Continuation: Discussion of the George Zimmerman case

[Rare Truth]

Clearly, Judge Lester is not a fan.

Can you blame him for getting peeved the accused murderer bald-faced deceived the court?

 

[Cylinder]

Wasn't it you who said Zimmerman would give his testimony "in camera - off the record and out of view."

You sleeping through English class again?

I asserted that any testimony by Zimmerman would be in camera. MOM would not subject Zimmerman to cross examiniation without seeing some particular advantage that did not present itself to my mind at the time. That's exactly what O'Mara offered - an allocution. I was wrong though - becuase an allocution would be on the record.

 

[Cylinder]

The judge said explicitly, and I quote: "The evidence is strong."

Once again, strong evidence does not meet the threshold. That's not my opinion - it's the opinion of the district court.

The court had the authority to revoke the original bond, BTW. It just doesn't have the authority to order pre-trial detention. The simple fact that Det. Serino stated that Zimmerman's injury was "marginally consistent with a life or death struggle" would defeat the standard as articulated in Perry

Further, where the State's evidence is sufficient to convict for a capital or life offense but is arguably impeached in substantial respects by other evidence or is replete with substantial contradictions and discrepancies, the proof does not meet the standard. Accordingly, the accused in such a case would be entitled to pretrial bail as a matter of right for such offense.

 

[Rare Truth]

You sleeping through English class again?

I asserted that any testimony by Zimmerman would be in camera. MOM would not subject Zimmerman to cross examiniation without seeing some particular advantage that did not present itself to my mind at the time. That's exactly what O'Mara offered - an allocution. I was wrong though - becuase an allocution would be on the record.

You specifically said Zimmerman's testimony would likely be "in camera - off the record and out of view."

Which I could never make head nor tails of. How does one do an "in camera" testimony "off the record" while "out of view" in Court testimony in the Sunshine state?

It never made sense. It still doesn't.

 

[Rare Truth]

Once again, strong evidence does not meet the threshold. That's not my opinion - it's the opinion of the district court.

How many times does Jeralyn have to be wrong before you finally accede she sucks as a legal guidepost?

 

[triforcharity]

The judge said explicitly, and I quote: "The evidence is strong."

I agree, and I saw that also.

Well, he didn't.

So there's that.

There's no way to know for sure if he sent the letter to the judge, or if he gave the judge something that day, or his lawyer did, I don't know. I am not sure if he even could or not...

O'Mara looked foolish during the entire episode. He turned it into a mini-trial, and you could tell the judge was losing patience with him. O'Mara even had the audacity to ask the judge something that has never been asked before a trial: Allocution.

He actually wanted Zimmerman to go on the stand and not deal with what every other defendant must contend with if he takes the stand: cross-examination. You could almost hear the judge chuckling, as if to say: you want me to grant what???

Lester nipped that sucker down but good.

I saw that. Couldn't believe what I was seeing. I mean, surely the defense would object to the prosecution putting someone on the stand, and asking that the judge not allow an cross examination.....

And he most certainly can keep him on No Bond status. Murder 2 is a non-bondable charge. It is up to the discretion of the judge, and Z has shown, in the words of the judge: Zimmerman has no respect for the law or the judicial system.

Correct, the judge CAN keep him on no bond status. But, the defense has the right to challenge that, which they have. If the judge decides no bond, or 5mil bond, there isn't much they can do about it. I don't think they can appeal that, but I wouldn't put it past MOM to try....

ETA: I do see that this is able to be appealed to a higher court

I couldn't agree more that GZ has no respect for the judicial system.

 

[sgtbaker]

Which means most likely we never will know exactly what happened. So all we have to go on is Zimmerman's word. And we have to determine the veracity of that is Zimmerman's credibility.

Can you honestly tell me you find Zimmerman to be a credible person?

Yeah, I'm quite familiar with this logic by now, and how it influences the legality of the case. And as has been pointed out numerous times, it's completely ass-backwards for someone to be able to make any uncorroborated claim they want to, and have the burden be on someone else to disprove that claim. Especially in a situation that involves one person killing another.

Sorry but that is how the law works. If they think you are guilty and they can make a case out of it, they have to be able to prove it. The burden of proof is on the state. I am sorry if you don't like it but that is the way it is.

I'm not sure what you're going on about in reference to memory, but I have stated my position clearly and repeatedly. I've explained why I don't believe Zimmerman, and I've acknowledged my willingness to change my mind should evidence to the contrary be presented.

You can't prove a memory, that's the problem. Before he even told his statements were released, I said that memory is weak, memory is impressionable, and people's version of events change, every time the event is recalled.

Many inconsistencies in Zimmerman's narrative have been pointed out, but you and many others in this thread don't acknowledge them as instances of dishonesty.

My personal favorite:
Dispatcher: Are you following him.
Zimmerman: Yeah.

And then it becomes:
Zimmerman: I wasn't following him.

Two contradictory statements in a clear attempt by Zimmerman to cover his tracks and deny any culpability.

And all that is offered in response to this obvious contradiction is semantic sophistry.

Don't want to acknowledge it or just give you an answer that you don't want to hear because those are contradictory statements. Are you lying or are your thoughts scattered? Because first you say I don't want to acknowledge it, then you quote me responding to what I am supposedly not acknowledging and call my response sophistry.

Again, I find it completely nonsensical that the default position is to believe Zimmerman, and force others to disprove his story.

See, there is. Saying you have not made a case for murder does not mean I believe Zimmerman.

Speaking outside the bounds of legality, it's completely counter intuitive to not expect the person making a claim ("I shot him in self-defense") to substantiate that claim.

It still comes down to, he claims he was on the bottom and Trayvon was on top. The back of his shirt is wet with grass on it (according to the police report). He claimed Trayvon punched him in the nose and his nose was bleeding. He claimed Trayvon hit his head on the sidewalk, multiple times and he has multiple cuts as well as a lump or two, on the back of his head. He claims Trayvon was trying to cover his mouth and he has scratches around his face. His wounds are consistant with his story. Before he knew "John's" statement, he managed to say pretty much the same thing as John.

Who's asking you to jump on any band wagon?

I only said it was frustrating that some people refuse to acknowledge Zimmerman's story is fishy. I've never expected anyone to completely reverse their position.

I DON'T HAVE A POSITION. I am sorry, but as far as I am concerned, it can go either way. You said yourself, "maybe" Trayvon attacked him. "Maybe" Zimmerman was really in fear for his life. As long as there is that maybe, I am open to either or.

Please don't exaggerate things I've said.

No one is asking you to.

Personally, I find this "You can never really know" brand of skepticism to be a cop-out. Definitive knowledge is rare, if it even exists at all. Reasonable-minded people can form opinions based on partial evidence, and that doesn't make them somehow wrong or biased as long as they are open to having their minds changed.

I find it more reasonable that as long as your reasons for concluding based on partial evidence is A) arguable and B) there is still the possibility that "Maybe" Zimmerman is telling the truth about how the events unfolded, I am not going to conclude that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon.

The O.J. Simpson case has been mentioned a few times, and serves as an excellent example of how expecting definitive knowledge of an event can be an unreasonable standard.

See, I thought he was found not guilty because the defense claimed that the evidence was tainted/planted and it wasn't about "lack of evidence."

I doubt anyone in this thread defending Zimmerman thinks O.J. was innocent, despite the fact that he was proven so in a court of law, and we don't really know what happened the night those murders were committed

Continue call it defending, if you need to but you are still wrong, no matter how many times you say it.

 

[Rare Truth]

...
Sorry but that is how the law works. If they think you are guilty and they can make a case out of it, they have to be able to prove it. The burden of proof is on the state. I am sorry if you don't like it but that is the way it is.

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the term "affirmative defense."

Here, I'll help you.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/civil-procedure-affirmative-defenses/

Pay attention to this part: "the defendant has the burden of proof for the defense."

 

[Unabogie]

You can't prove a memory, that's the problem. Before he even told his statements were released, I said that memory is weak, memory is impressionable, and people's version of events change, every time the event is recalled.

I just can't believe this is where you land on the issue of conflicting or contradictory statements by a man who killed someone. Inconsistencies in his story is one of the key ways to tell if a person is lying. But if all inconsistencies can be waved away with the defense that "memory is weak", then that pretty much negates the need to find holes in a person's account.

George had many implausible elements to his story, and we can go over those, but maybe we can stick to just two that always stand out in my mind.

This, where he denies ever attempting to follow Trayvon, even though a) we can hear him running and sounding out of breath, and b ) HE SAYS HE'S FOLLOWING HIM. That he later tries to say that he wasn't ever following him is a flat out lie.

The second is that he says in the first two versions of his story that Trayvon hit him once and he immediately fell to the ground. Then Trayvon jumped on him and started beating him. But we know that can't be true! He ended up between 30-50 feet from the T, and in his third telling, he STILL can't explain how that happened. Why would he lie? Because something happened after the altercation began at the T that he wants to leave out. I can't think of a single innocent reason for him to lie about that, can you?

A person willing to lie isn't a credible witness. And when you kill someone, you have a huge motivation to make it sound like you were justified. And when you're the only witness to the crucial events that led to a killing, lying should be the thing that sends you to jail. Tell the truth, George!

 

[Unabogie]

Another one that Serino pointed out, was that George claimed he stopped following when asked, then started back to his truck. The walk back to the T in the walkthrough takes all of ten seconds. You can watch it in real time. But on the tape, from the time he stops running, you can time until the end of the call, and it's 84 seconds. Almost a minute and a half. So he could not have immediately turned around and walked back to his truck. It's impossible. He's lying to cover up whatever he really did during that time. And the obvious conclusion is that after being asked to stop following, he continued, even though he said OK. This is further supported by the fact that in the tape, he says not to meet him at his truck. Just call him and ask him where he is, he says. This is because after hanging up he went to look for Trayvon. And this is even further supported by DeeDee, who is told by Trayvon that George is following him again and is approaching him.

At this point, all of the evidence supports DeeDee, while George is telling a story that is contradicted by the tape, the location of the body, and DeeDee.

Can that be excused as a bad memory?

 

[WildCat]

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the term "affirmative defense."

Here, I'll help you.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/civil-procedure-affirmative-defenses/

Pay attention to this part: "the defendant has the burden of proof for the defense."

This is a criminal proceeding, your definition is for a civil proceeding.

 

[WildCat]

I just can't believe this is where you land on the issue of conflicting or contradictory statements by a man who killed someone. Inconsistencies in his story is one of the key ways to tell if a person is lying. But if all inconsistencies can be waved away with the defense that "memory is weak", then that pretty much negates the need to find holes in a person's account.

It depends whether or not the contradictions are material or not.

 

[Rare Truth]

He punched me punched me punched me in the nose, grabbed my head, smashed it, blood was pouring from me, I thought I would lose consciousness, it was brutal, he suffocated me, slid his bloody hand down my side to get my gun...


No foreign DNA to be found on TM's cuffs and sleeves, none on his fingers...

Trayvon was right-handed. Only wound found - on his left hand:

Yeah, it's a believable story.

 

[Cylinder]

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the term "affirmative defense."

Here, I'll help you.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/civil-procedure-affirmative-defenses/

Pay attention to this part: "the defendant has the burden of proof for the defense."

Florida -like the vast majority of states - has no such requirement.

Wright v. State

A defendant is "entitled to a jury instruction on his theory of the case if there is any evidence to support it," no matter how flimsy that evidence might be. See Garramone v. State,636 So.2d 869, 870 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Vazquez v. State,518 So.2d 1348, 1350 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987).

 

[WildCat]

He punched me punched me punched me in the nose, grabbed my head, smashed it, blood was pouring from me, I thought I would lose consciousness, it was brutal, he suffocated me, slid his bloody hand down my side to get my gun...


No foreign DNA to be found on TM's cuffs and sleeves, none on his fingers...

Trayvon was right-handed. Only wound found - on his left hand:

Yeah, it's a believable story.

So you think someone else beat up Zimmerman?

 

[Unabogie]

He punched me punched me punched me in the nose, grabbed my head, smashed it, blood was pouring from me, I thought I would lose consciousness, it was brutal, he suffocated me, slid his bloody hand down my side to get my gun...


No foreign DNA to be found on TM's cuffs and sleeves, none on his fingers...

Trayvon was right-handed. Only wound found - on his left hand:

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y221/who007/online-ruler-1.jpg

Yeah, it's a believable story.

Is that a direct quote from on his statements? Do you have a source for that?

 

[Unabogie]

It depends whether or not the contradictions are material or not.

Well fine, but then why did you snip out two material contradictions that seem pretty damn key to figuring out what happened that night?

 

[WildCat]

Well fine, but then why did you snip out two material contradictions that seem pretty damn key to figuring out what happened that night?

What were those?

 

[triforcharity]

Apparently, you are unfamiliar with the term "affirmative defense."

Here, I'll help you.

http://definitions.uslegal.com/c/civil-procedure-affirmative-defenses/

Pay attention to this part: "the defendant has the burden of proof for the defense."

RT, Be easy on SgtBaker, s/he is ok. I can vouch for that.

 

[Rare Truth]

This is a criminal proceeding, your definition is for a civil proceeding.

I grabbed the first one I could find.

It's the same, dude.

"Once an affirmative defense is raised, the Plaintiff has the burden of either disproving it or establishing the legal insufficiency of the affirmative defense."

http://floridalegalwiki.com/index.php?title=Affirmative_Defense