get away", will be the noose around Zimmerman's neck.

    Not Really (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:16:04 AM EST
    A reasonable person may take into account that what Zimmerman was saying was largely true. That there were many break-ins in the neighborhood and no one was caught.

    Also, the statement does not suggest that Zimmerman murdered Martin evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life. More likely, a reasonable person would surmise, that he just wanted the burglars caught, and tried.

    But add race, gasoline and a match, and it is hard to find a reasonable person. We'll see..


    But why did Zimmerman assume... (none / 0) (#51)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:38:04 AM EST
    Trayvon Martin was a thief?  

    If walking in the rain looking stoned in the estimation of a wanna-be cop is looking like a thief, I am so very blessed to have never lived in a neighborhood with George Zimmerman in a gun crazy state cuz I might not be alive today.

    That being said, I think enough reasonable doubt exists that this f*cking punk should get away.


    Assumption (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:47:14 AM EST
    Just like Quinlan in Touch of Evil whose game leg informs him of criminal activity, those imbued with the talent to sniff out crime.. aka crime stoppers, neighborhood watch, police.. know, it is a sixth sense, they just can tell.

    OK they get it wrong a lot, and in Quinlan's case it is more complicated, but that is how it generally works.

    Oh, and my game leg tells me that had you been in Martin's place, you would have probably wound up having a beer with Zimmerman.


    You're too kind... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:57:37 AM EST
    I can't raise a glass with somebody who drops a dime on me, absent an apology and remorse anyway.  It's only happened once, to my knowledge, and I couldn't even stand to look at the informer after that, much less drink.  Best I can do is not resort to violence...though I sure as hell can understand the urge.  

    Dropping a dime is a violent act in my book...trying to jam somebody up with the police.  Even worse when it's for no reason.  It's low low character, but I realize many if not most see it differently.


    Yes (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:14:39 PM EST
    I agree about dropping a dime.. and I do not believe I would  behave well if confronted by Zimmerman..  he would piss me off big time, but I would not get into a fight with him, not worth it for me.. even as a teen...

    ... but, I have seen your skills here, and can imagine a scenario where you would have Zimmerman crying in your lap telling you about how hard his life is, and all the while you patting him on the head..  Maybe, after that, he would be a changed man.


    Double plus kind... (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:53:39 PM EST
    but I think the gun on the vigilante's hip would prevent your scenario from ever seeing the light of day my friend...people with guns give me the creeps, I don't wanna be around people who are armed, and I especially don't wanna be people who feel the need to strap up for a trip to Target.  

    I try to be a peacemaker, guilty as charged, but I can't work miracles;)


    well yes (none / 0) (#68)
    by nyjets on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:27:33 PM EST
    Most people believe that if someone is breaking the law, they should notify the police.
    There is nothing violent in reporting to the police crimes that takes place in their neighborhoods and if possible, who did it.

    Most People? (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:34:06 PM EST
    Got statistics on that?

    I believe that you are making that up out of whole cloth.


    fair point (none / 0) (#76)
    by nyjets on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:49:23 PM EST
    My only point is that I think a lot of people would prefer to see criminals arrested for their crimes. That is my only point.
    BUt you are correct, I have no statistics to back that up

    What law did Trayvon Martin break? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:39:01 PM EST
    What crime was he in the process of commiting?

    Crimes in Zimmerman's deranged mind maybe, but that's it.

    You must not have had many negative altercations with police to consider it a peaceful act, like far too many youth and especially black youth have had to experience.  


    my point is (none / 0) (#77)
    by nyjets on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:53:07 PM EST
    I agree, I do not know what crime Zimmerman's saw. which is why I have a problem with his self defense claim.
    That being said, if a person sees a crime and knows who committed it, or for that matter discovers someone committed a criminal act, how is it an act of violence to report that person to the police?
    Contrary what you and other may think, there are a lot of good police officers out there. They are not all bad.

    Depends on the crime... (none / 0) (#80)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:59:39 PM EST
    if you're dropping a dime on the kids on the corner smoking a joint, you're the arsehole, I'm sorry.  The cop who arrives may be the nicest guy in the world, but his/her job is to uphold the law, just and unjust laws alike.  His/her hands are tied and is duty bound to react violently (cold steel on wrists and come with me can objectively be called kidnapping, an agressive pat down a sexual assault, etc), unless he/she is super cool enough to distinguish between real crime and crimes in name only.

    A violent crime in progress, yeah...it is reasonable to notify police.


    Neighborhood robbery problem (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    Why are you focusing solely on the reference to being high? Isn't it obvious that Zimmerman thought the suspect might be casing out a house prior to burglarizing it?

    To tell ya the truth,,, (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:49:25 PM EST
    I can't relate at all to George Zimmerman or what the in the world he was thinking...I think he's deranged, but that doesn't make him a murderer in the 2nd degree.

    Why do you need a special ability... (none / 0) (#118)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 04:19:38 PM EST
    ...to relate to the thoughts in Zimmerman's head? Why not simply take his words at face value? We know there was a home robbery problem in the neighborhood, and we know it's the first thing Zimmerman mentioned to the dispatcher. What's the complicated part? Why would a reasonable person think Zimmerman was dropping a dime on a guy merely because the guy seemed high?

    Why deranged? (none / 0) (#122)
    by rickroberts on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 05:28:30 PM EST
    I really don't see where this assessment is coming from?

    I believe walking around high is a crime. (none / 0) (#88)
    by redwolf on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:36:23 PM EST
    And that's what Zimmerman reported to the operator is that he though Martin was on drugs.

    I believe you're mistaken... (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:32:54 PM EST
    being in possession is one of our crimes in name only, but once you've ingested and are no longer in possession it's only a crime if you're driving or operating heavy machinery.

    Eh.. (none / 0) (#109)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:16:55 PM EST
    I believe public intoxication is illegal.  Granted, I wonder what behavior Zimmerman witnessed to proclaim he thought TM was on drugs.

    Unless you're falling down drunk... (none / 0) (#110)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    who could possibly make that estimation, as you alluded?  Point taken though, I was thinking of reefer, not booze or hard drugs.

    Not to mention, what kinda freak wastes the authorities time with that petty misdemeanor?


    Wasn't he (none / 0) (#91)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:50:20 PM EST
    also allegedly going up to people's houses and looking in their windows?  Isn't that also what, according to Zimmerman, made him follow Martin in the first place?

    He did not say walking up to the house (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:53:35 PM EST
    and looking in the windows, as in peering in, at least not on the call to the operator.  I think he said he was looking at the houses.

    I think I need to stop walking in (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:55:40 PM EST
    My neighborhood. One day I look at the color of all the new garage doors. Then paint trim, address numerals, shutters, etc.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 04:25:47 PM EST
    ... he was walking through a townhouse development.  He would have had to look straight up at the sky or down at the ground to avoid "looking around at all the houses".

    And in a develpment like that (none / 0) (#204)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    any walking on the grass at all is probably someone's yard. The public/private grass is not really delineated.

    That is Off Topic Oculus (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:03:58 PM EST
    And somehow I do not think you will ever be guilty of the crime walking while black. Just sayin..  

    No racial profiling on TL. (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:08:48 PM EST
    Not About Race (none / 0) (#103)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:20:14 PM EST
    It is always good to put yourself in the shoes of others so that you can empathize, but in this case, your worries about getting arrested for pondering aesthetic choices home owners have made in your neighborhood, are ill founded, and given the context quite insensitive, imo.

    Ok, thanks (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:54:40 PM EST
    I've read so much about this stuff, it's hard to keep facts straight from speculation.

    Regardless of his exact words... (none / 0) (#112)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:47:17 PM EST
    ...Zimmerman was worried that the person he saw might have been about to rob a house. I doubt he called the cops simply because he observed a person who seemed to be high.

    Wouldn't a reasonable person... (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    observe and wait to see if he actually tried to break into a house before sicking the authorities on him?

    I don't think it's unreasonable... (none / 0) (#116)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 04:09:12 PM EST
    to try to get cops on the scene before the suspect vanishes.

    So now he's a suspect? Good grief. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 05:25:27 PM EST
    Martin was a suspect... (none / 0) (#125)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    ...because Zimmerman regarded him as such. In other words, I factually referred to Zimmerman's judgment; I didn't express my opinion about Martin's behavior.

    Yeah, well, that's the problem I have with this (none / 0) (#128)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 06:50:48 PM EST
    incident.  A suspect is defined as "a person believed to have committed a crime or done something wrong, or something believed to have caused something bad."  What did Trayvon Martin allegedly do that would make him a suspect in George Zimmerman's mind?  

    I don't think (none / 0) (#131)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:11:55 PM EST
     your problem with the incident has to do with how a poster on talkleft.com referred to a hypothetical situation.  

    I think the semantics game is taken a little far here.  

    Yes, TM was walking through a community at night without doing anything wrong.  Yes, GZ saw him, did not recognize him, was in a mind set of people breaking in to homes, was in the role of someone who was supposed [emphasis] to be looking out for the neighborhood and did exactly what most law enforcement agencies would tell someone to do in that situation... call the police.  What part of that is so out of the normal or problematic that he should be ostracized as he has been?

    What followed is debatable, but I don't see any room for argument with his decision to call the police.


    You're missing the entire point, which is that (none / 0) (#132)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:31:58 PM EST
    Zimmerman made a false assumption - he identified  Trayvon Martin as a suspect based on zero evidence.  Zimmerman's "mind set" was the problem, and in my opinion is what caused the situation to escalate where it ended in the death of a teenager.

    Based on zero evidence? (1.00 / 1) (#161)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:05:07 PM EST
    You really think a person whose neighborhood has been plagued by home burglaries isn't entitled to call the cops upon spotting an unfamiliar person who seems to be casing out a home prior to robbing it? How much more evidence would Zimmerman or anyone need to amass before you'd approve of contacting the police?

    How does Zimmerman's decision to call the police indicate he committed murder?


    Don't try to put words in my mouth. (1.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Angel on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:08:15 PM EST
    I never said Zimmerman didn't have the right to call the police, nor did I say he committed murder.  You better be careful, buddy.

    My posts have been about Zimmerman making Trayvon Martin a "suspect" from the get-go and I question what made him do so.

    Learn some reading comprehension skills as they will come in handy here.


    You objected to Zimmerman... (none / 0) (#181)
    by citizenjeff on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:08:31 AM EST
    ...viewing Martin with suspicion, and now you're quibbling over semantics to avoid explaining how much more "evidence" would be needed for you to drop your objection.

    "What did Trayvon Martin allegedly do that would make him a suspect in George Zimmerman's mind?"

    You haven't heard?


    No, I haven't heard anything that gives me a (none / 0) (#197)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:42:03 AM EST
    reason to believe Trayvon Martin was doing anything that would cause him to be profiled as a potential burglar of the neighborhood.  Simply walking around in the rain while wearing a hoodie and talking on the phone isn't enough - in my opinion - to make someone suspicious.  However, after learning of the many phone calls (I believe it was 46 in an 8 year period) that George Zimmerman made to the police, I've come to the conclusion that he was probably suspicious of everyone he didn't recognize, which on its face is unreasonable because The Retreat is not a small complex so it stands to reason that Zimmerman wouldn't know everyone who lived or visited there. Its my personal opinion that perhaps George Zimmerman was on the other side of paranoid.  

    Seriously... (none / 0) (#205)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:15:54 AM EST
    dude is suspicious of his own shadow.

    And appy polly logies if you're getting beat up for my opinions Angel.


    No appy polly logies necessary as we feel (none / 0) (#206)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:37:18 AM EST
    similarly about this event.  

    That we do... (none / 0) (#209)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:11:28 AM EST
    but I fear sometimes we get lumped together as "teams" and it's not fair to you or others to have one of my comments thrown in your face.

    Taking a gun to Target seems to be (none / 0) (#208)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:02:10 AM EST
    evidence of that IMO.

    He once reported a suspicious... (none / 0) (#210)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:15:46 AM EST
    person who by his estimation was 7-9 years old...I mean c'mon!

    Listening to the testimony of the (none / 0) (#207)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:01:05 AM EST
    woman from the PD neighborhood watch coordinator - she does say that she trains them to call the police even if they just don't recognize the person.

    I don't agree with that personally, but that seems to be the training. I'd be on the phone 5 times a day if I did that.


    In what context exactly did she say they were (none / 0) (#212)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:41:51 AM EST
    supposed to call if "they just don't recognize someone"?  Surely that has to be in the context of if someone is doing something wrong, not just if you don't recognize a person as being a resident.  If that's not the case then that is absolutely absurd.  I don't know or recognize many of my neighbors who have lived in my subdivision for more than seven years, and it's a much smaller group of homes than the Retreat complex.  As a member of the neighborhood watch group I'm supposed to call the police if I don't recognize someone?  

    zimmerman (none / 0) (#198)
    by morphic on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:44:55 AM EST
       When someone's wandering around in the rain without an umbrella, on people's lawns, looking at houses, anyone should be suspicious.

    I often get caught in the rain and just pull my (none / 0) (#199)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:50:50 AM EST
    hoodie over my head, as I almost never carry an umbrella.  I'm also a slow and sometimes aimless walker.  I guess I'm a suspicious character.  

    yes, you would be suspicious (none / 0) (#219)
    by ding7777 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:05:47 PM EST
    If you lived in a gated community initiating a NW and did your "slow aimless walking in the rain" by a recently burglarize house, and the NWatcher knew the home owner was not home

    Only in the eyes of someone who is paranoid. (none / 0) (#220)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:14:21 PM EST
    Whose house did Zimmerman know the owner (none / 0) (#221)
    by Angel on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:19:34 PM EST
    wasn't home that Trayvon Martin was supposedly casing?  

    Not heavily raining at the time, as evidenced (none / 0) (#200)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:52:43 AM EST
    by both Zimmerman and Martin's cell phone use. No sound of rain on Zimmerman's call to the operator. The defense pointed out wind sounds, you can bet they would have pointed out rain sounds if they were there. Also no evidences Martin was looking at houses in any deliberate way.

    from what I understand (none / 0) (#144)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:20:56 PM EST
    GZ thought it was odd that TM was walking around some what aimlessly and stopping here and there looking at buildings. Because it was raining GZ seemed to think TM should have wanted to get where he was going, unless walking around checking out buildings was his purpose.

    GZ says Martin was looking at buildings (none / 0) (#195)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:25:53 AM EST
    'checking them out' in some deliberate way. Martin was walking around, talking on the phone, stopping occasionally. GZ interpreted those actions in a certain way, based on.....?

    Zimmerman thought... (none / 0) (#151)
    by citizenjeff on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:42:08 PM EST
    ...Martin might be casing out the house prior to burglarizing it.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#117)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 04:10:55 PM EST
    Ya, maybe some people would wait and see if the person broke into someone's home.  But that would entail following the person closely for a prolonged period of time, probably in areas where there isn't a lot of room to be discreet (following someone in the dark who you think might be dangerous, as we now all know, is probably not a good idea).

    We can apply the "stop snitching" mentality, or we can apply the accepted and advertised role of neighborhood watch organizations, security guards, and your everyday concerned citizens... If you see something, call.  It's not supposed to be the responsibility of the person who called to figure out whether or not there was an actual crime or how serious it is.  The "trained professionals" (I know that can be a loose term sometimes) make that judgement and are supposed to know how to handle those situations.  In this case, if TM had gone home, the police would probably have come by, done a few patrols and left.  That's conjecture of course, but I've seen it many times.

    Demonizing Zimmerman for his concern, in my opinion is the absolute wrong approach.  If you want to criticize, it would probably be around carrying a gun everywhere.  If the law says you can carry guns, or if you're breaking the law and carrying one, then situations such as this will quickly escalate to life and death.  That's the problem with concealed or even not concealed carry permits.  It's too damn easy to kill someone.


    Why? (none / 0) (#108)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 03:14:28 PM EST
    I'm not sure how someone who was supposed to be looking out for the neighborhood they lived in was in a `deranged` mind set for calling the police on someone he had never seen before and thought possibly could be a part of other break ins.  Granted he probably wouldn't call the police on a girl skipping around in a pink dress in the middle of the day, but admit it or not everyone has prejudices and what you wear and other aspects about you will no doubt lead to an assumption by many people.  If it was your responsibility to "protect" your neighborhood by reporting activity that you believe could harm your neighbors, then the call to police was appropriate.

    If he had not said anything and the person was someone breaking into houses, it wouldn't have been as tragic, but I'm sure people would wonder what the "neighborhood watch" guy was even around for.

    Personally it seems you're upset about neighborhood watches in general. That's fine, but it's certainly not a crime.


    zimmerman (none / 0) (#130)
    by morphic on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:11:22 PM EST
       Apparently, at least in Florida, wandering around in the rain, walking on other people's lawns, and looking in windows is considered suspicious behavior

    That's not Florida - it's Fantasy Land (none / 0) (#163)
    by Yman on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 09:54:04 PM EST
    Zimmerman did not claim that Martin was walking on other people's lawns and looking in windows.  He described Martin as "just walking around looking about" and "looking at all the houses".

    Pretty hard not to "look at all the houses" when you're walking through the middle of a townhouse development with homes in every direction.


    Seriously (none / 0) (#56)
    by jbindc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:55:26 AM EST
    Read the Zimmerman forums on this site - your statement of what transpired is so full of holes, that I can't even begin to point them all out.

    That would fall (none / 0) (#53)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:44:15 AM EST
     under the heading of "circumstantial" evidence. Of course, many cases are won with nothing but circumstantial evidence. But, usually those would be cases with a large abundance of such evidence. In this case, however, with only one side having a living witness, that would be a pretty tall order. And, that's what has so many pro-Zimmerman supporters so confident. (overconfident, if you ask me.)

    On the other hand, as any judge would instruct a jury, "if you find a witness has lied about a significant matter you are free to infer that he/she has lied about other/all matters." I think that is what "will be the noose around Zimmerman's neck."

    Many supporters point to Z's talking to the police so much, so openly, and, without a lawyer present, as proof of his veracity, and his "having nothing to hide." But, some of the smartest lawyers I know have put together a scenario showing a string of lies, contradictions, ambiguities, and other assorted obfuscations that, together with the circumstantial evidence, could result in a Guilty verdict.

    The one theme underlining most of the pro-Zimmerman blogs and comments I've found is the absolute smugness exhibited in their position and the downright disdain shown towards the Prosecution.

    If there's one thing I've found after a lifetime in a competitive business is that overconfidence can be a killer.


    I think that whole first call (none / 0) (#86)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:29:24 PM EST
    plays badly for GZ. I had to stop listening for a while, and when I came back on they were playing that tape, and I assumed the prosecutor was still doing his statement, but in actuality it was the defense. I really don't know why.

    And closing with saying GZ bought a gun in case he had to shoot the neighbor's dog does not play well either, IMO.  


    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:39:21 PM EST
    I'd shoot my neighbor's pit-bull if it was always running around loose and I was afraid it would attack me, my kids or my dog. I have a gun. I don't carry it often. But If I was confronted with this dog several times, I would carry the gun all the time and I would definitely protect my dog from their dog.

    Perhaps the neighbors dog (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:47:55 PM EST
    shops at Target

    yes (none / 0) (#124)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 05:34:15 PM EST
    I thought the guy did a really good job.

    Sounds (none / 0) (#127)
    by lentinel on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 06:42:41 PM EST
    like a line from "12 Angry Men".

    How is that no one (none / 0) (#41)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:57:34 AM EST
    on the defense team was able to persuade Don West that the knock-knock joke was a bad idea?  I can only imagine how turned off many of the jurors were by that.  

    What did he say? (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:10:13 AM EST
    Google is my friend. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:22:34 AM EST
    "Knock, knock." (none / 0) (#45)
    by CoralGables on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:22:07 AM EST
    "Who's there? George Zimmerman. George Zimmerman who? All right, good, you're on the jury."

    Yep--to start off (none / 0) (#48)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:35:41 AM EST
    his opening statements at the same time acknowledging that doing so would be "risky".  It just set a horrible tone.  I'm not on GZ's side in this, but I do believe he deserves a very vigorous defense.  For GZ's sake, at least West set the ground work for an "ineffective assistance of counsel" claim if he is ultimately not successful.  

    Based on my second cursory research, (none / 0) (#61)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:14:30 PM EST
    jokes that fall flat during opening statement have not previously resulted in reversal in FL due to ineffective assistance of counsel.

    Sorry--I wandered off... (none / 0) (#49)
    by indy in sc on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:36:09 AM EST
    "Expert" Owens had been... (none / 0) (#47)
    by heidelja on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:25:47 AM EST
    ...hired way last year by The Orlando Sentinel to generate a "news worthy" story...for some reason. It was as whacky then for those statistically inclined as it became in the pretrial hearing. Owens' education background is history, not science and math. The prosecution was only attempting to use this for uncertain reasons which might be now be found in a curious substance in the state's opening arguments reported by CFNews13.

    Owen is an expert in voice (none / 0) (#84)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    and video. I've used him before. He's testified in several cases. He's got specialized training and experience. His methodologies were unreliable in this case but that doesn't mean he is not an expert. That his undergraduate degree was in history when he's had 30 plus years of experience is meaningless.

    lies and inconsistencies? (none / 0) (#59)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:05:15 PM EST
    what lies and inconsistencies will the prosecution provide to us?  They claimed in opening statements that Zimmerman told many.

    One juror, according to news reports, (none / 0) (#63)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:19:06 PM EST
    nodded in seeming assent during a part of the prosecution's opening statement.

    Some people just do that as a social cue.... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by magster on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 12:27:18 PM EST
    to convey that they are listening and understand what is being said.... my Wife being one of them.

    Me too...frequesntly gets mistaken for agreement (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:47:39 PM EST
    just means 'I understand what you are saying...you are communicating effectively.' and maybe - 'I get it, move along.'

    When I first started as an attorney... (none / 0) (#95)
    by magster on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:55:59 PM EST
    there was the DUI prosecutor who was a very pleasant person, but as you tried to negotiate a better than usual plea agreement with her she'd nod, smile say "uh-huh, uh-huh" open her eyes wide like I was making an impression on her, and then at the conclusion, shake her head and say no.

    Me: But this case is different, blah blah blah.

    Her: Uh-huh, uh-huh, yeah, .... no.


    Ha - a little misdirection there.... (none / 0) (#97)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:59:30 PM EST
    'you are so well spoken, I get exactly what you are saying...but sorry, you are wrong' :-)

    evidence being discussed by defense . . . (none / 0) (#82)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:05:23 PM EST
    In opening statement, we have the evidence mentioned as follows:
    1. dirt on the knees of the pants of TM, which is circumstantial evidence corroborating the test of GZ and John Good, who both stated that TM was on top of GZ and straddling him.  The dirt on the knees helps corroborate that position;
    2. a dropped key or keyring in the place that
    GZ says the fight started or where the defense now says the fight started . . . and not in a position indicating some further pursuit of tm;
    1. the gunshot evidence with the clothing indicates that the gun was in contact with the clothing, but not in contact or even within 2 inches of the body . . . this corroborates again the positions of TM and Zimmerman, per the test of GZ and witness John Good;
    2. the witness John Good had exited his home and observed the right at less than 20 feet away . . . and then, rather than helping, he went back inside to call 911.  Of course, he could have directly intervened, but whether that would have been good judgment or not, I don't know and the lawyer does not suggest anything;
    3. the gunshot evidence seems to conclusively establish the positions of tm and gz and the time the shot was fired . . . tm had to be leaning over and there was some reason or factor that was separating his clothing from his body itself.

    Well that was bizarre... (none / 0) (#96)
    by ruffian on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 01:57:28 PM EST
    Defense trying to keep Mr. Martin otu of the courtroom - called a witness who is a friend of GZ who heard Martin mutter 'motherf***' under his breath as the friend held the door that Martin was walking out of...sometime in the last 2-3 weeks....

    Judge did not rule for the defense on that one.

    The defense opening (none / 0) (#99)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:05:00 PM EST
    I only saw a few bits of it, but from the descriptions of people I trust on twitter, it seems to be pretty much a disaster. Which is consistent with the bits I saw. Yikes.

    Wonder why O'Mara did not make the (none / 0) (#100)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    opening statement b

    Seemed that way to me... (none / 0) (#102)
    by magster on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:11:53 PM EST
    Did you see the state's argument? I missed it. What did the twitterers that you trust say about the prosecutor's opening?

    That it was competent (none / 0) (#107)
    by bmaz on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 02:45:06 PM EST
    and well presented for the most part. Note, it was not De La Rionda which could explain why it was better than expected.

    The prosecution knowingly misrepresented (5.00 / 2) (#184)
    by lily on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:30:13 AM EST
    the reasons for lack of DNA evidence. They knew for over a year that the CSI failed to bag TM hands or photograph his hands at the scene. The prosecutors knew that the ME opened the bagged clothes to find basically rotting clothes, contaminated by mildew because someone failed to dry the clothes properly before sealing in plastic.  

    West explained this is detail today, along with plenty of other facts relevant to the justice. Interesting how little substance is reported or discusses.

    Once again, the prosecutors found it advantageous to present a conclusion by hiding the facts of situation.

    This case stinks... social justice by Just US lynch mob is not justice.


    30 minute opening minus facts (none / 0) (#189)
    by lily on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 01:42:15 AM EST
    in a high profile case the state has spent over a million dollars prosecuting.

    Openings are overviews (5.00 / 1) (#190)
    by bmaz on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 02:23:33 AM EST
    They are designed to introduce the jury to you and your client and the nature of your case, not to tell the whole story with facts. They are arguments, not fact or evidence. In my opinion, in 95% of cases, if your opening goes over 30 minutes, you are doing it wrong.

    MOM and West have commented (none / 0) (#191)
    by lily on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:17:55 AM EST
    numerous times that this case is like no other in their 60 collective years as criminal defense attorneys. Check out the video, plenty of important details disclosed in his opening,like DD egging TM on to confront GZ, closing the time gap between the NEN call and the confrontation down from the state's 4 minutes to under one minute.

    The defense (none / 0) (#137)
    by ackbarsays on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 07:49:38 PM EST
    should have used Lorna Truitt to present the opening argument. That would be fighting fire with fire, since clearly the state used John Guy to appeal to the all-female jury.

    This is strictly my opinion. (none / 0) (#153)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:44:15 PM EST
    It should not be construed as a representation of fact.

    Let me put it another way (none / 0) (#155)
    by obsessed on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 08:45:19 PM EST
    If you're someone's defense lawyer, you're ethically required to try to get him off even if he's guilty. He's entitled to that and you'd be committing malpractice if you didn't. But if you're a defense lawyer who ISN'T being retained by said party, you're under no such obligation. I would enjoy this site a lot more if y'all defense lawyers would be more objective and less of a tribe. Sometimes the prosecution is right and you only have to be in denial about it if you're getting paid to be.

    Your dictionary (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cylinder on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:16:24 PM EST
    Errr....Zimmerman's group was not self-appointed but it was sanctioned by law enforcement.


    Have you stretched today Donald? (none / 0) (#170)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 10:55:18 PM EST
    I think you are probably adding a healthy dose of your own biases, prejudice and stereotypes into this and kinda falling off the logic wagon.

    Ignorant stereotyping of who??  People who burglarize houses? That's who he was referencing.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#173)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:12:21 PM EST
    Could you explain how there would have been no case if TM was white?  I think a lot of people said the opposite.

    And yes, personally I do believe that a white teenager dressed as TM was dressed, at night and unknown to the neighborhood watch person would draw attention.

    Who was the self appointed police officer?  Are you referencing Zimmerman who called the police and was not self-appointed to his role in the neighborhood watch.  It doesn't seem like you are because you got a lot incorrect, but we are on the Zimmerman trial so I think you are... very confusing...

    Do you get it yet? (none / 0) (#174)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:22:27 PM EST
    Ahh - Ok, now I get it.  

    You didn't catch your fallacies while writing it all out?

    Who was undertaking law enforcement? Do you know what law enforcement is?  It's certainly not observing and reporting, which is what GZ was doing.  GZ also had complete legal authority to do what he did.

    GZ referenced people who have burglarized homes in his neighborhood as the punks.  Do you not think that people who burglarize homes are by and large punks?  Are you pro home invasion? I don't understand how you got racist out of that... It seemingly is a non-sequitur

    Knowing that, does that change your mind at all or are the reasons you put out here simply excuses to back up the position you feel you should be taking? I feel like you might not change your mind on too many things...

    You're right (none / 0) (#176)
    by Jack203 on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:36:22 PM EST
    If Martin has been white, there would not have been an arrest.

    Angel (none / 0) (#177)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:47:54 PM EST
    Angel, he was in the neighborhood watch.  It was his job to be suspicious.  You understand that right?  He did exactly what he should have done, which was call the police.  There is no room to question that legally.  If you wanted him to wait and find out if a crime really would have been committed then you are saying he should have followed TM even closer and watched him before calling the police. However, we saw that when TM got fed up with having someone be suspicious of him, as far as we understand the events, he attacked GZ.  That is where the problem was.  That's what is not legal.  That is what escalated the situation.

    I mean if you really want we can go back to a butterfly in china flapping its wings which ended up causing it to rain that night which made TM wear a hoodie which added to GZ's suspicion which ... yada yada yada... guess it was the butterfly's fault eh?

    some points taken - others not so much (none / 0) (#178)
    by obsessed on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:48:01 PM EST
    If sanctioned by the police, it was obviously a bad idea, wasn't it? GZ was obviously grossly unqualified to have a gun or engage in any sort of police activity. He proved that beyond a shadow of a doubt in the worst way possible. He couldn't follow instructions ("stop following him - back off") and he killed someone due to inserting himself into a situation he was not qualified to deal with.

    You all are doing a good job of making the case a defense attorney should make, but in your zeal you're getting bed with the devil.

    I'm anti devil personally (none / 0) (#180)
    by chaking on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:55:27 PM EST
    No, you are conveniently missing some facts and making others up to fit your bias.  I think talkleft is refreshingly logical with a defense mindset.  If GZ was a racist vigilante who was intent on murder and there were facts that showed that, I (even though I'm relatively new here) would think it would be stated that way.

    Problems from your last post:

    1. He didn't engage in police activity.  You aren't catching the nuances of that.
    2. You don't know that he was following TM after the NEN operator said they didn't need him to follow him, and you mis-quoted what was said.
    3. It's very debatable that he "inserted" himself into a situation he wasn't qualified to deal with.  The accounts and evidence we know show that TM confronted GZ and that GZ did not attempt to confront TM, rather he called the police as he should do from a neighborhood watch's standpoint.

    replies (none / 0) (#192)
    by obsessed on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:38:22 AM EST
    >I think talkleft is refreshingly logical with a defense mindset.

    So do I - "defense mindset" - that's my main point - TL strikes me as an interesting site that delights in trying to strategize along with the defense in any given trial. It's interesting - that's why I'm here. My initial questions were whether TL has ever sided against the defense and what if any scenario would result in that.

    >He didn't engage in police activity.  You aren't catching the nuances of that.

    I guess I'm not. Driving around with a loaded semi-automatic gun looking for suspicious-looking characters (i.e. African-Americans) and getting out of your car to pursue one when you see one is police activity to my un-nuanced way of looking at it, and I strongly believe that it should be a felony to engage is this type of pro-active behavior without stringent training in how to do so responsibly - i.e., without being a police officer. I get that it's not a felony and that GZ was within his rights to play cop that night but I have no sympathy for the situation that activity got him into. It should be illegal for the precise reason that its legality leads to deaths and murder trials.

    >points 2 & 3

    You're right when you say "you don't know" - I only know what I've heard reported and it's not what you're saying

    Here's my theory of the defense:

    Knock Knock - Who's There?
    A dead black kid - A dead black kid who?
    A dead black kid - Who cares?

    I know many of you are convinced that GZ did not profile TM - Thus far, I'm convinced that he did - but can we agree that profiling - even if it produces some statistical success - is unfair to the innocent and often deadly to the innocent when semi-automatic weapons are involved?

    There are two 800 lb. gorillas in this room that no one is mentioning:

    1. There is a statistical truth that enough crimes are committed by African Americans to make people like Zimmerman paranoid and angry, creating an underlying sympathy among some here.

    2. There is a lot of crime is poor neighborhoods because we live in a country that has a huge and rapidly increasing gap between rich and poor in terms of earning potential and upward mobility.

    Ok (none / 0) (#217)
    by chaking on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    I don't think he was looking for suspicious characters, but when he became suspicious he called the actual police.  That is not police activity.

    As far as what you've heard reported, I think we can agree the reporting on this has been iffy at best.  There are, however, definitive sources of information if you care to find them.

    "A dead black kid - Who cares?" Why would you say something like that? What point are you trying to make?  Honestly, most people don't care much about anybody but themselves, their family and their friends.  But it seems obvious the stance you are taking is that the country or the local law enforcement don't care about black people as much as they do about white people, or others.  I think we've seen quite the opposite in the last few months, wouldn't you agree?

    As far as profiling - I think you take it too far.  Is it unfair? It can be I suppose.  However, there is no escaping it.  It's how our minds work.  It's not illegal for you to make an assumption about someone. It's not illegal for you to call the police saying you feel someone is suspicious. You are very adamant about the profiling, but in reality it just doesn't matter.

    I'm already worn out talking about this.  He was within every legal right to do what he did.  End of story.

    This is not about whether he should have been suspicious or not.  That fight is not one that's going to be won here.  So can we stop making it about that?


    correction (none / 0) (#218)
    by chaking on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 05:27:55 PM EST
    I should say he was within every legal right to call the police on someone he thought was suspicious.  The rest is still on trial...

    prosecution evidence (none / 0) (#179)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Mon Jun 24, 2013 at 11:49:50 PM EST
    the one thing interesting in favor of the prosecution is the claim that TM was not fighting because he had no injuries.  I don't believe that their claim is correct, but i do have the question.  If TM was punching or beating GZ, then, would his hands have gotten swollen in the space of 2 minutes . . . or, do fighters not necessarily have that reaction?

    swollen hands (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Philly on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:28:18 AM EST
    If TM was punching or beating GZ, then, would his hands have gotten swollen in the space of 2 minutes . . . or, do fighters not necessarily have that reaction?

    It depends on the puncher, their physical attributes, and exactly where/how they are hitting.

    Hitting the hard parts of the skull with your knuckles is usually a sure way to injure your hand.  But even then, the injuries you get from dishing out an poorly targeted punch aren't always outwardly visible.  I've experienced aches in my hands that lingered for days without skin breaking or noticeable swelling.

    I think the presence of significant injuries on Trayvon Martin's hands would be strong evidence that George Zimmerman was being beaten.  But lack of visible injuries hardly rules it out, and the wounds on George Zimmerman's face are consistent with him having receiving multiple punches.


    the defense and (none / 0) (#186)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:36:32 AM EST
    It appears that the defense would have been helped by being able to call or discuss the questions of
    1. hitting or punching someone without resultant obvious swelling of the hands, which I am sure must occur for some people, or those who practice karate and other MA or MMA would have a lot more difficulty . . .
    2. a person screaming in pain, and their screaming stopping when the blows stop;


    Just a question about this as well.. (none / 0) (#232)
    by Cashmere on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:10:07 PM EST
    When wearing a large sweatshirt, one can pull the sleeves over one's knuckles, which may soften the blows and the bruising to the hands.  With that said, I think there would then be blood on the cuffs of the sweatshirt... jut curious about thoughts.

    one bad inference by the state . . . (none / 0) (#182)
    by zaitztheunconvicted on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:08:57 AM EST
    John Guy for the state says that one or more 911 calls are in favor of the state, because, as we compare the screaming and the gunshot, the screaming stops immediately after the gunshot.

    However, that is not a correct inference.

    I wrote before that I at times am caned.  It is entirely normal for a person to scream at each stroke of the cane, but not be screaming, when not being hit.

    If George Zimmerman's screams were partly or wholly as a result of physical pain, then, they would naturally stop at the time of the last time he was punched or had his head pounded into the ground.  Every punch or head-banging could easily have resulted in a specific scream, although there is no guarantee that there would be a one-for-one correspondence.  However, a person who is screaming largely due to physical pain will often, in fact, have his last scream at the time of his last stroke/hit/lash/whatever that causes another dose of pain.

    As with everything else the state has (none / 0) (#237)
    by Jack203 on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:18:54 PM EST
    It's horrible logic.

    Obviously you don't live on the east side (none / 0) (#185)
    by lily on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 12:34:02 AM EST
    of Oahu where dispatchers and first responders have heard "the assholes always get away" so many times they do not even notice it. Just as Sean had in Sanford.

    You must live in a gated community, insulated from reality.

    Utterly ridiculous analysis from an (none / 0) (#214)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:24:52 PM EST
    unidentified source. Not that identifying the source would make his analysis of this brief street brawl any less ridiculous.

    Well, thank you (none / 0) (#216)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    your comments are always so enlightening, so well documented, and when you belch out "Ridiculous!" it's with such authority I'm almost embarrassed I made a comment in the first place.

    you quoted an unnamed source (none / 0) (#229)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 07:32:59 PM EST
    and alleged GZ's versions of events was "bogus." Sorry, that's gossip and unwelcome here and doesn't comport with what the defense experts will say according to their opening statement. Expert Vincent di Maio, the leading expert on firearms and a pathologist, will testify exactly the opposite of what your unnamed expert said. There's no need to resort to armchair experts when real ones who have reviewed the evidence are available.

    His injuries were not minor and could not have come from rolling around the grass, and to posit that they were is to disregard the known evidence in the case. Whether they were serious enough for a jury to decide his belief he was in danger of imminent serious bodily harm will be determined by the jury. But Di Maio, according to Don West, will testify they were and it's not a close call. He will testify the injuries are consistent with his head being banged against concrete.

    Your comment was deleted. If a state's expert makes that argument we'll discuss it. Your armchair expert's opinion is not welcome here.


    Didn't Don West also say ... (none / 0) (#230)
    by cazinger on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 07:55:31 PM EST
    ... that they were expecting to bring in the MMA instructor from Zimmerman's gym?  He indicated that this instructor would testify as to how Zimmerman was "soft" and this instructor would never, NEVER put him in the ring?

    Actually, I would not emphasize that fact if I were the defense.  If I were defense counsel, I'd rather have it be true that Zimmerman was an accomplished MMA amateur.  The reason I say that is that it would be unreasonable to expect an accomplished fighter to lose the fight so badly and suffer the injuries that Zimmerman did ... UNLESS ... the other combatant struck first and caught Zimmerman completely off guard.  It would really go to demonstrate who struck the first actual physical blow.


    of course my comment was deleted (none / 0) (#231)
    by NYShooter on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 08:23:34 PM EST
    I offered to provide a link, website, but alternate opinions being not welcome here I saw no takers.

    And, I'm sure you'll be sorry to hear that this will be my last post here. You've given up even a pretext of fairness, but at least there will be the trial and I doubt you'll be able to delete that.

    sorrowful, really sorrowful.


    Come on NY, don't leave (none / 0) (#233)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:48:56 PM EST
    Remember last week when you told me "but that's not evidence"? (I don't even remember what it was.) When Jeralyn has case discussions here, only real evidence is up for discussion.

    If you'd just stated in your opinion...he would have worse injuries, etc, I doubt it would be deleted. Just don't say an expert said so unless it's an expert in this trial.

    Don't leave :(


    thanks, Shooter - that's enlightening, (none / 0) (#215)
    by Anne on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    and something I hadn't heard, although admittedly, I haven't been immersed in the case, have not been reading the forums, either.

    Does the prosecution plan on calling an MMA champ (none / 0) (#222)
    by cazinger on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:36:16 PM EST
    ... as an expert witness?  It would definitely provide some interesting testimony.  They could set up a ring right there in the courtroom and have the champ do a demonstration.  Perhaps BDLR would volunteer to act the part of the fighter on the bottom.  I'm sure that he's probably got a couple of pounds on most MMA champs, so he should be very able to demonstrate how someone, simply by virtue of having a little extra weight, could just "flick" off a slightly lighter MMA champ "as one would a flea from a forearm."

    Now THAT'S some testimony I'd love to see.

    I'll make sure I get his "conclusion with its high degree of certainty" next time I see him...

    Perhaps things have changed ... (none / 0) (#223)
    by cazinger on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 06:43:20 PM EST
    ... a lot since I used to wrestle.  Admittedly, I am not a MMA, but I did used to wrestle.  At the time, I weighed 185, but I wrestled up a weight class ... well, because I was strong enough that I could.  I actually wrestled heavyweight, which was a weight class that ran from 185 pounds all the way up to 285 pounds.  So in some matches I would give away as much as 50-60 pounds (taking on wrestler who weighed 230-250 pounds - the ones that actually weighed 285 were actually pretty rare).  It's probably a good thing that I was not aware of this MMA champs analysis, or I probably would not have been able to win nearly as many matches as I did, considering my opponents should have been able to simply "flick" me off of them "as one would a flea from a forearm".  Should I go back and forfeit all those pins I had, since, according to your MMA Champ, I shouldn't have been able to do that?

    Yup. Wrestler here, too. (none / 0) (#226)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 07:18:35 PM EST
    But much lighter than you and GZ, I wrestled 135 my senior year.

    GZ, of course, was defined by his physician as "obese," not exactly the sort of label that typically strikes fear into an opponent's heart.

    I also have been in actual street fights, and have had my ass handed to me - pre-HS wrestling, of course.

    The sumb*tch kid up the street once had me on my back, straddled me with his knees on my upper arms/shoulders to pin me down, and whaled away, rights and lefts, on my face.

    My brothers and I used to use the same technique on each other (absent the punches) to hold each other down.

    Sure, once we all got some actual wrestling instruction and learned what we were doing, that "technique" became laughably ineffective, but before that it worked pretty well...


    I confess to many fights growing up (none / 0) (#235)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:56:11 PM EST
    with two brothers. Real fights, though I only remember one real punch and I was the recipient. Ouch. The rest was kicking and wrestling. My poor parents.

    I did beat up a 9 year old boy when I was 10 for picking on my 8 year old brother. When you're mad, you get some extra strength in there.


    Jeralyn/any lawyer (none / 0) (#234)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 09:52:16 PM EST
    Is there any significance to Witness 1 and her sister, Witness 2, meeting with the prosecution together last Thursday to go over their testimony? Should that have been separate?

    (She got so tripped up and caught in at least three lies or "don't remembers" and then he showed her - like the moveon.org petition, I almost felt sorry for her.)

    I watched every minute today (none / 0) (#236)
    by Teresa on Tue Jun 25, 2013 at 10:01:16 PM EST
    It's interesting to watch what the media concentrates on after the fact. The two big "ah ha's" with the last witness weren't shown. A tad on one, but not much. No mention at all of the petition. I felt like I was watching a Perry Mason moment.

    I used to sneak his books out of the library when I was a kid until my parents caught me and said I wasn't old enough to read them. I never understood that. I don't remember any s-e-x in them.