Welcome to 90 posts ago:
I will take that as no 'no' and that you made an unsupported statement without facts.Yes, would you like to go into it in excruciating detail like that...other thread?
I have a simple rule, tell the truth when you are in court. Do not make false statements. Your usage of 'trumped up' is a new one for me
The interpretation of laws by courts, there may be particulars to the actual statute that she does not meet. That is the way the system works. Charges offered often due not lead to conviction.
So when the SA follows the charge of their position and actually follows up on someone possibly misrepresenting the facts, that is the job of the prosecutor. It is not defamation.
And if you knowingly do that under sworn testimony in court it is perjury.
I am talking about the court and the trial, not the interwebs
Except you haven't shown a miscarriage of justice in this case.
I will take that as more over statement and rhetoric then.
David, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. If you want to go over the evidence, we will. Let's start with the APC, that was the basis of my statement and would make an excellent model for helping determine whether she made a case 'far past her evidence' like I said. After all, that's supposed to be an example of the case they're going to make, and since this is Florida we now have access to much of the evidence and can evaluate how well the evidence supports her case, and (some of us!) can also gain some...insight...regarding just how she formulates her contentions.
I'll start with a positive. The last two paragraphs preceding the disclaimer and naming the charge are well-formulated. In a concise fashion all the information one could reasonably expect is there, and has since been supported by the additional evidence available to us. It is necessary to this charge that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. We have an admission by GZ, evidence he had a gun on him, evidence the gun was fired, and then evidence Trayvon Martin died of a gunshot wound. Evaluating the raw evidence since disclosed has corroborated that section of the APC, as has additional evidence available through other sources. George Zimmerman has not withdrawn his admission, the physical evidence available is consistent with their claims.
The rest of the APC doesn't live up to that standard, though I'll be happy to hear your arguments on the subject. More than Trayvon being shot by George Zimmerman is required to support the murder two charge, and that part is deficient. So much so that it's obvious to a casual observer with even a passing knowledge of the subject, anyone telling you different is lying (or 'spinning'--pure pig ignorance is also a possibility!) to you, and I'll be happy to demonstrate why, I don't need to rely on authorities (though there are many who'd corroborate that of course) I can show you just why. It may take a hundred pages, but we'll get there. The actual evidence doesn't support the rest of the contentions, and the contentions themselves aren't necessarily indicative of murder.
Just start with a paragraph and see if it supports one of the necessary contentions being made, and if the totality of the evidence available to us (now) suggests that it is an accurate representation of the facts and evidence in the case. I think if you go through this you'll find out just why I am as confident of my position as I am, as if you think on it this will pretty much demonstrate why someone might be able to say 'a charge far past the evidence.'
Or you can blow me off with a snarky comment. Your call.
I have been lurking in this thread for a while.
Here is a transcript of DeeDee's interview with de la Rionda, complete with commentary. Providing the author is correct in his analysis, if the state calls DeeDee, Bernie can be called by the defense to explain his interviewing technique. So, it is possible Bernie could be O'Mara's star witness.
https://statelymcdanielmanor.wordpr...-case-update-11-the-dee-dee-interview-kaboom/
David, I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you. If you want to go over the evidence, we will. Let's start with the APC, that was the basis of my statement and would make an excellent model for helping determine whether she made a case 'far past her evidence' like I said. After all, that's supposed to be an example of the case they're going to make, and since this is Florida we now have access to much of the evidence and can evaluate how well the evidence supports her case, and (some of us!) can also gain some...insight...regarding just how she formulates her contentions.
I'll start with a positive. The last two paragraphs preceding the disclaimer and naming the charge are well-formulated. In a concise fashion all the information one could reasonably expect is there, and has since been supported by the additional evidence available to us. It is necessary to this charge that George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. We have an admission by GZ, evidence he had a gun on him, evidence the gun was fired, and then evidence Trayvon Martin died of a gunshot wound. Evaluating the raw evidence since disclosed has corroborated that section of the APC, as has additional evidence available through other sources. George Zimmerman has not withdrawn his admission, the physical evidence available is consistent with their claims.
The rest of the APC doesn't live up to that standard, though I'll be happy to hear your arguments on the subject. More than Trayvon being shot by George Zimmerman is required to support the murder two charge, and that part is deficient. So much so that it's obvious to a casual observer with even a passing knowledge of the subject, anyone telling you different is lying (or 'spinning'--pure pig ignorance is also a possibility!) to you, and I'll be happy to demonstrate why, I don't need to rely on authorities (though there are many who'd corroborate that of course) I can show you just why. It may take a hundred pages, but we'll get there. The actual evidence doesn't support the rest of the contentions, and the contentions themselves aren't necessarily indicative of murder.
Just start with a paragraph and see if it supports one of the necessary contentions being made, and if the totality of the evidence available to us (now) suggests that it is an accurate representation of the facts and evidence in the case. I think if you go through this you'll find out just why I am as confident of my position as I am, as if you think on it this will pretty much demonstrate why someone might be able to say 'a charge far past the evidence.'
Or you can blow me off with a snarky comment. Your call.
underlining mine
