EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 358
| 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. | ||
|
airtown
United States410 Posts
| ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:48 Klondikebar wrote: That's kinda weird. DNA is a crazy sticky molecule. If it gets on something, it's really hard to get it off. For example, rain cannot wash off DNA. Unless Florida's rain is particularly acidic. I believe there was a case of improper conditioning of the evidence as well, if that matters. Either way, if there is no GZ DNA, it seems clear that not having Martin's DNA doesn't really matter. | ||
|
Juggernaut477
United States379 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:50 Juggernaut477 wrote: This closing argument is awful. Well, it is basically the summary of the prosecution's case. | ||
|
Blacktion
United Kingdom1148 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:49 Kaitlin wrote: Basically, yeah. Can anyone in this thread actually articulate exactly what the prosecution is suggesting happened through this course of events ? All BDLR seems to be doing, as the defense has been doing for quite some time, is poking holes in one theory put forth by the defense, not having their own version. This is because they, nor anyone else, can imagine a fact scenario supported by evidence, which proves Zimmerman guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I swear to god a couple of the things he said in the last 5 minutes wernt even functional sentences. Although he did just confirm DNA on GZs pistol grip belonged to GZ. Who wouldve guessed that? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:50 Juggernaut477 wrote: This closing argument is awful. Yeah, I flipped it off. I'm not interesting in hearing this guy blather about assumptions that are largely unsupported by the evidence. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
Juggernaut477
United States379 Posts
| ||
|
sc2superfan101
3583 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:47 PassiveAce wrote: Prosecutors are paid to go after the people they are paid to prosecute. most of the time, regardless of the evidence. Its quite rare for a prosecutor to outright dismiss a case. It's quite rare for a prosecutor to outright dismiss a case because they aren't supposed to take on cases that they can't prove in the first fucking place. The fact that this guy is arguing a defense position is proof that he doesn't even believe that the evidence supports his position. If he has to lie to get his point across then he doesn't feel that his case exists. That is a HUGE violation of ethics and I don't give a fuck what anyone here says about it or what the judge says about it. If George Zimmerman was black, then there would be no argument with me from anyone about this. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18864 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:56 Juggernaut477 wrote: So about how much longer before the verdict? Will it happen today after closing arguments or tomorrow? My money is on tomorrow at some point, though we could see it take through the weekend. It is difficult to say. | ||
|
Felnarion
442 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:56 Juggernaut477 wrote: So about how much longer before the verdict? Will it happen today after closing arguments or tomorrow? Up to the jury, they will likely go to make their decisions tomorrow, so it could be as soon as then. I expect it will be, only 6 people, shouldn't be TOO much discussion, but you never know if there's some holdouts. They're sequestered yes? I would expect they will put a lot of pressure on each other to finish up tomorrow, being the weekend and all, it would be unfortunate to have to be sequestered until monday. | ||
|
iamperfection
United States9647 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:56 Juggernaut477 wrote: So about how much longer before the verdict? Will it happen today after closing arguments or tomorrow? would depend on how long the jury deliberates i believe. | ||
GreenGringo
349 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:59 GreenGringo wrote: Only good argument in the entirety of that sermon was the one about Zimmerman being unable to cry out while being suffocated and with blood in his nose and throat. Anyone have any thoughts on what O'Mara's answer might be? The fact is that that simply doesn't always happen. | ||
|
Dosey
United States4505 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:59 GreenGringo wrote: Only good argument in the entirety of that sermon was the one about Zimmerman being unable to cry out while being suffocated and with blood in his nose and throat. Anyone have any thoughts on what O'Mara's answer might be? Blood can be swallowed..... | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:59 GreenGringo wrote: Only good argument in the entirety of that sermon was the one about Zimmerman being unable to cry out while being suffocated and with blood in his nose and throat. Anyone have any thoughts on what O'Mara's answer might be? It's not constant screaming without breathing / swallowing, etc. As to the schedule, Defense closing won't be today, they will start tomorrow morning, then the rebuttal case. Jury instructions and then the jury will begin deliberating after that, likely Friday afternoon. Given that they are sequestered, their deliberation schedule will probably go much later than Court has been, probably to about 10pm or so, or even later if they feel they are close to a verdict. I would expect them to also deliberate on Saturday. The difference between the trial schedule and the deliberation schedule is to give the attorneys time to do depositions, and prepare various things in the evenings. No such constraints are required during deliberations, so the jury isn't likely to have much time off, as why would they want to delay getting out of sequester ? | ||
|
Sabu113
United States11086 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 12 2013 03:57 sc2superfan101 wrote: It's quite rare for a prosecutor to outright dismiss a case because they aren't supposed to take on cases that they can't prove in the first fucking place. The fact that this guy is arguing a defense position is proof that he doesn't even believe that the evidence supports his position. If he has to lie to get his point across then he doesn't feel that his case exists. That is a HUGE violation of ethics and I don't give a fuck what anyone here says about it or what the judge says about it. If George Zimmerman was black, then there would be no argument with me from anyone about this. sc2superfan101 you know what would happen if he dismissed this specific case. The guy has to be practial and so does that state. In many way, its better that a jury just settle the matter once and for all. | ||
|
GreenGringo
349 Posts
On July 12 2013 04:00 LegalLord wrote: Yes, no proof is presented that bleeding from the nose does muffle your screams, and it's not known how long Zimmerman was being suffocated. So ultimately he's just guessing. And he's prepared to put Zimmerman away for 20 years based on this guessing.The fact is that that simply doesn't always happen. | ||
| ||
