George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #14 Friday July 12

[logicalgirl]

That's because he's giving them specifics and relevant law to consider.

IMO

One juror is making a few notes - one juror is leaning on her hand - one juror keeps putting her hand over her face....

IMO

 

[William N]

MOM said that four minutes was how long Trayvon had to run home (if he was afraid) before he saw Zimmerman again. But he didn't go home (to the father's girlfriend's house).

MOM is boring, though.

IMO this four minutes TM had to run (even walk) back to the house is the key.

 

[bellaalex]

Per WFTV, jurors didn't take many notes yesterday, but today, they are really going at it.

Sounds like this jury will base their verdict on the facts and will review their notes when questions arise. The prosecution's case is based on emotions so notes really aren't needed. IMO

 

[BiggNewt]

Just MOM doing a very poor all over the map presentation.

IMO

Even the pundits are saying this in the break - lots of sputtering because they are all defense lawyers - very humorous!

The pundits I just watched said that MOM was doing a great job of leaving lasting images in the jury's heads.

 

[EGirl]

And GZ had ample time to get back to his vehicle, if he didn't lie about his intent.

IMO

Why does him going back or not going back matter. He didn't assault anyone.

IMO

 

[Trident]

MOM's sing song all over the map presentation isn't working - even posters here don't know what the long time space here was all about - this jury isn't buying what he's saying and is going to convict GZ of manslaughter - and rightfully so.

I think if the SWAT teams are worried - it's about the reaction from the GZ side and all those gun owners taking the law into their own hands.

IMO

I agree MOM's voice and presentation isn't working. I don't think the jury will buy the defense argument, when even the defense has no passion.

I also agree, sadly, about manslaughter.

I would HOPE the SWAT teams wouldn't be worried. If we, Americans, cannot abide by a legal verdict, that's a SAD commentary on our country. However, I don't believe that's why they are worried. I believe the "activists" are the ones riling up racial strife - I won't even watch their hating faces on my TV. Maybe some of them should get a regular "job" instead of stirring up hate.

I'm just commenting on what I see in the closing arguments, and this is only MY OPINION.

 

[lisasalinger]

I'm playing hooky from work today. I'm also having ice cream and coffee for breakfast. I feel like a 10 year old. Maybe I'll jump on the couch later

 

[LC446]

MOM went on and on about not filling in blanks, not assuming, etc. And first thing back from break he says...you get to figure out what TM was doing in those 4 minutes. So, he wants them to fill in the blanks and connect the dots....exactly what he asked them NOT to do for the prosecution.

IMO

 

[Karmady]

so interesting...... where it was always ''justice for travis'' and ''justice for caylee'' etc..... this thread is full of ''justice for GZ.'' i say: ''justice for trayvon.''

so interesting.....many of the folks complaining about BDLR's closing were all but proposing marriage to juan martinez. their styles are very similar. over the course of the trial, JM was far more confrontational and prone to yelling. it was called ''passion'' when he was doing it. is BDLR not allowed to be passionate, too? if JM were criticized on this board the person offering the criticism was all but begging for an onslaught. like i said....interesting.

MOM is putting me to sleep. he's a brilliant attorney. bc of the judge's rulings in this case, he also has an advantage that i personally consider unfair and unjust. the animation should not have been allowed. not a chance. i'm shocked by the decision to play it. still, MOM, with or without the video is certainly a great attorney. however, i find him to be so soft-spoken that he puts me to sleep.

i like passion. the last thing i would want is for an attorney to speak to me, were i a juror, as if we're in the middle of a pillow talk session. in a court of law, where such important issues are at stake, i like strong and forceful. i guess it's different for everyone.

all of above is MOO

Not me! lol I couldn't stand Juan, either. And took a whole lot of stuff for it Unprofessional is unprofessional, imo, regardless of the mertis of a particular case. jmo

 

[Badlands]

MOM now claims you can run a mile in four minutes if you're in decent shape?? Does he just make things up as he goes along?

IMO

 

[sorrell skye]

I'm glad Mr. O'Mara brought up how far a fit person can run in 4 minutes. Record-breaking athletes aside, even the average healthy person can run quite a distance in 4 minutes, IMO.

 

[cityslick]

so interesting...... where it was always ''justice for travis'' and ''justice for caylee'' etc..... this thread is full of ''justice for GZ.'' i say: ''justice for trayvon.''

so interesting.....many of the folks complaining about BDLR's closing were all but proposing marriage to juan martinez. their styles are very similar. over the course of the trial, JM was far more confrontational and prone to yelling. it was called ''passion'' when he was doing it. is BDLR not allowed to be passionate, too? if JM were criticized on this board the person offering the criticism was all but begging for an onslaught. like i said....interesting.

MOM is putting me to sleep. he's a brilliant attorney. bc of the judge's rulings in this case, he also has an advantage that i personally consider unfair and unjust. the animation should not have been allowed. not a chance. i'm shocked by the decision to play it. still, MOM, with or without the video is certainly a great attorney. however, i find him to be so soft-spoken that he puts me to sleep.

i like passion. the last thing i would want is for an attorney to speak to me, were i a juror, as if we're in the middle of a pillow talk session. in a court of law, where such important issues are at stake, i like strong and forceful. i guess it's different for everyone.

all of above is MOO

Yes but did JM also use facts and evidence even though he was forceful? Because BDLR did not.

 

[georgiagirl]

Back from my time out. I will try to keep my mouth shut today!

Praying the jury goes by the law and aquits GZ!

 

[logicalgirl]

IMO this four minutes TM had to run (even walk) back to the house is the key.

And four minutes for GZ to catch up to TM. Why does everyone suggest TM should have run home...he had as much a right to be there as GZ did.

He also had as much of a right to defend himself as GZ did.

IMO

 

[Karmady]

MOM went on and on about not filling in blanks, not assuming, etc. And first thing back from break he says...you get to figure out what TM was doing in those 4 minutes. So, he wants them to fill in the blanks and connect the dots....exactly what he asked them NOT to do for the prosecution.

IMO

That's because the State can't meet its burden by doing that, but the defense CAN establish reasonable doubt by doing that. They have two totally different burdens. jmo

 

[ShadyLady]

Are special prosecutor and Trayvon's mom writing books?

 

[JeannaT]

So do I, which IMO hurts the state more than helps them.

I think RJ was a total distraction and didn't really further anything. I was very distracted by her statements that she didn't realize the person who killed Trayvon had not been charged, she didn't "watch the news, just the weather part of the news". I was absolutely baffled by whether that could be TRUE. Could it be TRUE that she didn't know that her community was in a huge uproar over the lack of charges laid on the person who shot one of her dearest friends? HOW did she miss that? Came off as unbelievable, and yet, I kind of believe her.

So I was left thinking she has no powers of observation at all, and her observations about the phone call were null, because of her lack of clarity in other things.

Also I still have a burning curiosity about what that day long conversation was about. IMHO

 

[Perthgirl62]

That is what Jurors do. They look at all the evidence and throw out what they do not find credible and take what they do find credible.

That is how the law works. IT is really hard to discuss this if people don't understand fully the laws that apply to the case and the way our jury system works.

It is up to each juror to choose what is credible and what is not. IT can be from one person's testimony that they pick some facts and toss another.
THAT IS THE JURY'S DUTY.

If I was on a Jury and thought that part of a testimony was untrue I would find it very hard to accept the rest as truth. As a juror you are under no legal obligation to accept part of a testimony if you think that witness is not telling the truth.

 

[cityslick]

Why does him going back or not going back matter. He didn't assault anyone.

IMO

No evidence of that. It matters because a scared person doesnt hang out in the same area for 4 minutes.

 

[NancyGracesBangs]

Funny how when someone like MOM says shut up, I'm almost taken aback because he is so soft spoken otherwise