Verdict Watch Thread Saturday July 13

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Let me put it another way, it has nothing to do with the relevant facts in this case. And, yes, it is my opinion, I wouldn't say it otherwise.


I agree Schuby....it has no relevance legally in this case...
 
http://www.tampabay.com/news/humani...afety-within-retreat-at-twin-lakes-in/1221799

Trayvon Martin lived with his dad, who resides in the Miami area, and had visited his dad's girlfriend at the Retreat several times before.

Which tells me he should have seen the Neighborhood Watch signs.

And then maybe known about the shortcuts. Why stay out in the rain so long? Maybe he was acting suspicious, but some people just don't want to admit that, and bet Deedee knew a lot more than she gave on to, and that's why she went into hiding...she KNEW something went down.
 
MOM was not his lawyer when he did the Hannity interview. In fact I'm not sure he had lawyers by then and if he did, it was those two bumbling guys that he didn't communicate with anyway. When MOM took over, that was the last of the interviews.

Pretty sure that is Mark O'Mara sitting beside George Zimmerman during this interview with Sean Hannity. In fact Sean Hannity even states that he sat down to talk to George Zimmerman and his attorney Mark O'Mara.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaua8aAUpOs"]George Zimmerman's Exclusive Full Interview With Sean Hannity 7/18/2012 - YouTube[/ame]
 
Although not studying criminology, David Westerfield also talked to LE without lawyering up. I know someone who knew DW for years and he said DW always thought he was just a little smarter than everyone else.

To me, then, speaking to LE without lawyering up is no proof of innocence. It could very well simply mean the person thinks they can talk their way out of the situation. :twocents:

Like I said, it's possible but it's a stretch to think it. He never backed down from anything, even passed a test at the station to determine if he was telling the truth (don't think it was a lie detector test though).
 
I think they had more recent pictures that they could have given...but I am not sure if that was the parents doing or Crump and the media.

I think it was very misleading to show pictures of a 12 yr old kid. My sister is 18, she has pictures up on facebook that make me cringe (she is on her own so nothing anyone can do about it) I do have many pictures of her where she looks nice and is smiling though. If I had to give a picture of her I wouldn't give them one where she was 12. It is concerning if the only pictures they have of a 17yr old are either offensive or ones from 5 yrs ago.

imo

I don't think it's unusual for a family to provide pictures of someone in younger years where the look better and nicer. People make to much of things.
 
You have a link to back this up because I'm pretty sure I heard on WFTV that MOM was not his lawyer at that point in time.

MOM was not his lawyer when the interview was arranged, and he couldn't talk GZ out of going through with it. JMO. OMO. MOO.
 
Agreed. If a college-aged girl went missing, would you (general) want the media to use pictures of her drunk at the club wearing a skimpy outfit?

Hopefully, they provide a picture of her as she actually looked at the time. Not a picture of how she'd looked when she was in middle school. jmo
 
MeeBee,
I am not starting anything. I thought we were here to discuss the issue. IMO his dad should have NOTICED he wasn't home by midnight. He was 17. However, the prosecutor in closing referred to him as a child.

Whether the prosecution refers to a minor as a child depends on whether they're the defendant or a victim. Corey had no problem earlier trying a 12 year old as an adult.
 
janesdean? I would pm you but I don't know how often you check your pm's.
You have a post that may get you into trouble, it's a post that is a 3 or 4? down from Tricia plea not to speak of a certain matter and the reason why.
IMO. and very sorry OT I really want this board to stay open and I enjoy reading opposing views. Post 478 hurry!!

I went back and edited, hope that does it
 
In his call to the police, Zimmerman said "these (expletive), they always get away". He was going to make sure this one didn't.


Is that really what you heard? I heard a man telling NE 911 that the guy I wanted you to check out is now gone. That he was disappointed, because like always, this one got away. He honestly thought the guy was gone....not for one minute did he come across as he was going to make sure he didn't get away. You can't add words to the 911 call that weren't there. You just can't......unless you are Corey, the city manager, the mayor, CNN, or someone that just wants to distort the facts. And when I say "you", I'm not talking about you.....I'm talking about anyone that distorts the facts.
 
MOM was not his lawyer when he did the Hannity interview. In fact I'm not sure he had lawyers by then and if he did, it was those two bumbling guys that he didn't communicate with anyway. When MOM took over, that was the last of the interviews.

If it is the same Hannity interview, MOM is seen sitting right beside him
 
Also, I wonder why people also find it offensive that Trayvon's family provided a picture of a nice smiling young Trayvon to the media. Isn't that usually what families do? Did people really expect his family to provide a picture of him smoking pot and flashing his middle fingers?

It would have been more accurate, IMO, but I get your point. :seeya:
 
That's because GZ called the Non-Emergency Number. He did not call 911. It is this sort of subtle shift of facts that is telling of the state's complete lack of evidence thus necessitating elaboration and fabrication. JMO. OMO.MOO.

I don't think any of us have every bit of evidence memorized and exactly knows where every bit comes from.

That was my mistake, not the state's.
 
WOW. aside from being wholly untrue, that shows quite an alarming lack of compassion and understanding.

though many here mocked the closing argument of the state, when they said it was GZ who ''created this mess'' they were absolutely right. i am stunned that even those who support GZ refuse to give even that much.

and to think, it's those of us who feel GZ is guilty who are supposedly basing our opinions of emotion alone!

MOO

I don't think you can state the statement is untrue. It was certainly the position of the defense, and they presented evidence to back it up - and in fact, there was no evidence at all that controverted this view of what happened that night.

iMHO
 
GZ's dad was a Magistrate Judge and his Mom work/works for the courthouse. I would think GZ wanted to follow in his Dad's footsteps, as many young men do. It was clear that the door to law enforcement was closed to him for a number of reasons. That must have been frustrating for him to accept.

When GZ's physical instructor said GZ was soft in the defensive tactics, I believe him. I don't think GZ ever stepped out of that car to kill TM. I think he just wanted to keep TM from getting away until LE arrived and that was a fatal mistake on both TM and GZ's part. What bothers me is GZ admitting he was concerned they always get away and the act of getting out of his car to make sure he had a visual contact with TM in case he headed toward the back gate. This ironically was the exact direction TM was headed. Even if TM were up to no good and was headed toward the back gate if he had not been involved in a crime LE would have no choice but to let him go. So GZ's pursuit served no purpose unless he saw TM climbing in a window or breaking into a house.

The biggest mystery for me are those approximate 40 feet past where GZ said he was first attacked. GZ has never given a clear explanation as to how they managed to get from the T to the area where TM's body was found. This information could clear up a lot of what really happened. GZ could have slipped and hit his head at the T because he did say he went down. Could it be he does not remember because he hit his head? There is a lot of missing information and the information on the ground covered from the time of the first encounter until TM was shot. To cover that distance someone was moving down closer to where TM was staying. With the information we have it makes no sense and the only one who could give us that information is GZ.

If he is found guilty I would hope it would be for Manslaughter. GZ was ill equipped to handle any situation the night he decided to get out of his car instead of waiting for LE. jmo
 
Dear Everyone,

This is me on my knees begging and pleading with you ...please DO NOT CALL ANYONE A RACIST.

Race WAS NOT brought up in the court case.

I would be glad to let you offer your opinion on who you think is racist and why but if I did that do you know what would happen?

THE FORUM WOULD EXPLODE.

We can't discuss race. We can't. If I had the time and the mod power I might give it a shot but I don't.

If we want this discussion to continue we cannot through out accusations of racism. Even thought it might be true we just cannot do it. Not if we want this thread to stay open.

Thank you very much.

Tricia

I hope it's okay that I re-posted this, if not I'm sorry and delete. I really want this board to stay open. Thanks much Tricia I fully understand the reasons regarding your decision.
 
And don't forget the former Sanford Police Choef who was summarily dismissed..he I betcha has a suit in the air..Looks like FL will be seeing some law suits...

:floorlaugh::floorlaugh::floorlaugh: Anybody know a GOOD lawyer?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
190
Total visitors
268

Forum statistics

Threads
609,159
Messages
18,250,247
Members
234,549
Latest member
raymehay
Back
Top