<p>The moms each claiming it was her son screaming will be, imo, discounted by the jury. It’s a she said, she said.</p>
<p>The ME and his testimony was laughable.<br>
Paraphrasing:
The medical examiner said he was the expert on the TM autopsy.
O’Mara: you are the most knowledgeable about TM, but you can’t remember any of it?
The ME answered yes.</p>
<p>It was quite amazing how he couldn’t recall anything for the defense, but on re-cross he remembered for the prosecution. His notes to refresh his memory didn’t refresh it enough. </p>
<p>TM’s toxicology was not allowed in evidence although the defense got the jury to know of its existence. I think another bad day for the defense.</p>
<p>I was surprised about the Judge’s decision not to permit discussion of Martin’s body having marijuana in it. The ME said it might not have had any effect or it might have had some effect on Martin.</p>
<p>Yeah. I mean, even GZ didn’t think it was his voice when the detective played the recording back to him. The idea that someone could hear the voice–muffled in the background on a 911 phone call–stretches the limits of disbelief. But he himself seemed honest. Hard to reconcile that.</p>
<p>The medical examiner at times seemed credible, but the way he went off-script to talk directly to the jury was really hilarious. And I don’t think anyone knew how to control him.</p>
<p>Hmmm. I guess I know what happened. This is the kind of subject where I have to subscribe with once-a-day emails. There would be too many emails if I had instant on. Carry on.</p>
<p>At the beginning, many people thought the note that ME Bao used would give the defense some big victory. But in the end, the judge said nothing was inappropriate. I think the defense lost some ground there.</p>
<p>what do others think of the defense cross examining Sybrina Fulton in the manner he did.</p>
<p>I didn’t like when he asked, along the lines of, you must have hoped it was your son screaming on a tape because you didn’t want to think Trayvon was responsible for his own death.</p>
<p>I thought attorney O’Mara was discreet and respectful with Ms. Fulton. O’Mara is defending a client who is facing life in prison…the attorney was doing what he has to do.</p>
<p>lizard, yes–but he didn’t ask the same questions of Mrs. Zimmerman. He handled Mrs. Z much more gently (as did the prosecutor). I lost a bit of respect for him because of that yesterday.</p>
<p>I was talking to some family members and we thought that since Zimmerman’s voice was heard on the Hannity interview some jurors are going to determine on their own whose voice it was on the 911 tape. If they think that the voice on the interview the heard was the one on the tape they will believe it was GZ if they do not they will think it was TM.</p>
<p>Mom’s may not matter, experts will not matter.</p>
<p>The other thing that didn’t fit about the screaming being GZ–apart from it sounding like a younger person–is that it didn’t stop. If someone was “raining blows” on me I don’t think I would be begging continuously for it to stop. More likely I would make a responsive sound every time I was struck or my head was being banged on the sidewalk. What I heard on the tape sounded like someone pleading for his life because he saw what the other person had in his hand. I suppose one could argue it was the can of iced tea or the skittles, but I think it’s more plausible that it was the loaded gun.</p>
<p>I haven’t followed the trial closely, so how was this question addressed by the defense:</p>
<p>Zimmerman was not approached by Martin, was not threatened by Martin, was not even looked at by Martin. Zimmerman left his car against police orders. Zimmerman pursued and confronted Martin based on nothing but his own idea that a black guy wearing a hoodie must be a criminal. Question: How does the defense contend that Martin is the aggressor in this situation?</p>
<p>Can you people please get over the “iced tea and Skittles” thing? What difference would it make if TM went to 7-11 to buy a can of beer and a pack of cigarettes? He’s being portrayed both here on CC and in the media as a poor innocent little kid buying candy. What he bought at the store has absolutely no bearing on whether GZ was right or wrong. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>LasMa, I believe the idea is that it doesn’t matter what happened before the actual moment GZ decided he was scared for his life. It’s not against the law to follow someone or ask what they are doing. So TM’s right to “stand his ground” apparently is not at issue because GZ’s actions were not illegal. (This does not make sense to me, because if I were followed–even without a person making physical contact with me–I would feel threatened.) </p>
<p>According to GZ (if I have his story right) he was headed back to his car when TM jumped him (I believe he said he came out from behind some bushes, but I don’t think there were bushes where the altercation took place). GZ’s attorneys say he was justified in using deadly force because at the exact moment before he pulled the trigger, he felt afraid. Or at least I think that’s the gist of it–I am sure someone will correct me if I have it wrong.</p>
<p>patsmom, doesn’t it speak to his frame of mind? Would you rather see an unfamiliar kid walking down your street at night holding a snack or a gun? A basketball or a machete? Which one would put you more on edge or make you more suspicious?</p>
<p>This is the new, improved civil thread, so I will be careful what I say…but remember that TM is not on trial here. GZ is.</p>
True except at one point Martin circled GZ’s vehicle and stared at him. </p>
<p>
The dispatcher first asked GZ to tell the dispatcher if TM was doing anything that was suspicious. The dispatcher asked which way is he ™ running. This caused GZ to start following TM. GZ gets out of his vehicle at 7:11:48 p.m. Only at 7:11:57 did the dispatcher ask are you following him and then said we don’t need you to do that. GZ didn’t leave the car against police orders and there was no order it was merely a statement we don’t need you to do that.</p>
<p>
Not true. GZ explained the neighborhood has a history of break ins. He observed TM wondering around looking into buildings rather than trying to get out of the rain. GZ recognized most of the people in the neighborhood but did not recognize TM who entered from the back entrance of the neighborhood. No evidence has been presented showing GZ acted because of TM’s race. In fact, the Martin family is now claiming the case is not about race even though that was all they talked about in the beginning.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>As GZ was returning to his vehicle in the pitch black, Martin came out from behind GZ or to his side and asked GZ if he had a problem and then immediately punched GZ in the nose. Martin was the aggressor because he threw the first punch. GZ was on the losing end of the physical altercation and shot Martin as Martin went for GZ’s gun.</p>
<p>Race was discussed because of the refusal to bring charges in a case where probable cause existed. The lead detective reccommended charging GZ with manslaughter. Sandford’s reputation for poor race relations, coupled with the refusal to bring charges in a case where the victim is an unarmed black teen and the shooter is a white (hispanic) made folks question whether there was equal treatment under the law in Sanford. </p>
<p>Anyone who lost a child at the hands of another would rightfully demand justice. It was reasonable to question why the State was declining to seek justice.</p>
According to GZ, that took place 40 feet from the location where TM’s body was found. The neighbors who testified & who called 911 said that they heard a lot more going on verbally than would have happened with an “immediate” punch.</p>
<p>I wonder if the defense has anybody else from the neighborhood to call? If not I expect them to gloss over the details by arguing reasonable doubt – but I do think that juries do tend to focus heavily on whatever physical evidence they have – and yes, I do think they will listen to the tapes they have of Zimmerman’s voice and make their own comparisons. (Even though obviously there is a difference between shouting and screaming, and talking in a normal tone of voice – I can’t see them really making a “match” )</p>
<p>“Circled” very questionable, most likely not true. Nothing like that was said in the 911 call.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>12 seconds transpired from the point where he left his car to when he was told there is no need to follow any more, this is very important. And officially GZ said “Okay” when the dispatcher told him that. The shot occurred more than 2 minutes later, several hundreds yards away from the car. Walking back to the car? And TM came back from behind? Really?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>“looking into”? Hardly any truth to that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The prosecutors wanted to present the records of all the prior 911 calls showing most of the calls were against black men.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All these facts are in dispute. They are all according the GZ accounts and not very reliable. The jury may believe them or they may not because of a lot of inconsistencies and the fact that GZ has every reason to twist the story to suit his case.</p>
<p>^yes, these are not “facts” they are GZ’s version of events, and since he is the defendant (not a witness) who has been found to state untruths, this would be known as an alibi.</p>
<p>The young woman on the phone with Trayvon reported that Trayvon was walking and running away from GZ, and when GZ again appeared, Trayvon asked, “why are you following me?” then a scuffle ensued. Some don’t believe her. I do. Given she reported language that Trayvon used which was unsavory, I tend to think her report was not embellished.</p>