<p>
All I have done on this thread is correct statements of evidence I think are wrong, and question a few other statements in response to other posters. Since the thread is tipped incredibly in one direction, it may seem I have taken a stand one way or the other. But I have argued against posters with both points if view, if you fairly assess my posts. And I have said numerous times I think Zimmerman should be punished in some way for what he did.</p>
<p>Wolverine, would you grant that people can speak however they want in what they presume to be private conversations? I’m pretty sure we would hear a lot worse around the Zimmerman dinner table. Why won’t you let this go?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This might possibly be the funniest thing I have ever read on this site.</p>
<p>Bovertine, as you seem to think that the Zimmerman’s DNA on Martin’s inner shirt is so important, can you share your theory as to how it got there – when there is no DNA on the outer shirt (hoodie)?</p>
<p>This tape does not exactly show someone who just survived a life-or-death struggle. Where are his wounds? This was taking 30 MINUTES after the shooting.</p>
<p>[Trayvon</a> Martin Case: Exclusive Surveillance Video of George Zimmerman - ABC News](<a href=“Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman - ABC News”>Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman - ABC News)</p>
<p>This video shows the layout of the area where the killing happened and also raises questions about the two-minute gap between GZ’s NEN call and the first 911 call.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/06/25/george-zimmerman-story-police-evidence[/url]”>http://www.hlntv.com/video/2013/06/25/george-zimmerman-story-police-evidence</a></p>
<p>
I challenge you to find any place where I even hinted I thought it was important. What I do think is important is correctly stating the evidence in the case when you make your arguments. Several posters emphatically stated that none of GZ’s DNA was on TM. I assume they thought it was an important fact, although it turned out to be untrue. They should get their facts straight at least before making arguments.</p>
<p>To answer your question, I have no idea. Especially since I’m still not even certain where it was on the shirt. Poetgrl said it on the sleeves and cuffs. Although I have no reason to doubt her, I don’t remember that. I searched a bit but no article I’ve found said where it was. But if you know where it was and would kindly point me to a link that would be nice.</p>
<p>The links ttparent posted on post 1844 should be required reading for all of us before continuing on this thread. </p>
<p>Both give an interesting and deep analysis of the photos and and DNA/blood evidence. </p>
<p>A couple of items stood out to me, because I hadn’t seen them before or hadn’t looked at them in that way before:</p>
<p>The blood streaks/pathway on the back of Zimmermans head do not actually support his contention that he had been on his back, or that his head had been pounded into the ground/concrete.</p>
<p>First of all, blood is flowing, making tracks on the back of his head. Had Zimmerman’s head been pounded or pushed into the ground, the blood would have been smeared around on his head.</p>
<p>Secondly, the blood is flowing down the back AND toward the front of his head. That flow pattern would happen if Zimmerman were upright and looking down but NOT if he were on his back looking up. </p>
<p>Zimmerman claimed his nose was broken, but was there ever a diagnosis? Not according to those links. (Has that ever changed? Was there a diagnosis?) Photos of his nose, both bloody and later when it had been cleaned off were shown in two police photos. If you look, <em>blood is NOT flowing out of his nostrils</em>, it is flowing from the outside tip of his nose. When his nose was cleaned up there are two small puncture holes on the tip of his nose.</p>
<p>Very interesting.</p>
<p>(Re Bovertine’s question about the DNA evidence on the inner shirt): No, I don’t know where it was. I just saw at least 3 different posts from you hammering in the point, so I was wondering what your theory might be. I agree that it would be important to know where those stains were.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It doesn’t matter where it was said, because it’s a matter of record in the court transcript. Whether he thought anyone else would ever hear it is immaterial. If you use a slur while sitting in your home, does it make it any less of an offensive term? NO, it does not!!</p>
<p>I made the point more than once that I find the language used by both GZ and TM to be offensive and derogatory. I used it as just one example where open-minded, non-biased individuals could see an area where the same type of evidence could be used to support both the prosecution’s and the defense’s version of the sequence of events.</p>
<p>I asked the question to see if some of the posters on this thread were willing to concede even that small of a point towards setting their emotions and pre-conceived notions aside and letting the process play out. They’re not…but at least some of them are willing to admit they’d make horrible jurors because of it.</p>
<p>Adding on to my own post 1865:</p>
<p>Police photos of Zimmerman’s clothes taken at the police station do not show any wet spots, mud, dirt, or grass stains on either the back of his pants or the back of his jacket. He claimed to have been on his back, struggling, on wet grass while his head was being pounded into the cement, yet there is no dirt or grass stains on the back of any of his clothing.</p>
<p>The “creepy-ass cracker” remark comes from Rachel Jeantel, whose testimony - against GM and otherwise - I’m taking with a grain of salt, given that she’s been caught in a couple of outright lies. Maybe Travyon Martin said it; maybe he didn’t. </p>
<p>If he did, I agree with Wolvertine that it, like Zimmerman’s “punks” comment, makes it more likely to me that TM was not only (perhaps) scared, but pretty p*ssed off that he was being followed. If he did use the word cracker, it suggests that he may have believed he was being profiled, which would have been likely to make him come into the confrontation with Zimmerman charged up. But the evidence still strongly suggests to me two angry guys in a fight, not one guy attacking the other. When two guys get in a fight and the one whose grossly irresponsible actions prompted it is the one that comes out alive, in the absence of injuries more serious than the ones Zimmerman seems to have had, I’m thinking manslaughter. </p>
<p>The fact that TM may not have been 100 % justified in all of his actions that day doesn’t negate what GZ did, although the legitimate possibility that TM may have initiated the physical part of the confrontation is enough, for me, to take murder off the table.</p>
<p>Wolverine, did you read the links eastcoascrazy referred to in #1844? Am curious to hear your thoughts. I know you want to believe everyone can be completely open-minded up to the last minute of the trial but I don’t think that is a reasonable expectation based on all the evidence presented to date. </p>
<p>Looks to me like the prosecution isn’t even close to resting if all of this hasn’t been presented yet.</p>
<p>The prosecution had said yesterday morning that they hoped to finish by the end of the day. Sometimes a lawyer will have a lot of photos authenticated and submitted into evidence, without specifically showing them or discussing them – but focus on that evidence later in closing argument. Since I haven’t been watching the live feed, I really don’t know what has or hasn’t come in at this point – I’m just saying that its possible that at some point a bunch of photos were marked as evidence, and some witness said – “Yes, I took those photos” – but they might not have been yet shared with the tv-watching audience.</p>
<p>The defense will likely have their own forensic and DNA specialists challenge the reports by state’s DNA guy. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence. Just because state report may not indicate traces of DNA for areas swabbed or samples cut doesn’t mean items and people didn’t come in contact.</p>
<p>sally…I read through the info in the links you referred to from #1844. I would consider them to be persuasive, certainly, but not conclusive at this point. Fully expecting the defense to present their own DNA expert, I’ll wait to hear what their take on the DNA evidence is. Reading that info, I did see that there is indeed at least a partial DNA match for TM on GZ’s clothing and there is a match for GZ’s DNA on TM’s clothing. Not much…but it’s something…and certainly more than the “absolutely no DNA” that posters were ranting about early on in the thread.</p>
<p>That’s the whole point of letting the process play out. The defense hasn’t even started presenting their case yet, and several posters have already concluded that the DNA evidence alone should convict him. Seriously? As others have noted, a fair portion of the prosecution’s own evidence could be used by the defense to directly rebut their version of the events of that night. That doesn’t POSSIBLY sound like reasonable doubt to you?</p>
<p>It would be great if everyone could be open-minded, but I know that’s a pipe dream. I and many others have said how everyone brings their own experiences, emotions, biases, etc. into a situation and it’s going to have some effect on how they view things. The point is everyone should try, as much as possible, to set those things aside and wait until ALL the evidence, FROM BOTH SIDES, has been presented and weigh it all as fairly and in as unbiased of a manner as possible. You’ve got to admit…that’s not even CLOSE to what’s being done by all but a few on this thread</p>
<p>You are right–the defense has not presented its case, and the attorneys on GZ’s side are very good.</p>
<p>However, GZ himself seems to have made his case when he agreed to an interview on Sean Hannity–with his lead attorney, no less. So in a sense everything the prosecution has presented is already being evaluated against the previous “testimony” of GZ himself. If we had never heard from him before now, I think people might be more willing to reserve judgment until both sides of the story had been heard.</p>
<p>Here’s a question that only broadly addresses the current case, but is much more general in nature.
The prosecution(we believe) is nearing the end of its presentation, the defense has rebut what it can of the best prosecution witnesses, testimony, and scientific evidence.
Wouldn’t it make logical sense an open minded juror be leaning toward believing the state at this moment more than the D, given that they have now presented(almost all) their slant on the allegations with all their best evidence to persuade the jury? Isn’t this the best time for the state to lay out what they hope will be absolute, conclusive evidence to persuade the jury there can be no reasoned possibility that this event isn’t the crime they have charged the defendant with?</p>
<p>The D, at the moment has not yet presented their slant on the allegations with their best witnesses, testimony, and scientific evidence. Of course a juror should give that his attention before deciding. </p>
<p>It just seems to me the state should be/should have been pretty effective persuading at this point. Otherwise, the D would have little work to do to convince the jury of the possibility of a reasonable doubt… make sense?</p>
<p>Yes it makes sense</p>
<p>
Usually I think that’s how it works. You go in, you assume not guilty. By the end of the prosecution’s case you would generally be leaning prosecution.</p>
<p>This case seems a little different however. First, everyone acknowledges that GZ killed TM. So they aren’t trying to prove that. The prosecution is, in effect, attempting to disprove GZ’s story. They have found many inconsistencies thus far. How significant they are is open to debate. THey have brought forward evidence to question GZ’s credibility. THe question is whether the jury considers those inconsistencies enough to disregard GZ’s story in part or in whole. </p>
<p>What remains is for the pros to lay out their theory. I think why it is difficult for the prosecution is because people want to hear an alternative story and then weigh the two stories. In its case, the prosecution has built an alternative story, which has been propounded by many posters on here. However, to the jurors it may be just a bunch of disjointed facts attempting to discredit GZ, and some to establish an alternative. Therefore I don’t believe the pros will make it’s strongest case until arguments, when it puts the puzzle pieces together. THe pros didn’t have a witness that laid out the case why it WASN’T self defense, but they had a collection of different evidence that could be used to make that case. We already sort of have GZ’s story, the pros will lay theirs out in closing, I assume.</p>
<p>Also, much of the pros theory probably came up in opening, which I heard was very strong for the pros. But I didn’t hear it. Some jurors may be expecting them to prove some of their claims from opening. </p>
<p>That, along with the explanation of the law seems critical, at least to me.</p>
<p>lizard, you’re correct. I predict the defense to debunk much of the previous DNA (or lack of) testimony. They’ll bring up the errors in the DNA collection/studies. Why weren’t TM’s hands bagged? Why wasn’t luminol used to test for the presence of blood on the concrete? Errors in collection of DNA on gun/holster (didn’t swab the entire area), etc.</p>
<p>sally…Has the Hannity interview been officially entered into evidence? I’ve read some of the postings on here regarding portions of it’s content, but I’m curious what the jurors have or haven’t seen of it.</p>
<p>One humorous “logical” conclusion I do remember several posting about was the “conclusive” nature of GZ’s grade of “A” in his cc class “proving” he knew about SYG and that he thus lied in the Hannity interview. I got a good chuckle out of that leap from A to Q in the logic sequence. 
I got an “A” in Differential Equations and an “A” in Cost Accounting, and 5 minutes after those classes ended I couldn’t tell you the first thing about either class. Is it possible he learned about it…sure. Is it conclusive? Nope. As someone with legal experience pointed out, if that was their “catch him in a lie” attempt they needed to present a lot more specific details about the class curriculum/dates/attendance etc. to make it conclusive.</p>
<p>I think you know which way the emotional, biased side of me leans in this case. I’m a parent of teenagers, and as you may have guessed from the CAC/F’in Punk discussions I detest anything along the lines of derogatory/hateful/racist comments…whatever/whenever/wherever they’re used and whomever uses them. But if we let our emotions rather than our intellect rule the day, then what’s the point of the legal system at all?</p>
<p>I hope this case has the option for the jurors to consider other charges. I’ve seen it discussed, but don’t know if there’s a definitive answer to that yet. If it’s Murder 2 or acquittal, I’m afraid it won’t end well for those wanting to see GZ in prison and I’m really afraid of emotions boiling over outside of the courtroom.</p>