The state of FL v. George Zimmerman

[Cylinder]

I had to work yesterday. The news is talking about a moment where John Goode expanded on certain details and when he was asked why he never mentioned that before, he said be was never asked. The analyst is likening the moment to Rachael's testimony. They showed a clip of her testimony but never showed what they were talking about regarding his testimony. Can anyone enlighten me on this one?

I don't recall how that particular exchange played out, but Mr. Good was equally hostile to both sides. He never really had a Rachel Jeantel Moment, that I recall. His answers were consistent with his early statements. He did provide points of clarification that cut both ways, in my opinion. He did clarify some questions but didn't change any testimony. He saw Martin what appeared to him as "raining down blows" on Zimmerman but he clarified that he did not see fist meet flesh.

 

[sgtbaker]

I don't recall how that particular exchange played out, but Mr. Good was equally hostile to both sides. He never really had a Rachel Jeantel Moment, that I recall. His answers were consistent with his early statements. He did provide points of clarification that cut both ways, in my opinion. He did clarify some questions but didn't change any testimony. He saw Martin what appeared to him as "raining down blows" on Zimmerman but he clarified that he did not see fist meet flesh.

I caught an argument when I was leaving, something about a potential impeachment, but I missed what led up to that and the resolution because I had to leave. I thought maybe that had something to do with it.

 

[LTC8K6]

As will become apparent during deliberations, this will be the crux of the case, however as was pointed out in the older old thread by a at least one self professed lawyer, there is much more to self defense that just 'I had a reasonable fear of loss of life or serious physical injury', and that is where the deliberations are possibly going to be very complex. The actual setting of the events and the reasons for the confrontation do matter.

So if the jury decides that GZ was attacked without provocation, and that the acts of TM would lead a reasonable person to respond the way GZ did, then the self defense case will be easy. But as was pointed out in the old old thread, there is much more to a self defense claim than that.

So while the prosecution may seem to be failing right now, there is a long way to go, they are likely to try to establish that GZ did influence the attack by TM, that the choices made by GZ were not reasonable, that he contributed to the escalation of the confrontation and that the injuries being received by GZ were not life threatening or likely to cause serious physical harm.

Then it really comes down to the jury's impression of what happened and how they weigh all the facts, if they just focus on GZ being beat and feeling threatened then they will rule for self defense, but if they feel the other factors are there (which will be solely up to them) then the deliberations will get very long and drawn out with lots and lots of instructions.

And that is where the two narratives will matter.

The state has to prove murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, as that's what they have charged GZ with.

Self defense isn't as much of a factor, imo. It's whether or not the state can prove murder 2.

So far, the state seems to be a country mile away from their objective.

 

[WildCat]

So while the prosecution may seem to be failing right now, there is a long way to go, they are likely to try to establish that GZ did influence the attack by TM, that the choices made by GZ were not reasonable, that he contributed to the escalation of the confrontation and that the injuries being received by GZ were not life threatening or likely to cause serious physical harm.

Then it really comes down to the jury's impression of what happened and how they weigh all the facts, if they just focus on GZ being beat and feeling threatened then they will rule for self defense, but if they feel the other factors are there (which will be solely up to them) then the deliberations will get very long and drawn out with lots and lots of instructions.

And that is where the two narratives will matter.

Here's the evidence revealed in testimony so far:

1. Zimmerman called the police to the scene, Martin did not despite voicing concerns about a "creepy ass cracker".

2. All witnesses place the altercation at the T, none report hearing or seeing any altercation or any of the participants beyond where Martin's body was found.

3. The eyewitness closest to the altercation testified he was nearly certain, if not 100% certain, that it was Zimmerman sreaming for help. The only ones who think it was Martin screaming for help are those who saw the pictures of Martin as a 12 year old and thought they sounded like a young boy, but both Martin and Zimmerman are well past puberty and both had their adult voices. The witness who reported a "child's voice" was also so hysterical and out of sorts she says she heard 3 gunshots and talked to a female cop on the scene named "Serena", rather than a male cop named Serino. AFAIK no female police were on the scene that night by any name. There are other parts of her testimony directly at odds with known facts also.

4. The only eyewitness close enough to the altercation to see it prior to the gunshot is insistent that it was Zimmerman on his back, with Martin on top of him. This is based both by his observation of the clothing worn and skin complexion.
5. The only eyewitness who testified she thought Martin was on the bottom before the gunshot concluded that only after seeing old pictures of 12 year old Trayvon Martin and concluding that who she saw was much bigger than that.

6. Several witnesses reported seeing Zimmerman on top after the gunshot. However, in his recorded interview yet to be presented in court Zimmerman says he got on top after the shot.

7. Zimmerman's doctor testified to many scrapes and abrasions all over Zimmerman's head, as well as a broken nose and 2 black eyes. We have yet to hear the medical examiner's testimony as to Martin's injuries, but what has been released to date shows the only injuries sustained by Martin apart from the bullet wound are to his knuckles.

8. The 2 witnesses closest to the T testified the fight started at the T and moved to where Martin's body was found, and per John Good's testimony that is moved even while the participants were on the ground. This is also consistent with Zimmerman's story.

9. The timeline - there were several minutes from the time Zimmerman reported Martin ran past the T and down the "dog path" until the altercation began at the T. this shows that Martin didn't go home despite having ample time to do so.

10. No testimony to date that anyone saw Zimmerman chasing Martin.

Other physical evidence relating to the altercation is yet to come - for example testimony on grass stains. Who had grass stains on their back, for instance? Who had grass stains on their knees? That could shed further light as to the nature of the altercation.

I'm not expecting any bombshells from the prosecution at this point, it seems to me they're presenting their strongest evidence, such as it is, first. I'll be surprised if Zimmerman takes the stand, his recorded statements of what happened are probably all that is necessary. And the defense has yet to present their first witness!

 

[Cylinder]

I caught an argument when I was leaving, something about a potential impeachment, but I missed what led up to that and the resolution because I had to leave. I thought maybe that had something to do with it.

The big legal argument during his testimony was over the doctrine of completeness. For those not familiar, statements given to police are usually hearsay and inadmissible at trial until a witness deviates from them in their testimony (there are other exceptions like statements against interest which means when you admit to a crime or an element of a crime they can use that). Once a witness deviates, a statement can be used to impeach that witness. If the statement is used as impeachment, the other party can introduce the entire statement under the rule of completeness to help the jury understand the context.

Say you're on the witness stand and testify that you prefer a certain type of beer. The prosecutor says "Aha! Isn't it true the you told the police that you hated beer?" They then pull out the statement and read back the part where you say I hate beer..." You don't recall ever making that statement. The defense attorney can come back and have you read the whole statement where you state "I hate beer when it's above 34 degrees Fahrenheit, beer should be served cold - not cooled!"

In practice it's a little more complicated then that, actually, because before a prior statement to impeach you have to be given the opportunity in open court to silently read the statement to refresh your memory before you can be asked questions about it.

Zimmerman read back the "raining down blows" statement to Good because the prosecutor had him agree to part of the statement that seemed to contradict or recede from it. Good wanted to point out that he was clarifying. He saw Martin on top of Zimmerman and it looked like he was "raining down blows." He wanted the police then and the jury now to be absolutely certain that he never saw fist meet flesh but that he did see what looked to him like Zimmerman being repeatedly pummeled by Martin.

During the break, the defense wanted to re-interview Good, so apparently there was something he left out of his statement at trial. O'Mara, BDLR, and the witness went back to the witness room and had their chat. Good was retained under subpoena and may be back for the defense.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I caught an argument when I was leaving, something about a potential impeachment, but I missed what led up to that and the resolution because I had to leave. I thought maybe that had something to do with it.

I believe it had to do with BDLR, and how JG's original statement talked about "MMA" and "Ground and pound". When FDLE/BDLR later interviewed him, they had him clarify that he didn't actually see fists striking, and JG agreed he could not really see the hands, so he would not 100% say that TM was definitely 100% hitting GZ, and walked his claim back that much.

BDLR did not accuse him of lying on the stand, but that he added that part because no one had asked him that speciifc question. JG agreed he was not lying, but clarifying his statements based on those specific questions.

BDLR also tried to get JG to admit Serino used the term "ground and pound" first, which led to MOM getting to read back JGs original statement to serino, where he said TM was "raining blows" on GZ "MMA style" and did in fact say "ground and pound"

BDLR managed to demonstrate that JG did not hear the sound of hitting (either flesh on flesh, or flesh on cement) and did not see any head bashing.

So we have a witness whose testimony in every way agreed with GZ, and in no way contradicted GZ narrative.

ETA: too slow

 

[TheL8Elvis]

9. The timeline - there were several minutes from the time Zimmerman reported Martin ran past the T and down the "dog path" until the altercation began at the T. this shows that Martin didn't go home despite having ample time to do so.

I think it worth adding that RJ (DD, witness 8) confirmed more than once that TM was "right by his daddies house" and that she even believed his daddy was going to come out and help him.

 

[Ziggurat]

So far, the state seems to be a country mile away from their objective.

That depends on their objective. The cynic in me says that playing out a racial grievance theater is all they really need, and that an acquittal may even be better than a conviction in that regard (see Rodney King beating trial).

 

[WildCat]

I think it worth adding that RJ (DD, witness 8) confirmed more than once that TM was "right by his daddies house" and that she even believed his daddy was going to come out and help him.

True, but she wasn't there to observe it. And if he was actually there and then went back to the T to confront Zimmerman it's hardly helpful to the prosecution. Either way you look at it it's favorable to the defense.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

I think it worth adding that RJ (DD, witness 8) confirmed more than once that TM was "right by his daddies house" and that she even believed his daddy was going to come out and help him.

I think that it's worth adding that prosecution witness #1 stated that he (a boy in the 8th grade) could throw a baseball or football from the back fence gate of his house (where Martin was heading to) to the top of the "T" where the altercation took place. I take that to mean about 100 feet (34-35 meters) or so. "Right by" may be subjectively relative and not exact as a point of reference. Given the rest of her testimony as a whole I don't place a whole lot of trust in her accuracy of wording things so that they are understandable without a whole lot of coaxing. Her entire testimony was painful to watch in that regard.

On a more general note (seeing as I haven't really read through or commented in any threads here on this matter) I think that the prosecutions case so far is very weak and is nowhere near justifying a murder 2 charge and manslaughter is also not looking all that good at this point. As far as I'm concerned if someone is on top of someone else and is hitting them in the head while they are pinned down that alone is justification for having a fear of death or serious bodily harm by the person being hit. To start off with the person being hit has no chance of absorbing the blow by moving their head back so there is little of that action\reaction thing going on (damn you Newton). That, at a minimum, doubles the effect of every blow.

With that in mind and knowing that any hit to the head can kill or at least knock unconscious someone if it is in the "Right" place even when the head "Can" recoil justifies the whole self defense argument. It doesn't even matter who started it at that point, the person doing the hitting has taken it way too far and has entered the "Kicking him while he was down" zone.

 

[Cylinder]

...obese...constipated...denies incontinence..."
Lindzee Folgate, PA, describing Zimmerman.

Day 5 of State v. Zimmerman continued with testimony from some of the remaining RATL residents, first responders to the scene of the shooting and his subsequent medical evaluations.

First up, Greg McKinney. McKinney is a tech at security firm that monitors the CCTV cameras at RATL from his call center in Tampa (IIRC). He was dispatched to Sanford to retrieve the video and found that the clocks that timestamp the camera was 18 minutes off a week after the event. The camera shows vague headlights and nothing else. The state will use this to build a timeline that contradicts Zimmerman's narrative. He was not allowed to testify as to what he saw in the tapes, since that would be speculation. The tapes were played for the jury, MOM discussed the time discrepancy and he left.



Next up, John Manalo, who is a resident of RATL. Manalo is the husband of the woman who first claimed that she saw Zimmerman on top of Martin but later admitted that her size comparison was based on a photo of a 14-year-old Martin. She then asserted she is no longer certain and could not make the identification. Mr. Manalo is W13 or Flaslight Man as he became to be called in the early days of the case. Manalo came outside his townhome and encountered Zimmerman shortly after the shooting and was the first civilian to make contact. Manalo thought Zimmerman was calm, not that very injured and seemed callous and impatient. Zimmerman was making a phone call, threw down his phone and asked Manalo to call his wife. Manalo called Mrs. Zimmerman and began explaining the situation when Zimmerman retorted "Just tell her I shot somebody." That's cold. Those statements set up a Law & Order moment for O'Mara a bit later with another witness. We'll get to that next. It takes a real jerk to throw down a cellphone and order a guy to call his wife right after he killed a little kid, right? Sounds like strong evidence of "ill will, hatred or spite" to me.



Next up, OFC Ayala. Ayala was heavily coached. Notice in his answers to Mr. O'Mara his eyes shoot over to the prosecutor when he has some uncertainty. He call Zimmerman by his last name, but Martin is "Trayvon" every time. Nice touch. He also did more damage to the state's 2nd Degree Murder charge than any other witness up to that point. Also notice how O'Mara spends time asking police officers why they wanted to become cops. Sounds like a throwaway, but it is actually important testimony. OFC Ayala was second to respond, backing up OFC Smith. He saw Zimmerman at gunpoint, noticed Martin's body but did not notice anyone else. His job was to back up Smith until Zimmerman was secured then make first contact with Martin. Zimmerman was cooperative (but at gunpoint as Mr. Guy was quick to point out) and he did not notice the blood on Zimmerman's face or head but that was not his focus. O'Mara walked Ayala through police procedure. It was dark, you have an armed participant who just admitted killed a person so, of course he's at gunpoint while he's being cuffed. But how do you go about cuffing an armed man who has a cellphone in his hand? Reading does not do this justice. Open this link in a new tab, recall that Zimmerman is a jerk for chunking his phone at Manalo, and watch the video. O'Mara is freaking Yoda, OK? That is why you fail

Somewhere there's a wireless company rep who's seen O'Mara throw his phone twice already in this trial alone and thinking That is not covered by your insurance, dude!



Next up, Stacy Livingston, SFD Rescue EMT. Livingston mainly evaluated Zimmerman. His nose was very swollen, he had bleeding from the head, and he scored 15 on the Glascow Coma Scale, which means no neurological symptoms. Livingston asserted it would be SPD and Zimmerman that was responsible to make the call to take Zimmerman to the hospital.



OFC Smith was the first SPD responder to the scene. Zimmerman was there, though he does not recall any other person. Zimmerman was calm, cooperative and admitted to killing Martin. Smith cuffed Zimmerman and was the officer that transported him to SPD for interview. Zimmerman never asked for an attorney. While walking to the car and without being asked, Zimmerman expressed confusion over why no-one came to help him after his repeated screams. He expressed this again when he got to the car. Smith asserted that it did not appear contrived, Zimmerman was genuinely confused. Smith transported Zimmerman where he complained of being light-headed. Smith asserted it was up to the EMT and Zimmerman whether Zimmerman should be transported to the hospital. (Remember Livingston asserted the opposite.) Smith expressed absolute certainty that when Zimmerman raised his right arm on command, that his firearm became visible. Why would O'Mara want that information?


John Good would rather undergo a drug-free root canal with no insurance by his dentist Cthulu than be involved in this mess. He no likey! Unfortunately, he was the only one who witnessed the fight up until seconds before the gunshot and he could identify the actors. Good tracked well with his prior statements. He obviously hurt the state by being able to identify Martin on top of Zimmerman, the end of the north-south movement, the move from concrete to grass and the fact that Martin appeared to him to be "raining down blows" "MMA-style" using what looked like a "ground-and-pound" technique. He never saw fist meet flesh - it was too dark. He hurt the defense by asserting that it was possible to escape the grounded position. If you're interested at all in this case, you need to watch this video because it's the most important testimony to date. Good isn't trying to help Zimmerman and he isn't trying to help the state. He just wants to be left alone.



Lindzee Folgate is physician's assistant who documented Zimmerman's injury. She walks through everything, no stitches, clinically broken nose but no x-rays. Also a good video to watch. Skip the sidebar. It's long and it's boring. With Zimmerman's defense fund depleted, O'Mara could not afford a box of blue arrows - he used his laser pointer to highlight injuries instead. The last bit of testimony that this jury heard before the weekend break was dramatic and worth quoting:

O'Mara: Medically speaking, would you agree that whatever he did to stop the attack allowed him to survive it?

Folgate: It could have, potentially, yes. It depends on the amount of trauma he was sustaining at the time.

O'Mara: Stopping the attack is what allowed him to survive it, would you agree?

Folgate: It could have, yes.


de la Rionda: Would you agree that is pure speculation on your part?

Folgate: I wasn't there at the time of the event, so I don't know the exact trauma that took place.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

I think that it's worth adding that prosecution witness #1 stated that he (a boy in the 8th grade) could throw a baseball or football from the back fence gate of his house (where Martin was heading to) to the top of the "T" where the altercation took place. I take that to mean about 100 feet (34-35 meters) or so.

If he can throw a football 100 yards, I'm impressed.
It's approximately 300 feet from Brandy Greenes house to the Tee. You don't have to take her sons word for it, you can see on Google Maps for yourself.

"Right by" may be subjectively relative and not exact as a point of reference. Given the rest of her testimony as a whole I don't place a whole lot of trust in her accuracy of wording things so that they are understandable without a whole lot of coaxing. Her entire testimony was painful to watch in that regard..

I agree. Prior she had said "near", I think it's important that she emphasized "right by" and that his daddy would come help him. She wasn't there, but supposedly TM was describing what was going on. He eihter described it well enough to give her a good idea of where he was, or she is simply making it up. Either way does not help the prosecution, I think.

On a more general note (seeing as I haven't really read through or commented in any threads here on this matter) I think that the prosecutions case so far is very weak and is nowhere near justifying a murder 2 charge and manslaughter is also not looking all that good at this point. As far as I'm concerned if someone is on top of someone else and is hitting them in the head while they are pinned down that alone is justification for having a fear of death or serious bodily harm by the person being hit. To start off with the person being hit has no chance of absorbing the blow by moving their head back so there is little of that action\reaction thing going on (damn you Newton). That, at a minimum, doubles the effect of every blow.

With that in mind and knowing that any hit to the head can kill or at least knock unconscious someone if it is in the "Right" place even when the head "Can" recoil justifies the whole self defense argument. It doesn't even matter who started it at that point, the person doing the hitting has taken it way too far and has entered the "Kicking him while he was down" zone.

The defense would probably love to have you on the jury.

 

[Sam.I.Am]

If he can throw a football 100 yards, I'm impressed.
It's approximately 300 feet from Brandy Greenes house to the Tee. You don't have to take her sons word for it, you can see on Google Maps for yourself.

I was simply going by given testimony. That is all that the jury can go by as well. It may be addressed once the defense has their turn but as of now that is what is available and what a reasonable person would assume.

I agree. Prior she had said "near", I think it's important that she emphasized "right by" and that his daddy would come help him. She wasn't there, but supposedly TM was describing what was going on. He eihter described it well enough to give her a good idea of where he was, or she is simply making it up. Either way does not help the prosecution, I think.

Like I said, she was a terrible witness in general. I'm of the opinion that she was lying in order to protect her friend (and not doing a very good job of it). She had already admitted to lying earlier in her depositions and statements which in my eyes make pretty much everything that she said suspect. Adding on to that that she is obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer so I have a hard time with her testimony. I think that the only reason that she was there at all was because if she wasn't put forward the defense would do so and then point out to the jury that the prosecution was so afraid of what she might say that they didn't want to risk it.

The defense would probably love to have you on the jury.

I'm just calling it as I see it. I really haven't paying all that much attention to the whole thing before this week other than to observe that there was a whole lot of contradictory claims flying around from both sides. That's why I decided to wait until the trial to pay more attention to it, keeping the FUD away so to speak.

After watching the talking heads on TV I've come to the conclusion that they are watching an entirely different trial than I am. They cannot even get the given testimony right. I heard several of them on different channels (CNN, MSNBC and HLN) say that Goods testimony was different than the other three witnesses before him about who was on top of whom thus he may be an unreliable witness because he contradicted what the prior witnesses said. The idiots don't seem to understand that he saw the altercation about a minute before the others did and while it was ongoing. The rest of them only came out "After" the gunshot according to their testimony. Of course Martin wouldn't be on top at that point as he was either dead or in the final seconds of his life. That doesn't mean that a minute before he wasn't on top of Zimmerman going MMA on his head.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

Here's the evidence revealed in testimony so far:

1. Zimmerman called the police to the scene, Martin did not despite voicing concerns about a "creepy ass cracker".

2. All witnesses place the altercation at the T, none report hearing or seeing any altercation or any of the participants beyond where Martin's body was found.

3. The eyewitness closest to the altercation testified he was nearly certain, if not 100% certain, that it was Zimmerman sreaming for help. The only ones who think it was Martin screaming for help are those who saw the pictures of Martin as a 12 year old and thought they sounded like a young boy, but both Martin and Zimmerman are well past puberty and both had their adult voices. The witness who reported a "child's voice" was also so hysterical and out of sorts she says she heard 3 gunshots and talked to a female cop on the scene named "Serena", rather than a male cop named Serino. AFAIK no female police were on the scene that night by any name. There are other parts of her testimony directly at odds with known facts also.

4. The only eyewitness close enough to the altercation to see it prior to the gunshot is insistent that it was Zimmerman on his back, with Martin on top of him. This is based both by his observation of the clothing worn and skin complexion.
5. The only eyewitness who testified she thought Martin was on the bottom before the gunshot concluded that only after seeing old pictures of 12 year old Trayvon Martin and concluding that who she saw was much bigger than that.

6. Several witnesses reported seeing Zimmerman on top after the gunshot. However, in his recorded interview yet to be presented in court Zimmerman says he got on top after the shot.

7. Zimmerman's doctor testified to many scrapes and abrasions all over Zimmerman's head, as well as a broken nose and 2 black eyes. We have yet to hear the medical examiner's testimony as to Martin's injuries, but what has been released to date shows the only injuries sustained by Martin apart from the bullet wound are to his knuckles.

8. The 2 witnesses closest to the T testified the fight started at the T and moved to where Martin's body was found, and per John Good's testimony that is moved even while the participants were on the ground. This is also consistent with Zimmerman's story.

9. The timeline - there were several minutes from the time Zimmerman reported Martin ran past the T and down the "dog path" until the altercation began at the T. this shows that Martin didn't go home despite having ample time to do so.

10. No testimony to date that anyone saw Zimmerman chasing Martin.

Other physical evidence relating to the altercation is yet to come - for example testimony on grass stains. Who had grass stains on their back, for instance? Who had grass stains on their knees? That could shed further light as to the nature of the altercation.

I'm not expecting any bombshells from the prosecution at this point, it seems to me they're presenting their strongest evidence, such as it is, first. I'll be surprised if Zimmerman takes the stand, his recorded statements of what happened are probably all that is necessary. And the defense has yet to present their first witness!

OK, but other than that, the prosecution is doing pretty well.

 

[mgidm86]

....

Next up, John Manalo, who is a resident of RATL. Manalo is the husband of the woman who first claimed that she saw Zimmerman on top of Martin but later admitted that her size comparison was based on a photo of a 14-year-old Martin. She then asserted she is no longer certain and could not make the identification. Mr. Manalo is W13 or Flaslight Man as he became to be called in the early days of the case. Manalo came outside his townhome and encountered Zimmerman shortly after the shooting and was the first civilian to make contact. Manalo thought Zimmerman was calm, not that very injured and seemed callous and impatient. Zimmerman was making a phone call, threw down his phone and asked Manalo to call his wife. Manalo called Mrs. Zimmerman and began explaining the situation when Zimmerman retorted "Just tell her I shot somebody." That's cold. Those statements set up a Law & Order moment for O'Mara a bit later with another witness. We'll get to that next. It takes a real jerk to throw down a cellphone and order a guy to call his wife right after he killed a little kid, right? Sounds like strong evidence of "ill will, hatred or spite" to me.

I disagree that this paints Zimmerman as "cold". Depends on how you look at it. My first reaction to reading this was that maybe Zimmermans phone was broken during the fight. He threw down his phone...so what? His adrenaline is pumping, he just got in a fight with someone and shot him. He's pumped up. Have you ever been in a fight? I wouldn't expect him to act completely rational at this moment. I would expect him to be fired up, if anything.

Then I picture this guy calling Zimmerman's wife and he starts telling the story. George is freaking out listening, maybe the guys trying to explain and the wife is hysterical and Zimmerman says, "Just tell her I shot someone".

Also it was probably dark, bruises from a beating don't always appear immediately.

I see nothing damning in any of these actions. Were you being sarcastic?

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

After watching the talking heads on TV I've come to the conclusion that they are watching an entirely different trial than I am. They cannot even get the given testimony right.

The talking heads suffer from the same illness that most of the media does, the delusional idea that they need to "present both sides" to be "unbiased". So just as "evolution" and "intelligent design" get given equal time and respect, even though one is established science and one superstition, in the interested of appearing "unbiased" they can't offer any substantive analysis. Add to that the racial factor, where they're terrified to be accused of being racist, and you can be assured of light weight reporting.

That said, the analysts on the streaming channel Cylinder gave a link to earlier appeared to be pulling few punches about how things are going for the prosecution.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

I see nothing damning in any of these actions. Were you being sarcastic?

I think he was either quoting, explaining or being sarcastic towards the position that was trying to be put forward, not endorsing it. And Omara actually tossed his cell phone in court to explain make the point to the jury that there was nothing callous about it.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

The state has to prove murder 2 beyond a reasonable doubt, as that's what they have charged GZ with.

Self defense isn't as much of a factor, imo. It's whether or not the state can prove murder 2.

So far, the state seems to be a country mile away from their objective.

There was a talking head attorney on CNN this morning who thinks that there is a decent chance the defense makes a motion for dismissal next week, and the judge grants it. He said the same thing - the state hasn't come remotely close to justifying the murder 2 charge.

 

[Cylinder]

I think he was either quoting, explaining or being sarcastic towards the position that was trying to be put forward, not endorsing it. And Omara actually tossed his cell phone in court to explain make the point to the jury that there was nothing callous about it.

You have to admit, that sounded pretty damn cold up to the second Mark O'Mara chucked his cellphone in the courtroom.

ETA: It was more powerful because the very officer that was second on the scene was the one that ordered O'Mara to drop it. That had impact, in my layperson opinion, for not only that argument but future arguments that will cast Zimmerman's behavior outside the context of whast was happening that night.

 

[Natural Born Skeptic]

You have to admit, that sounded pretty damn cold up to the second Mark O'Mara chucked his cellphone in the courtroom.

ETA: It was more powerful because the very officer that was second on the scene was the one that ordered O'Mara to drop it. That had impact, in my layperson opinion, for not only that argument but future arguments that will cast Zimmerman's behavior outside the context of whast was happening that night.

They also did an outstanding job of questioning the guy who seemed to think GZ was being abrupt or nonchalant when he (GZ) interrupted him as he (bystander) was calling GZ's wife and (GZ) told him "just tell her I shot someone".

As the lawyer pointed out, far from being nonchalant or abrupt, it could have meant GZ did not want her to panic and think he was the one that had been shot.