|
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. |
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense.
well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way.
|
On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way.
Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body.
|
On July 10 2013 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
its amazing that the prosecutor is casting doubt on everything by saying that it could have been this, it could have been that. usually its the defense's role to cast doubt on all the theories on the case because, you know, reasonable doubt is good enough for acquittal. i know he is attempting to ridicule zimmerman's testimony and impeach it, but jesus he is doing a horrible job of it by saying nobody knows what happened.
But to be honest, what else is left for the prosecution to do? The trial is over imo. They have to play out what is left to them, because they are the state and have to go for every angle possible, but I'm sure they know that they have 'lost' this case.
Just bringing it to an end doing all they can possibly do, so nobody can tell them later, that they should've pushed this or that angle I think.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body.
ya true of course.
Keeps bringing up the point that this testimony is only about after the gun is pulled out.
|
On July 10 2013 03:18 Junichi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 02:59 dAPhREAk wrote:
its amazing that the prosecutor is casting doubt on everything by saying that it could have been this, it could have been that. usually its the defense's role to cast doubt on all the theories on the case because, you know, reasonable doubt is good enough for acquittal. i know he is attempting to ridicule zimmerman's testimony and impeach it, but jesus he is doing a horrible job of it by saying nobody knows what happened. But to be honest, what else is left for the prosecution to do? The trial is over imo. They have to play out what is left to them, because they are the state and have to go for every angle possible, but I'm sure they know that they have 'lost' this case. Just bringing it to an end doing all they can possibly do, so nobody can tell them later, that they should've pushed this or that angle I think.
if they dont have anything to say, they shouldnt ask questions. if they were good attorneys, they would have a theory of the case and they would walk the expert witness through their theory to show that it is equally or more plausible. if they have specific attacks on the testimony, they should attack--they have done this already to some extent. they should not present ridiculous hypotheticals and have the witness counter them as stupid because it makes the prosecutor's case look stupid.
he is making the mistake of first year attorneys by feeling he should ask questions when they dont even help him.
|
On July 10 2013 03:16 Krohm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. I've broken my nose 4 times and that has literally never happened to me.
Yeah, I've broken my nose and was bleeding so bad that I was spitting out blood while being slammed around and never had any issue with talking. It can easily be swallowed or spat out... it's not like blood is cinnamon or something.
|
On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body.
They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos.
What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie.
|
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NEIGHBORHOOD_WATCH?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-07-09-10-15-15
I think the defense is getting a little scattershot, if I were a juror and one side tried to show an "animation" of an event to which multiple witnesses had already testified (contradicting each other at that) I'd be inclined to think they were trying to pull a fast one on me.
Just present your witnesses and deliver a bruising closing argument with the prosecution's case so weak you don't have to try to throw everything and the kitchen sink at the jury to prove Zimmerman's innocent. That's my opinion anyway and I'm sticking to it, just give the facts to the jury. Messing around with animated recreations of what you say happened seems a bit overkill and open to attack by the prosecution to me.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie.
he's been speaking loudly and acting as if they made game breaking points throughout the whole trial lol so it's nothing new.
|
Bernie: Objection, leading the witness.
Hahahaha.
*Edit*: West goes right back to leading him. Oops, another objection.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
oh, he's trying to hit on John Good's statement by using that witness mislead sometimes.
|
Is it just me or is this guy not half as good at wording questions as O'Mara?
|
On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way.
It does become harder to talk if there's a river of blood in your throat. But the prosecution had just finished arguing that Zimmerman hadn't broken his nose, thus no river of blood. Then they move on to denying that Zimmerman screamed by reference to something they just said wasn't possible.
The prosecution is arguing for positions which are self-contradictory, all to debunk the 100% certainty that the witness has offered. This is what a defense attorney does, in order to show that the state has not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution doing this is self-defeating, and should render the whole issue of what happened that night 100% indeterminate at best (for the prosecution).
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On July 10 2013 03:30 Dosey wrote:
Is it just me or is this guy not half as good at wording questions as O'Mara?
I agree, he's not as good at wording questions.
|
On July 10 2013 03:30 Dosey wrote:
Is it just me or is this guy not half as good at wording questions as O'Mara?
O'Mara is much better.
|
On July 10 2013 03:31 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:30 Dosey wrote:
Is it just me or is this guy not half as good at wording questions as O'Mara? O'Mara is much better.
West blows in my opinion. His voice never changes, he doesn't sell anything. O'Mara and the state attorney is good at changing voice tones to show emotion/importance of the question/answer
|
So many objections from the prosecution. Its pretty interesting to Watch.
|
On July 10 2013 03:23 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:18 Felnarion wrote:On July 10 2013 03:16 BigFan wrote:On July 10 2013 03:14 OVERTsc2 wrote:
Did I just hear this line of questioning? Martin didn't break Zimmerman's nose, but if he did, it could have caused so much blood to flow into his throat that he couldn't have been the one screaming? Sounds so much like a defense attorney rambling on into various contradictions of his own random conjecture.
The longer this goes on the more the prosecution looks desperate and even somewhat idiotic/dense. well, to be fair, I'm sure it becomes harder to swallow with some blood but you'll need a ton of blood to get to that stage but it does seem like this prosecutor is trying to get it to the idea that he couldn't scream for help. He did bring up a good point with the bigger hoodie but it was raining as well so maybe defense will counter it that way. Sure he made a good point, and then immediately countered his own point by saying that the can and skittles would have weighed down the hoodie and tightened it against his body. They way he asked that question was to mislead the jury. And at the point I have lost all respect for this person as a human. We are dealing with the guilt or innocence of a man. To try to trick the jury so they find him guilty rather than prove guilt makes this man of pos. What I mean by the way he asked: He led up to the question with questions showing the hoodie could have been further apart for other reasons, and he continuously raised his voice. He wanted it to sound like he was making a game breaking point, and I doubt the jury picked up on the fact he was saying it was closer and not further away from the can in his hoodie.
not a very good reason to lose respect for an attorney. he is supposed to use tools at his disposal to be persuasive. if he steps out of line, the defense can object.
interesting styles between these two groups of attorneys:
defense - calm, cool, collected, doesnt raise voice
prosecutor - loud, boisterous, in your face, likes to argue
i wonder which style people find more persuasive. i prefer the former to the latter, but thats just my personal style and preference.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On July 10 2013 03:34 TheRealArtemis wrote:
So many objections from the prosecution. Its pretty interesting to Watch.
To be fair, they are justified. West keeps asking leading questions.
|
On July 10 2013 03:34 jeremycafe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 10 2013 03:31 dAPhREAk wrote:On July 10 2013 03:30 Dosey wrote:
Is it just me or is this guy not half as good at wording questions as O'Mara? O'Mara is much better. West blows in my opinion. His voice never changes, he doesn't sell anything. O'Mara and the state attorney is good at changing voice tones to show emotion/importance of the question/answer
I prefer West's voice and manner of talking a bit. Still, O'Mara is much better at wording and stressing important points imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
