George Zimmerman /Trayvon Martin General Discussion #11 Tues. July 9

[missmazzy]

Listening to this, IMOO I think the state is going to win this. I don't think the animation is going to be allowed in. Shame I'd like to see it.

JMO

IMO, this guy may be the best animator in the world, but he's a lousy witness.

 

[Isabelle]

Like mothers can't ever accurately ID their kids screams, but random excoworkers can, LOL. IMHO those are some stanky cherries.

Yes, they sure are! Never knew a mother who could not recognize her child's scream in a playground full of children!

 

[AngelWings444]

That is a great idea. Yes as soon as the judge starts with jury instructions we will put the poll up .

Thank you missmazy.

Tricia - can you please clarify if we have to use JMO in our posts or can we all just add it in our signatures for this trial? Seems like people are saying the rules have changed. I thought we had to put it in each of our posts/statements etc..unless we provided a link. Going to alert my own post for clarification. Thanks for all you do!

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Like mothers can't ever accurately ID their kids screams, but random excoworkers can, LOL. IMHO those are some stanky cherries.

I don't believe either Mother. I think their hearts so much want it to be their child that they can not even comprehend it is someone else.

His father when asked if it was his son said.. NO.

That speaks volumes to me.

 

[missmazzy]

That is a great idea. Yes as soon as the judge starts with jury instructions we will put the poll up .

Thank you missmazy.

Honestly, it wasn't my idea. A few days ago, someone suggested it. I just wanted to make sure someone saw it. :seeya:

 

[Truthy]

I am not convinced the screaming was TM or GZ. Obviously, it was one or the other (perhaps even both). I can understand how it could be either one. However, if it was GZ, and he knew that TM was shot in the chest, had no weapon, and was incapacitated, I don't follow why he would continue to shout. If he was the one shouting before the shot, he was shouting out of fear, once that threat that caused that fear was removed, I don't understand why many assume he should continue to scream.
.

Because GZ claimed he continued to scream- but no one else sadi he did, nor is it on any recording. IMHO

 

[Isabelle]

Any animation would be severely skewed, since we only have half of the story! IMO

 

[TorisMom003]

You might just do what I have decided to do, put IMO at the end of every post, whether there is a link, whether it is an opinion or not or whatever, kind of like your initials at the end of a statement.

Agreed. I do the same thing unless I am backing something up with a link. However I also know that the feature is available and that some use the feature. If someone uses the feature then they will not see the signature line with the IMO or whatever in it. That was simply my point, however it appears to have been taken as something that it was not meant to be.

 

[AngelWings444]

I just went back and listened to Donnelly's testimony. He was excused without being subject to recall. He had every right to be in the courtroom.

They (WFTV) are saying he was in the courtroom prior to his testimony. They said they have it on tape. Trying to get link as it was live commentary. Hope that helps.

 

[PaperDoll]

I am not convinced the screaming was TM or GZ. Obviously, it was one or the other (perhaps even both).


So GZ was screaming for help while grabbing his gun out of his holster, tries to clear his hand (in his statement to the police) as he pulled the trigger? Also said TM slammed his head into the pavement and that was when he shot him. Then in another statement he said he was being smothered, couldn't breathe, then TM saw the gun, started to go for it but GZ was able to stop him from doing so. I'm confused by GZ statement here along with the screaming through all this. :twocents:

 

[Just Sailing Thru]

I just went back and listened to Donnelly's testimony. He was excused without being subject to recall. He had every right to be in the courtroom.

channel 9 news got screen shots of the audience and found Mr Donnely sitting on the courtroom 6/26 and 6/27 prior to his testimony. Sanctions discussed stated maybe not soo terribly bad..such as throw out his entire testimony, as when he was in the courtroom he never was there when the 911 call was played.. IMO what I heard on news cast and saw

 

[Karmady]

I'm not trying to be difficult and I'm not saying you're incorrect.. but if you have any proof of this (a link, etc) I would love to see/read it. This knowledge.. if true TOTALLY changes every belief I had in our justice system..
Thanks in advance!

A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

 

[Beyond Belief]

I really would like to see it! Couldn't they just match up the gunshot sound. I can't remember if we heard it on Johns 911 call. IMo

 

[Isabelle]

I don't believe either Mother. I think their hearts so much want it to be their child that they can not even comprehend it is someone else.

His father when asked if it was his son said.. NO.

That speaks volumes to me.

That TM did not live with his father for most of his life is a factor. IMO

 

[Nezumi]

I'm not trying to be difficult and I'm not saying you're incorrect.. but if you have any proof of this (a link, etc) I would love to see/read it. This knowledge.. if true TOTALLY changes every belief I had in our justice system..
Thanks in advance!

Here is a link to Florida's standard jury instructions for criminal cases. The weighing of evidence begins at Section 2.04

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/criminal.pdf

2.04 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You
should use your common sense in deciding which is the best
evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in
considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not
reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.
You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as
what they said. Some things you should consider are:
1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to
see and know the things about which the witness
testified?
2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate
memory?
3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in
answering the attorneys' questions?
4. Did the witness have some interest in how the
case should be decided?
5. Does the witness' testimony agree with the other
testimony and other evidence in the case?

The instructions covered under paragraphs numbered six
through ten, inclusive, are not common to all cases. These
numbered paragraphs should be included only as required by the
evidence.
6. Has the witness been offered or received any
money, preferred treatment or other benefit in
order to get the witness to testify?
7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the
witness that affected the truth of the witness'
testimony?
8. Did the witness at some other time make a
statement that is inconsistent with the testimony
[he] [she] gave in court?
Note to
Judge:
The court also may wish to give as part of this instruction
the instructions covered under 2.04(a) and (b), concerning expert
witnesses and accomplices. If so, the Committee recommends that
they be given as additional numbered paragraphs, which would
precede the last two unnumbered paragraphs of this instruction.
9. Was it proved that the witness had been
convicted of a crime?
10. Was it proved that the general reputation of the
witness for telling the truth and being honest
was bad?
You may rely upon your own conclusion about the
witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the
evidence or the testimony of any witness.

 

[gxm]

I am not convinced the screaming was TM or GZ. Obviously, it was one or the other (perhaps even both). I can understand how it could be either one. However, if it was GZ, and he knew that TM was shot in the chest, had no weapon, and was incapacitated, I don't follow why he would continue to shout. If he was the one shouting before the shot, he was shouting out of fear, once that threat that caused that fear was removed, I don't understand why many assume he should continue to scream.

I have never understood the thinking behind pro-TM or pro-GZ that the scream had to be their preferred choice. It had to TM, because it ended it with the shot, or it had to be GZ because it ended with the shot. Either one is logical and possible, but neither negates the other possiblity. It is a wash, although the evidence presented at trial gives more creedence that GZ was more likely the screamer.

IMO, the guy receiving a beat down would be the guy screaming for help and moaning in pain. As per JG's eye witness testimony, physician assistant's testimony, expert witness testimony, and photographic evidence, the guy who took a beating was GZ. Additionally, a person being held at gunpoint who was begging for his life would most likely mention the gun (don't shoot! or he's got a gun!) and there has been no testimony/evidence about a gun until the shot is fired.

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

That TM did not live with his father for most of his life is a factor. IMO

Not to me. He was living with him right then. Currently.

 

[Nezumi]

A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the evidence or the testimony of any witness.

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/instructions.shtml#

Sorry Karmady! Didn't see that you'd already posted the link! :blushing:

 

[ScarlettScarpetta]

Here is a link to Florida's standard jury instructions for criminal cases. The weighing of evidence begins at Section 2.04

http://www.flcourts18.org/PDF/criminal.pdf

2.04 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE
It is up to you to decide what evidence is reliable. You
should use your common sense in deciding which is the best
evidence, and which evidence should not be relied upon in
considering your verdict. You may find some of the evidence not
reliable, or less reliable than other evidence.
You should consider how the witnesses acted, as well as
what they said. Some things you should consider are:
1. Did the witness seem to have an opportunity to
see and know the things about which the witness
testified?
2. Did the witness seem to have an accurate
memory?
3. Was the witness honest and straightforward in
answering the attorneys' questions?
4. Did the witness have some interest in how the
case should be decided?
5. Does the witness' testimony agree with the other
testimony and other evidence in the case?

The instructions covered under paragraphs numbered six
through ten, inclusive, are not common to all cases. These
numbered paragraphs should be included only as required by the
evidence.
6. Has the witness been offered or received any
money, preferred treatment or other benefit in
order to get the witness to testify?
7. Had any pressure or threat been used against the
witness that affected the truth of the witness'
testimony?
8. Did the witness at some other time make a
statement that is inconsistent with the testimony
[he] [she] gave in court?
Note to
Judge:
The court also may wish to give as part of this instruction
the instructions covered under 2.04(a) and (b), concerning expert
witnesses and accomplices. If so, the Committee recommends that
they be given as additional numbered paragraphs, which would
precede the last two unnumbered paragraphs of this instruction.
9. Was it proved that the witness had been
convicted of a crime?
10. Was it proved that the general reputation of the
witness for telling the truth and being honest
was bad?
You may rely upon your own conclusion about the
witness. A juror may believe or disbelieve all or any part of the
evidence or the testimony of any witness.

Thanks for posting it.. I have googled enough today!

 

[sorrell skye]

I find it very interesting that the state is objecting to the creation of the animation based, in part, on their own witness's (Lauer's) recollection of events.

The state wants the jury to believe Lauer's testimony, but when the defense wants to use it to help create the animation, the state objects.

Does the state not trust their own witness's testimony?