<p>yes, GZ’s statements are not consistent. And we know he and his wife lied to the court about money. He is not credible. </p>
<p>and how interesting that the same curse that GZ claimed TM made is what Tracy Martin was accused of in court yesterday. sorry, but that was despicable.</p>
<p>Martin’s “girlfriend” does not sound particularly impressive. She has already lied in court.</p>
<p>[Teenage</a> Star Witness Against George Zimmerman Has Tweeted About Case, Getting High, And Her “Court Nails” | The Smoking Gun](<a href=“Buster | The Smoking Gun”>Teenage Star Witness Against George Zimmerman Has Tweeted About Case, Getting High, And Her "Court Nails" | The Smoking Gun)</p>
<p>Zimmerman’s weight has increased by over 100lbs since the killing. I guess he is a stress eater.</p>
<p>razor, what does that girl’s attention-seeking behavior have to do with the case? Is she on trial now too?</p>
<p>Or maybe Zimmerman is wearing a bullet-proof vest under his suit.</p>
<p>In a sense, sally, yes. Her credibility is on trial, the same as it would be for any other witness.
Her admissions of boozing, and drinking and driving(at age 18 or 19) would likely not impress others favorably about her. And her difficulty with English language(though apparently she was born and raised here) might make her difficult to understand or perhaps off-putting to some. So, certainly the impression she creates about herself would not change the facts but, that impression could affect her believability; whether fairly or not. And as I said, her believability, like any other testimony, is on trial.</p>
<p>Yesterday’s testimony was not good for the prosecution. Every one of the state’s witnesses helped or were neutral for the defense, imo. There was no real strong point that the prosecution made that the defense didn’t credibly turn their way. </p>
<p>The woman police officer who helped advised the Neighborhood Watch group testified there was an increase in crime in the neighborhood, including a home invasion. She testified GZ was professional, courteous, but perhaps a bit meek. She offered to get him a Citizen on Patrol job, but GZ declined. Here was the chance for the “wannabe cop” to be a recognized sort of cop.</p>
<p>The head of the HOA testified that GZ helped set up a parking committee and recruited others to join. He didn’t like GZ setting up the NW, but told of a time when a construction crew acted as the NW. They saw a suspicious acting guy leaving a townhouse, called the cops, then followed him and the guy was arrested. The description of the guy 17 year old black male. </p>
<p>O’Mara got the police tech to acknowledge the rain could have washed away blood. No blood detecting chemicals were used. The touch DNA on the gun may not have been left at all or it could have been wiped away. There were missteps in the handling of the clothing. GZ wounds were discussed. First the cleaned up GZ photos the state admitted into the evidence and then the bloody GZ photos. </p>
<p>The woman, Selene, who saw something out her kitchen window was completely discredited. She looked rehearsed and evasive. She testified that she saw people running “from left to right.” The defense spent a lot of time showing yesterday was the first time she said that in any official way. She said she told her sister sometime in the past. She lied about signing a petition to prosecute Trayvon’s killer. So the prosecution’s star witness of the day left being proved to have lied on the stand. </p>
<p>We’ll see what happens today.</p>
<p>Trial attorneys often seek to interview the jurors after a trial. On several occasions when I was involved in the trial attorney’s presentation of the case and the case drug on for a substantial amount of time, one or more of the jurors would express frustration if not anger at the side that they felt “had wasting their time.” </p>
<p>I followed OJ and Anthony enough to know that some of the jurors expressed displeasure that they had spent so much of their life on a case where the prosecution’s case was “thin” on proof beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>While I think bias almost always comes into play, I think some jurors “get” that beyond a reasonable doubt, while not requiring a virtual certainty, does not exist where there is a lot of conflicting possibilities based on disputed and undisputed evidence as to what “really happened.” If one juror reaches the point of asking herself “why is the prosecution asking me to convict under the beyond a reasonable doubt standard in a case so full of conflicting possibilities as to self defense?” it can result in an OJ.</p>
<p>Can jurors get “mad” at the defense presentation? Sure. But deep down inside the jurors know that their personal life has be disrupted by the State’s decision to prosecute the case. I find it difficult to accept that none of the jurors knew of the “special circumstances” that brought about charging GZ. If the juror starts to believe “public outcry” unreasonably influenced that decision the prosecution can have a deep hole to dig itself out of and the defense may get a lot of “passes” for dumb strategy moves (of which there already seem to be several).</p>
<p>In other words, can the prosecution present evidence from which the juror can find beyond a reasonable doubt that GZ did not act in self defense as defined under Florida law? It is usually hard to prove a negative under the preponderance of the evidence standard, but to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt? </p>
<p>If someone wants GZ to be convicted, they better hope all of the jurors are also biased to convict.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do not believe she said she saw something out her kitchen window. My recollection is that she said she HEARD something out her kitchen window and that her view from the kitchen was obstructed. She then testified that it took her about 15 seconds to go from the kitchen to her sliding door and that is when she observed people with “arms flailing”. She returned to the kitchen to turn off the stove and then when she returned to the sliding door she saw a body laying face down in the grass. </p>
<p>Discredited or not, she didn’t add much since she unfortunately returned to her stove at the most critical time of the encounter between TM and GZ.</p>
<p>07DAD - I didn’t follow the Anthony case. But the evidence against OJ was compelling. Unfortunately the prosecution was incompetent and the jury stacked in favor of the defense. (Example: When asked about the blood evidence, jurors responded “We didn’t understand that so we just disregarded it.”)</p>
<p>GZ doesn’t have a Slam Dunk Acquit jury. The “hill” he’s climbing to acquittal is whether FL residents are willing to endorse “chase and kill.” Because the only evidence of self-defense is Zimmerman’s claims. The “safe” decision is to convict GZ and let the Appeals Court sort it out.</p>
<p>“But deep down inside the jurors know that their personal life has be disrupted by the State’s decision to prosecute the case.”</p>
<p>I think you have a low opinion of people if you think the jurors would be angry at the prosecution for prosecuting the case.</p>
<p>
Well, to begin with, jurors generally are biased to convict. But I don’t think that will matter. If a person shoots and kills someone else and gives a variety of self-serving explanations for doing so which are inconsistent with physical evidence they’re likely to fail the self-defense argument. In this case, the recording of the sound during the altercation is irreconcilable with Zimmerman’s claims to being smothered by Martin and being the one who is screaming for help, since the screaming lasts right up until the shot was fired. The lack of physical evidence on Martin of Martin hitting anyone - no blood, no DNA, no bruising on his hands - the location of Zimmerman’s gun holster, the entry wound location and Martin’s injuries from being shot are all hard to square with Zimmerman’s narrative. Those in the pro-Zimmerman camp seems to have bought his basic claim - “I was attacked by a scary tall black guy” - but if he doesn’t testify it’s hard to see how a jury could be convinced of it. And the fact remains that Martin was a skinny 17 year old with a bag of Skittles and a can of ice tea, on an innocent errand. Telling a false story to the police is evidence of awareness of guilt which is sufficient to support a finding of no self defense. And Zimmerman’s story to the police is undoubtedly false on some points. The jury will have to overlook that to find self defense; I’d be surprised if that happened.</p>
<p>It’s not clear to me how Zimmerman avoids conviction given the physical evidence, unless he gets a jury biased to acquit.</p>
<p>How do you explain the injuries GZ suffered? I don’t know how the jury can ignore that…to me, that’s the biggest hurdle for the prosecution.</p>
<p>It’s clear that there was some sort of altercation, but Zimmerman’s injuries don’t prove his story of having his head violently pounded into a concrete walkway and they don’t explain why he made statements about what happened which were not true. Remember, Zimmerman was the guy who got out of his car with a loaded gun to follow Martin, not the other way around. And unless he testifies he’s got multiple recorded statements that can be proven to be at least partially untrue for the jury to consider. Will they believe that he was telling the truth about enough to justify a not guilty verdict if he doesn’t testify?</p>
<p>Remember, in the “famous” trials people talk about - O.J Simpson, Casey Anthony - there was always a question of whether or not the defendant was even involved in the crime. Here there’s no question that Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, and no evidence that Martin was doing anything but returning from a run to buy Skittles. That’s your basic factual outline that can’t be ignored. You’re asking a jury to say “never mind” based on Martin’s post-shooting story about what “really” happened, even though parts of those statements are clearly not true.</p>
<p>Tough sell in my book.</p>
<p>“How do you explain the injuries GZ suffered? I don’t know how the jury can ignore that…to me, that’s the biggest hurdle for the prosecution.”</p>
<p>ss - I don’t mean to be indelicate about it, but … Don’t know how he got them, don’t know when he got them, don’t know where he got them, don’t know who gave them to him, don’t know if they were sufficient to warrant GZ to believe he was in danger of imminent death. The Prosecutor may merely say “I’ll grant that GZ probably got injuries that night, but there is NO evidence that TM gave them those injuries … no blood, no DNA, no cuts, no abrasions at all on TM.”</p>
<p>According to my calculations from the information on the Florida Office of State Courts Administrator for 2008, an acquittal/dismissal occured in 65 jury trials for non capital murder offenses and a conviction occurred in 183. </p>
<p>For the 18th Circuit (where this trial is being held) criminal jury trials resulted in 41 acquittal/dismissals and 115 convictions I couldn’t find a breakout of 18th Circuit non capital murder results.</p>
<p>kluge–self defense by its nature acknowleges that the defendant was the shooter.</p>
<p>From the Tampa Bay Times:
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Then how did GZ get the injuries if not from TM? I can’t see any conclusion other than that they came from TM unless one is willing to believe GZ smashed his head against the concrete and punched himself in the nose as part of a brilliant scheme to claim he was engaged in self defense. I don’t think GZ is that smart.</p>
<p>Wednesday witnesses Jayne and Jeannee still don’t paint a clear picture of the encounter. There are questions, discrepancies, or inconsistencies…</p>
<p>Jayne said there was 1 gunshot sound during her 911 call but said there was a “pop, pop, pop” during her courtroom testimony today. She also assumed that the higher pitched voice was that of a younger male, particularly the second cry for help. </p>
<p>Jeannee said that the larger person was on top but she didn’t know that this was likely GZ until sometime after the encounter when she saw photos/footage of the two in the media. She described the this scuffle as “shadows” in her earlier statements. Assuming GZ’s head injuries were a result of the physical scuffle, that isn’t consistent with the head injuries unless the two were both on top at different times during this incident. Even if it were GZ on top, does this still mean that he wasn’t trying to defend himself?</p>
<p>Based on all the witnesses so far, the physical evidence might be the best chance that the prosecution has to convict GZ.</p>
<p>“If the glove don’t fit, you have to acquit” worked for the OJ team, I can see that trying to sell that the blood on the back of the head and on the face/nose does not raise reasonable doubt on self defense could be a tough one. </p>
<p>25 to life for GZ if the jurors are wrong and convict. TM will not come back to life if GZ is convicted. If not biased (or only a little), a juror might not want to live with the niggling doubt of “but what if it was self defense.”</p>
<p>Blind justice works in strange ways. None of the eyewitnesses so far really saw anything because it was completely dark that night and none of the eyewitnesses were equipped with night vision.</p>
<p>“If the glove don’t fit” meant that OJ wasn’t the killer - wasn’t even there. That’s completely different from “I have minor cuts on my head so I must have been attacked and shot only in self-defense.” “Niggling doubt” isn’t enough. “Reasonable doubt” is actually the standard. Is “niggling” “reasonable?” Not in California. </p>
<p>Of course, the fact that if George Zimmerman is guilty he’s the poster boy for the bankruptcy of the “guns make you safe” argument will drive a lot of folks to deny his guilt regardless of the evidence.</p>
<p>I agree with Lizard - I doubt that eyewitness testimony will have a big impact on the outcome of the case, unless the witness is George Zimmerman. And I can’t see that happening.</p>