EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 263
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
Budmandude
United States123 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 04 2013 05:56 LegalLord wrote: All I got out of this was that DNA evidence really isn't reliable enough to contribute meaningfully to this case. Am I missing anything? I think before the cross-exam of this witness, the prosecution could have argued that a lack of DNA benefits their case. However, now, that has lost any credibility since they contributed to that finding by investigating in such a way that such evidence would be destroyed in the process. One might say they fucked up the investigation as much as George fucked up in how he handled this whole incident. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
edit: "it DEFINITELY came into contact POTENTIALLY with trayvon?" lolol. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On July 04 2013 06:15 dAPhREAk wrote: jacket doesnt have to come into contact with trayvon; it just has to come into contact with trayvon's DNA, which could be transferred from anything (e.g., ground, jacket, contamination). edit: "it DEFINITELY came into contact POTENTIALLY with trayvon?" lolol. 60% of the time, it works every time... | ||
|
[Agony]x90
United States853 Posts
| ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On July 04 2013 05:59 dAPhREAk wrote: they arent going to finish today. so much for that. when are the parents coming on! "Parent". no way in hell would the state bring the father on considering he said twice publicly that it was not his son crying for help before changing his "opinion". | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 04 2013 06:42 jeremycafe wrote: "Parent". no way in hell would the state bring the father on considering he said twice publicly that it was not his son crying for help before changing his "opinion". Defense could call him as part of their case, although obviously that wouldn't have happened today. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 04 2013 06:42 jeremycafe wrote: "Parent". no way in hell would the state bring the father on considering he said twice publicly that it was not his son crying for help before changing his "opinion". then the defense will call him. prosecutor has been good about calling adverse witnesses and attempting to discredit them. i imagine they wont let the defense call the father with that bombshell. they will prep him and have him say he was emotional at the time and didnt listen carefully--wasnt it the day of or near in time to when the father found out trayvon was dead? | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On July 04 2013 06:48 dAPhREAk wrote: then the defense will call him. prosecutor has been good about calling adverse witnesses and attempting to discredit them. i imagine they wont let the defense call the father with that bombshell. they will prep him and have him say he was emotional at the time and didnt listen carefully--wasnt it the day of or near in time to when the father found out trayvon was dead? I agree the defense will probably bring him up even though it is a risk. I was just saying no way parents were coming up today, or for the state because of that. I thought the second time he said it was on a live interview, need to look for source, but it wasn't the same day as the first time he said it. Regardless of his emotions, they have been saying things like a mother or father know the voice of their son. Well, you would think he would still know it under distress as well. Definitely a target, but I think it is risky bringing him up there. the mother will be the curve ball based on how well she sells her story. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 04 2013 06:55 jeremycafe wrote: I could have sworn there was video of his father being asked the questions and hanging his head low as he said no. Am I imagining this stuff? been so long I can't find anything on it. According to police reports, after listening to audio recordings of the 9-1-1 calls, Martin's father, Tracy Martin, told police investigators that it was not Trayvon Martin's voice yelling for help.[198] Martin has since told reporters he was uncertain at that time, but that when he heard an enhanced recording on March 16 he was convinced it was his son yelling for help. Investigators interviewed Martin's mother, Sybrina Fulton, who reviewed the 9-1-1 calls to police and identified the voice crying for help as her son.[216] Investigators also interviewed Martin's cousin who stated that without a doubt "on a stack of bibles" it was Martin yelling for help on the 9-1-1 tape.[222][223] i dont see a second time. | ||
|
Defacer
Canada5052 Posts
What are the odds of Zimmerman being found guilty of anything at this point? Would love to hear your call. | ||
|
FallDownMarigold
United States3710 Posts
On July 04 2013 03:17 dAPhREAk wrote: they want to show trayvon's DNA was not on the gun (i.e., he didnt touch it). same thing as the fingerprint lady: trayvon's fingerprints werent on the gun. marginal relevance at best since zimmerman doesnt say trayvon grabbed the gun, he said trayvon grabbed for the gun. It's inconsistent that "Mark Osterman, a federal air marshal who described Mr. Zimmerman as 'the best friend I've ever had', and who wrote a book about the shooting, recounted on Tuesday [that] according to Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin had grabbed his gun but that he managed to get it back. That contradicted Mr. Zimmerman's account to the police, in which he said Mr. Martin seemed to be reaching for the gun." Nothing major, just odd that Zimmerman would tell two different stories or that his best friend would lie or forget about what he had been told by Zimmerman for the book. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 04 2013 07:06 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's inconsistent that "Mark Osterman, a federal air marshal who described Mr. Zimmerman as 'the best friend I've ever had', and who wrote a book about the shooting, recounted on Tuesday [that] according to Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. Martin had grabbed his gun but that he managed to get it back. That contradicted Mr. Zimmerman's account to the police, in which he said Mr. Martin seemed to be reaching for the gun." Nothing major, just odd that Zimmerman would tell two different stories or that his best friend would lie or forget about what he had been told by Zimmerman for the book. hmmm, i didnt see that testimony. Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda also questioned Osterman on what Zimmerman told him. Osterman said Zimmerman told him Trayvon tried to grab his gun. "I thought he had said he grabbed the gun," Osterman said. Zimmerman told police he thought Trayvon was reaching for his gun -- not grabbing it. http://www.local10.com/news/george-zimmerman-trial-witness-mark-osterman/-/1717324/20805438/-/11h9fi1z/-/index.html | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Infernal_dream
United States2359 Posts
On July 04 2013 07:05 Defacer wrote: Okay legal pros, What are the odds of Zimmerman being found guilty of anything at this point? Would love to hear your call. Well here comes the stupidity of the American Justice system, legal pros have no say. It's only the opinion of people who have never been to law school. Everyone thought OJ was guilty, everyone thought Casey Anthony was guilty, yet they are both free. I don't understand our system, I don't agree with it, but fuck logic I suppose because it's not changing anytime soon. When your entire life rides on the opinion of a stranger who has no schooling in criminal investigation you can only hope. He shouldn't be guilty but you never know. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On July 04 2013 07:09 NEOtheONE wrote: See the problem is this thing called confirmation bias. Both sets of parents have strong reasons to believe it was their son crying for help. Also, the stronger the emotions, the stronger the bias, The problem of course being that I doubt the jury is well informed on what confirmation bias is and how it will affect this issue in the case. the japanese expert from the FBI discussed confirmation bias. | ||
|
NEOtheONE
United States2233 Posts
On July 04 2013 07:11 dAPhREAk wrote: the japanese expert from the FBI discussed confirmation bias. Ah, I missed that, hopefully the jury was paying attention and took notes. | ||
| ||
