<p>Physical Evidence … as a Picture-Guy, I love it. But I recall what jurors in the OJ trial said after acquitting him. “Any evidence we didn’t understand (especially the blood and DNA evidence) we ignored.”</p>
<p>So I’m not ready to call a Jury Verdict yet. I will be interested in what further witnesses have to contribute to our understanding.</p>
<p>There’s no possibility for justifiable homicide?</p>
<p>^ That would be “Not Guilty.” The Medical Examiner’s Autopsy Report concludes the death as being “Homicide by Known Person” which I think is perfectly evident.</p>
<p>So innocent of justifiable homicide is off the table right Newhope?</p>
<p>Just my opinion – from the crime scene, it looks like a confrontation & pursuit (picture: <a href=“http://i901.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/ac218/Uther2/esndqf-1-1.jpg[/url]”>http://i901.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/ac218/Uther2/esndqf-1-1.jpg</a> ). </p>
<p>So here’s how I connect the dots on the particular pieces of evidence. </p>
<p>Point #1 – GZ is at the T and has his flashlight (by his own statements) – and shines it down the center walkway toward the south, looking for Martin. (GZ denies, but that’s a plausible inference to draw from GZ’s motive to seek out the “suspect” and the fact that he’s standing there with a flashlight. GZ either startles Martin (still talking on the phone with Rachel) or Martin approaches him. There is a verbal confrontation and GZ either drops his key & flashlight because he tries to grab Martin, or he makes a move toward Martin & Martin shoves him, causing him to drop his flashlight & keys and run after Martin. (GZ told police that Martin punched him in the nose and he fell to the ground, but that does not seem possible given the position of the body. It is possible that GZ fell briefly after being pushed, but if GZ had to be moving pretty quickly to be able to catch Martin if Martin was running from him. Witness accounts make it clear that there was a verbal altercation between 2 males & that both were heard running.)</p>
<p>Point #2 – Location of 7/11 bag. Perhaps Martin drops plastic bag with drink & skittles-- possibly because pursuing GZ has grabbed the bag from him, or grabbed his arm, or tried to tackle him. Maybe just by accident because he is in a hurry to get away. He could also be dropping the bag to free his hands in order to fight GZ – but that doesn’t explain the location of the cell phone. </p>
<p>Point #7-- location of Martin cell phone, farther south than where his body ends up. So something happened at that point to cause Martin to drop his cell phone – perhaps because that is the point where GZ catches up to him and is able to grab him and start pulling him several feet north – or perhaps that is the point where Martin is able to overpower GZ and knock him down, and either the phone falls out of his pocket or perhaps Martin drops it from his hand in order to fight GZ.</p>
<p>Point #6/#8 – body & spent cartridge: obviously where Martin was shot. If point #7 is the site where the two men were on the ground, that would suggest either that Martin was moving away when he was shot, and/or that GZ moved Martin’s body after it was shot. Alternatively, Martin could have dropped the phone and moved back north as suggested above.</p>
<p>I personally can not figure out a scenario encountering for the locations of all evidence that is helpful to GZ. I do think it is possible that GZ did not drop his keys & flashlight at the T, but walked back to that area after the shooting and purposely dropped those items, knowing that the police were on their way, with the idea of creating evidence to support his narrative as to where he was attacked. (Perhaps no physical confrontation at all at the T, but that GZ spotted Martin from that point and ran up to where Martin was standing somewhere along the path between the houses. )</p>
<p>I’m not saying that such a scenario does not exist… just that I haven’t figured one out. GZ’s story doesn’t help because of the distances. If Martin had chased GZ (instead of GZ chasing Martin), then GZ would logically have run toward the street where his car was parked and where he knew that police were coming.</p>
<p>I still can’t find who owned the keys & flashlight and who owned the other flashlight.
Do you have anything that says the keys & flashlight and the other flashlight were both GZ?</p>
<p>Re questions above: I’m pretty sure that the keys & both flashlights belonged to GZ and that is covered in GZ’s statements.</p>
<p>I don’t know where GZ was standing when the police arrived. I’m also wondering whether it is possible that he could have moved back toward the T area and dropped his key & flashlight after the shooting, either deliberately or accidentally. If he was in that are when the police arrived, then I can see the key & flashlight being dropped when the officer approached him and was taking his gun from him. I certainly can see the logic of him moving back to that area to wait for the police… but I really don’t know where he actually was.</p>
<p>I believe the flashlight with the keys are Zimmerman’s. I just read that the keys are car keys, Honda, which was what Zimmerman was driving.</p>
<p>nearly 1000 posts of confusion and dispute - sure he has reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>Personally, I think this is just a rude attempt to mess with black people images. I think they WANT to portray the next generation of blacks as a very violent breed. Think about it, we know He’s guilty of killing (which is basically murder…). If it was “self defense” why didn’t he ran, why did he kill instead of fighting back? Why were stupid questions being asked to the star witness? Just extraordinary. No one probably even remember that other case that made that girl very rich and popular. The law is being abuse to fulfill a much more sinister purpose. Just my thoughts on this case. Feel free to disagree.</p>
<p>“There is a flashlight and a key & flashlight(illuminated). Does anyone know if they were both GZ’s or is the key & flashlight(illuminated) TM’s? The key & flashlight seem pretty far from the body.”</p>
<p>Both definitely belonged to Zimmerman.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s because there’s a lot we don’t know yet. As you can see, the more people put the pieces together about what happened when, the more certain things start to add up, while others don’t. I have always thought this case would come down to the physical evidence at the scene and the exact scenario of the shooting. The prosecution will need to connect everything so it makes sense to the jurors if they want a conviction. I am confident that they can.</p>
<p>The can of iced tea and the bag of Skittles were in a pocket of TM’s sweatshirt. The EMT who testified on Friday mentioned it when he talked about raising the shirt to check for wounds.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Legally, not all homicide is murder. Typically, there are various levels of illegal homicide (murder and manslaughter, with varying degrees or categories of each). But there are also homicides that are not illegal, such as justifiable homicide while resisting a serious crime. The prosecution is obviously trying to convince the jury that it was not a case of justifiable homicide, so that GZ would be guilty of an illegal homicide. Obviously, GZ is trying to put reasonable doubt in the prosecution’s argument.</p>
<p>Perhaps this is stating what is already obvious from the 1000+ posts. The prosecution can disprove that GZ acted in self-defense when he shot TM beyond a reasonable doubt or it can prove that GZ was the first aggressor beyond a reasonable doubt so that he cannot claim self-defense even if self-defense was not disproved beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>The prosecution has to disprove one or more elements of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt or, if that cannot be done, the prosecution has to prove all elements of the first aggressor exclusion beyond a reasonable doubt.</p>
<p>For those who have been on a jury, did you listen with laser sharp precision to to testimony? Could you do it for days at a time? What about those jurors who do not process oral presentations well? This case is a MONSTER to present.</p>
<p>07DAD, I agree that it would be difficult to pay close attention for several weeks of testimony. Right now, they have spent the first hour of Monday morning going over (and over) the credentials of an FBI voice recognition expert during the defense’s cross examination. CNN just said that the jurors are now visibly yawning.</p>
<p>At 10:07 CNN just declared that they can not figure out why the defense is doing this, has declared themselves to be bored, and has cut to coverage of the Arizona fire.</p>
<p>About the only thing I’m 100% convinced of at this point is that whoever made a decision to drop this investigation that NIGHT was not investigating in good faith. </p>
<p>Also, I’m convinced that Zimmerman is a danger to those living near him if he is allowed to carry a loaded weapon. He certainly created the situation himself, and a young man ended up dead because of it.</p>
<p>Whether or not the prosecution can prove he instigated the physical confrontation beyond a reasonable doubt, I don’t know. To me, he did by so relentlessly following Trayvon. But, I’m not on the jury.</p>
<p>“The prosecution is obviously trying to convince the jury that it was not a case of justifiable homicide …”</p>
<p>I think that’s what makes this case so compelling. A black kid walking home on a Sunday night carrying skittles and tea gets shot through the heart at point blank range. And the only one claiming “it was a righteous shoot” is the defendant … who won’t be testifying.</p>
<p>eastcoastcrazy–</p>
<p>I did not get out of law school unitl I was 35 so I had been on a couple of juries in the 1970s and early 1980s. One was 8 full days of testimony. One juror would nod off periodically. One juror drank (beer) lunch each day. </p>
<p>The case was technical: international cattle breeding program with frozen embryos, currency conversion issues, express warranties of rate of return, guarantees against inflation, representations regarding tax benefits in the offerring literature. The plaintiff was a very weathy shrink and had invested a lot of money in the deal.</p>
<p>In my opinion, the proof of the plaintiff’s (civil) fraud claim was there in all the documents and granular details. 10-2 for the defendant. During deliberations, many of the jurors simply would not look at the documents in the jury room. One juror in the limited discussions we had said “well, the _ _ _ (religion) got the tax benefits.”</p>
<p>This case could just as easily turn on the defense’s “knock-knock” joke or Rachael’s use of the word “■■■■■■■■” in reference to a defense question as any proof.</p>
<p>I’ve been on a jury before where the judge has actually called us back in to see why it is taking so long… Granted it wasn’t a murder case it was a drug case. But anyway it took us 3 days and it started 50/50 then went to almost everyone saying not guilty to swinging back to guilty. There were more than 6 of us, I think it was 10 or 12 but at least 1 of them just wanted to make a decision(really didn’t matter which way) and go home after the first day. So IMO it really depends on how detailed the people on the jury are on whether they are going to go back over the testimony or not.</p>
<p>Oh and at least 2 of the people on the jury originally didn’t want to convict because he seemed like a “nice” young man , who made a mistake and how could we send him to jail?</p>
![http://i901.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/albums/ac218/Uther2/esndqf-1-1.jpg[/url]](http://i901.photobucket.com/albums/ac218/Uther2/esndqf-1-1.jpg%5B/url%5D){kind=link}
