Zimmerman Trial Opening Statements 9AM

I would venture to say I have looked at more pictures of the property than you including the so called slide show.

But if you are going to respond to my post then respond to my post.

They told him to let them know what he did and it was not unreasonable to exit the truck in order to do that especially when they said let us know which way he runs.



You don't know that, show me a picture from the truck which illustrates that it could be seen from there which way a person ran at the T junction.

And then the key point, what does it have to do with anything with regard to did Zimmerman have a reasonable fear of serious bodily harm if the beating to which he was being subjected to continued. You do realize the fact that it was Zimmerman who was being beaten has pretty much been established by the evidence including the testimony in the courtroom.

Why won't you take the challenge and prove your claim that Zimmerman violated the assault and the stalking laws of the state of Florida. Post them in their entirety and prove your assertion.

 

Which is only a general direction, there was nothing unreasonable, nor illegal, about Zimmerman leaving his truck nor gave Martin a reason nor right to assault Zimmerman.

There are no rules and he had no obligation to stay in his truck and that he did did not give Martin a right nor reason to assault him.

 

This is NOT what I heard.

I heard her say that she was SURE that it was Martin who said "why are you following me for," and who said "get off, get off."
But that she was NOT SURE to whom the screams on 911 phone calls belong to, but that it "COULD HAVE BEEN TRAYVON" because he had a soft childish voice.

And, I would say that, people who have never lied may be able to judge and condemn Rachel's lies.

But the rest of us know better, that is, if we are honest with ourselves at least.

 

There are neighborhood watch rules. . .the woman who trained Zimmerman said so on the stand. Are you accusing HER of lying too?

And, Trayvon had EVERY RIGHT to defend himself from that creepy "white ass cracker" whom might have been following him in the dark to "rape him," or steal from him, or any other creepy reasons. . .ESPECIALLY if that "cracker" tried to restrain him.

By the way, it is becoming clearer with EVERY witness that speaks that the fight did NOT happen the way Zimmerman said. Martin did NOT attack him from behind, punch him in the nose and made him fall, didn't jump on him and straddled him right then and there, and did NOT smother him and beat him where Zimmerman stated the attack happened.

It is increasingly clear that the TWO MEN were fighting. . .and that the whole fight (which in total was UNDER 2 minutes) didn't take place in ONE SPOT, as Zimmerman stated both at the police station AND in the reenactment video, but that the two men were MOVING. . .and certainly NOT crawling or "shimmying!" for quite a distance.

NO ONE saw Martin punching Zimmerman. .. but only "ARMS FLAYING."

EVERYTHING that has been revealed prior to the trial, and since the trial began are in accordance with the FACT that Zimmerman's account of what happened as a LOT contradictory elements in it.

More will become clear in the next few days.

 

I have to admit after seeing Rachel today I felt sympathy for Trayvon....poor guy.

 

Why?

I think it is wonderful that a young man can realize that friendship is important, and that the LOOKS of a friend, or even her intellect is not as important than the goodness of her heart or the connection and fun they can have together.

Why is it necessary to bring even an innocent, long lasting friendship down to the sewer and dirty everything?

I am even more impressed with Trayvon that he had the insight to hold such a frienship so dear.

 

hey, margot posted it so if you consider that there isn't much credibility there.

- - - Updated - - -

so what you are saying is that you don't like it when others pull your stunts.....nice.

 

i wonder what trayvon would say if he knew it was being broadcast at one time rachel was his girlfriend and also his mother, who kicked him out, said he was screaming like a little pansy before he was killed....no_limit_astronaut would be pissed no doubt.

 

- - - Updated - - -
No law against a person in his position following what he considers a suspicious person. Travon obviously has a race problem, his remark proves that. This makes the scenario of Travon attacking Zimmerman all that more believable.
Had Zimmerman made a similar remark it would have been used as proof of racism, and thus furthering the scenario that he shot Travon due to hate.

 

Excellent witnesses do not Lie [no matter the reason], excellent witnesses do not show contempt, excellent witnesses are articulate and do not change their stories. There is a huge difference between it being Travon's voice that screamed,,or ..''It could be Travon'' That alone opens the door for doubt, it practically dismisses any previous testimony. For that matter,,it ''could be'' Zimmerman's voice correct?

Lastly, her attitude toward the Crump interview is hardly what a excellent witness might convey, she has shown herself to be indecisive, untrustworthy, and most unpredictable. Hardly what an attorney can rely on, and if they cant trust her,,,the jury should?
Some cover for her and say she is honest and real,,are her Lies real? This person has no regard for the truth, she has proved it.

 

Oh the irony!

 

I posted mugshots from 4 states several times..

 

Trayvon Martin shot three people, one is dead.

 

Which she had perpetuated when she was under oath previously. Who knows what she will say next.

BDLR: OK, were you kind of his girlfriend, or just kind of…I don’t mean to get personal, but I’m not going to ask you any more other than that. Were you guys…
Dee Dee: Yeah, we were getting there…

 

And her first statements to investigators she wasn't sure and she did not tell of the "get off".

Correct she was not sure.

The question was to your position that because of a couple of possible discrepancies in Zimmerman's statements as the the preciese location of events which you have termed as lies that nothing he says can be believed.

So why a different standard for the girl friend who has major "discrepancies" and ADMITTED lies?

Spare me the bromides and platitudes you are left with for lack of evidence.

 

There are guidelines and advisories, but nothing to do with NW obligated Zimmerman to any action or lack thereof. He was not on a "patrol" for neighborhood watch and participating in a such a program does not obligate you to never follow someone you think engaged in a suspicious actitivity.

Since Zimmerman never made a move towards Zimmerman certainly made no move to rape him or steal from him he had nothing to defend against. In fact as the girl friend has testified to in court Martin rid himself of an danger he might have perceived when he ran away and went back to the apartment. So if he thought such danger existed why did he go back and confront Zimmerman?

An action that would have resulted in that "cracker" being arrested, why would Zimmerman engage in a act that would get him arrested especially when he had already called the police and given them his name and phone number?

Not one has been able to give a credible rebuttal to his statement of events.

Quote where Zimmerman made such a claim.

There is no witness to that event.

The preponderance of the evidence is still Martin was on top of Zimmerman before the shot was fired. But do cite the conclusive evidence beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise.

The preponderance of the evidence remains that Martin was on top of Zimmerman beating him. Do you know what the reasonable man standard is?

You missed the testimony that cooroborates the previous statements that the altercation moved from the T junction down between the buildings and as witness 6 stated moved over the ground even with Martin was on top of Zimmerman?

And the evidence maps do not portray this huge distance as has been asserted on this board.

NO ONE saw Martin punching Zimmerman. .. but only "ARMS FLAYING."

EVERYTHING that has been revealed prior to the trial, and since the trial began are in accordance with the FACT that Zimmerman's account of what happened as a LOT contradictory elements in it.

The prosecution has little left now that their star witness is proving a total flop and unbelievable and her two key statements that Martin confronted Zimmerman and that Martin had lost Zimmerman and made it back to the apartment help Zimmerman.

 

You claimed Zimmerman engaged in an assault and a stalking.................................are you prepared to withdraw those claims now that you have refused to post the law and back it up?

 

I'm getting the impression Rachel is hating every minute of this.

It's hard to stay tuned in when all you hear is "yes sir"..."no sir"...."yes sir"..."no sir"......

I'm also getting the vibe that Rachel was way more into Martin than he was into her, ergo the whole saying she was 16 thing, and other questionable stuff. If I were on the jury, I wouldn't figure what she says into my decision, because there are too many other things at work with this young woman and her experiences after the incident. She's like a crime scene that's been very contaminated.

 

More lies

"A teenage friend of Trayvon Martin was forced to admit today in the George Zimmerman murder trial that she did not write a letter that was sent to Martin's mother describing what she allegedly heard on a phone call with Martin moments before he was shot.

In a painfully embarassing moment, Rachel Jeantel was asked to read the letter out loud in court.

"Are you able to read that at all?" defense attorney Don West asked.

Jeantel, head bowed, eyes averted whispered into the court microphone, "Some but not all. I don't read cursive."

It sent a hush through the packed courtroom."

She is a high school senior and cannot read cursive writing which was supposed to be and presented as HER writing?

This witness is a disaster for the prosecution.

 

I agree with all you've written except the counclusion that this is a disaster for the state.

This tesimony only had the potential to be a disaster for the defense, but even though they're calling Rachel the defense's "star witness", an all female jury will likely only consider whether or not they believe what she says she heard right before the shooting. Women are more forgiving of young people telling lies.

The real disaster for the state has existed since the night of the shooting, which is that Zimmerman is the only person alive who knew for sure exactly what took place that night, and throw in some coaching by that family friend who knew the police chief on what to say to the police....it's an uphill climb for the state.

On the other hand...justifying the undisputed fact that Zimmerman shot an unarmed teenager is an uphill battle of it's own with an all female jury.

Honestly......I have no idea who will win this case.

 

She is their STAR witness. And she is falling apart with her disjointed statements and lies and conjecture and suppositions.

Then they are not doing their proper duty as a juror. But I disagree with your statement that they will discount all the lies and convoluted statements and claims and only believe what she said about that single moment. It is obvious that her story evolved as the need arose.

So between the shooting and the interrogation that night at the police station who coached him and where is the proof any of his statements are not true? Your wishing them not be does not make them so.

They don't even have to prove it, the state has to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT that the shot was not fired in self defense. The girl friend is not helping them AT ALL.

 

Agreed, but I didn't say the all female jury will discount all the lies. I merely guess they may be more forgiving based on the age, and only consider what she says she heard on the phone during the interaction. But then again...maybe not, who reaaly knows besides them.

I don't wish it were true. And from what was said earlier on this thread, and Glitch verified it was true...a family friend of the chief of police, who is Homeland Security I believe, met with Zimmerman at the police station, before he made any statements.

I agree. If she would have portrayed credibility, it would have been huge for the state.

 

The Homeland Security person went with Shelly to the crime scene but GZ was already in custody by then. I believe he was only able to say a couple words to GZ before they hauled him to the police station. No indication of any coaching before interview that night with police. GZ was purportedly very cooperative, including voluntarily taking two voice stress tests.

 

It would sure put my doubts to rest if we knew what those "couple of words" were. If those words were "say he attacked you", and/or "say you were looking for an address", and/or "say he said he'd kill you"....and so on....then that would be a problem IMO.

 

I can't verify this, but they didn't have and were not allowed any private words.