Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Zimmerman Trial Day 10: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses

Zimmerman Trial Day 10: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses

I trust that everyone had a safe and satisfying extended (for some of you) 4th of July weekend.

Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed, and breaking news will be added at the bottom of this post.

Screen Shot 2013-06-14 at 9.09.38 AM

George Zimmerman, day 10 of Florida v. Zimmerman

During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will TRY topost a mid-day update. We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.

Yesterday I posted up an analytical piece of Mark O’Mara’s request for a judgment of acquittal. O’Mara’s motion was well-reasoned and supported by Florida’s case law. It was, of course, doomed to peremptory denial by Judge Nelson. In that piece I’ve linked almost all of the case citations made by O’Mara to full-length copies of the decisions, so you can see the sources for yourselves, if you like (most of the decisions are gratifyingly brief). You can see that here:

Why Zimmerman’s Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted

Last Thursday, July 4, I had posted up a review of the trial to date, with some prognostication of how things may role out in the coming days. To take a look at that, click here:

Zimmerman Trial Review– How We Got Here, And Where We’re Going

For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:

ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day

For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:

Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial

(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)

Live Stream Video

WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD

[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]

Twitter Feed:

(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)



Live Stream Video Alternative

LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC

Monday, July 8 Commentary

. . .


Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog.

Note also that “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com.  They set their own price, and it can very each day, so you might want to check there to see if they are offering the best deal today.

Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!

You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!)on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments


Is it too much to hope for a Friday verdict?

Is BDLR objecting to the defense putting up a defense?

Just saw the tweet about Dee Dee coming back to talk about Trayvon’s fighting.
Nelson will never let it in.

    Ragspierre in reply to fogflyer. | July 8, 2013 at 9:28 am

    Again, he offers the judge a chance to commit error every time he makes a proffer of a witness.

Humphreys Executor | July 8, 2013 at 9:11 am

When TM’s mother testified her son was in heaven, did that open the door on his character? Yeh, I know its a stretch, just wondering tho’.

So, did they finally depose Crumo???

If the judge had done her job on Friday and put the state out of it’s misery, the short lived riots would be ending and GZ would be getting back to living his life. Everyone else would be waiting for the hammer to fall on Judge Nelson, BDLR and Corey-Nifong.

    Exiliado in reply to styro1. | July 8, 2013 at 9:48 am

    GZ will never be able to get “back to living his life.”

    His life has already been destroyed.
    There should be some remedy though.
    He HAS TO make sure the media as well as the state compensate him for making him unemployable.

Already a 1-Star rating on this thread. From 1 vote. Wonder who that might’ve been…

AB has written that there are two types of evidence about TM’s character that can be used: specific prior acts known to GZ at time of incident (of which there is none), and general behavior of TM. How is this to be introduced, if at all? And, what might be included in general behavior?

Did the prosecution open the door to Martin’s fight videos and street fighting with the comment that Zimmerman is the only one with MMA training?

Who is this witness

Did anyone notice when asked how long she’d known Mr. Zimmerman, she answered, “Well, I’ve known Georgy…”

Georgy. Hardly the name of a cold-blooded killer. Not exactly Bullet-tooth Tony, is it?

Thanks so much for this wonderful blog.

BDLR is starting his yelling and arm waving early, huh

Sister-in-law is a good witness.

BDLR is now slitting his throat with the jury.

Mister Natural | July 8, 2013 at 9:32 am

Bad faith bernie d is a complete friggin A-hole

BDLR just tried to play the audio file, and when it didn’t play, he said “Aw crap.” Does that mean that he is filled with hatred and ill-will?

Are we living in the Victorian Age? That is the crux of the states case, mild cursing. Ridiculous!

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 9:33 am

That could have been ‘f-n puddles’ instead of ‘punks.’

Mister Natural | July 8, 2013 at 9:36 am

good witness. gives it right back to bad faith bernie a-hole

If GZ said to NEN that these MF’ers always get away, I’m going to shoot and kill this punk then hung up on dispatcher the state might have a case.

BDLR is such a jackass.

He says Ms. Osterman is speculating.
Isn’t that the same thing HE is doing?

BDLR: So you are speculating? SO: I guess we both are. OUCH!!

BDLR is coming very close to being argumentative with this witness.

She just gutted him. “I think we both are”. Precious!

Did you all notice from this recording these two tiny little details:

1- GZ does not have a deep, low pitched voice.
2- He does not sound angry.

    MegK in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 9:45 am

    Agree…the more you hear him speak the more you can imagine he is the one screaming. The voices match.

      MegK in reply to MegK. | July 8, 2013 at 10:05 am

      Playing these two tapes side by side makes it clearer and clearer that they are the same voice.

        Yes Meg, I have been saying the same thing for more than a year.
        Play the tapes together and it is clear that it is the same person.
        It is George’s cadence that makes for the positive identification.

    Observer in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 10:55 am

    Know who did have a deep voice (at least according to his girlfriend, Cocaine Kay’s tweets)? Trayvon Martin.

    I wonder if Cocaine Kay is on the defense witness list.

    AT LAST!! Yes I am shouting here with excitement:

    Someone has noticed what I noticed from the beginning. George has a soft voice.

    It also has a distinct cadence.

    That is why, I, a stranger can tell that it is George Zimmerman crying for help. Those screams belong to the one with the soft voice!!

This is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever seen. And I’ve been watching the trial.

I like how MOM is bulletproof: “Fine, he wants to play it again, let him play it again. Don’t mean nothin’.”

I’ve been having people tell me for a year that he says “fucking punks” right there, and honest to God, I still don’t hear it to a certainty. I acknowledge that he could have said that, but if someone hadn’t suggested it to me beforehand, the best I could say is that he said something, but I would have transcribed it as “garbled” or as it would show up in the court transcript, “****.”

    caambers in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 9:47 am

    This is kinda like those ghost hunter shows…where they play an audio and tell the people what they heard and the people go…”yeah, that’s it!” Umm…OK….

    Uncle Samuel in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 9:47 am

    Crump’s first story that he got publicized was that GZ said, FKN Coons, which is also untrue.

    TryingToBeHopeful in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 11:09 am

    For you techie types out there… With all the amazing technology that exists, is there no way to separate the “layers” (?) of the 911 tape to exclude all voices except the screams? I’m sure they would have done it if it were possible, but doesn’t that seem doable to anyone else but me??

      Matt in FL in reply to TryingToBeHopeful. | July 8, 2013 at 11:18 am

      re: “separating the layers” of sound

      That’s primarily something you see on TV. The only way to “separate out” sound is by frequency. If the sound you’re trying to get rid of covers a broad spectrum of frequencies, like wind noise (or static) does, you’re going to get rid of those frequencies on all the sources, which means you’re going to lose those frequencies from the voices, as well.

      Conversely, if you try to boost the frequency range of the voice, it’s going to boost the same frequencies of the broad spectrum noise (from the wind). You’d end up with a louder voice covered by a louder wind noise, but the proportion between them would be the same. It’d be no different than just turning up the volume.

      The time when “separating the layers” works is when the voice is covered by a single sound on a tight frequency range, like a bell or a foghorn or something like that. Then you could drop out that one frequency (or a tight range) without affecting most of the rest of the sample.

      The Dman did something like that. I have heard a clearer copy and I cannot hear the “f… punks” comment.

Personally if I was on the jury I wouldn’t have put much stock in her testimony to begin with. Why is BDLR spending so much time on her? He’s giving her opinion more weight, not to mention making her sympathetic with his nasty tone.

    Matt in FL in reply to MegK. | July 8, 2013 at 9:45 am

    I agree. All this “who do you hear” stuff is just he said-she said anyway. I, as a juror, wouldn’t put any stock in any of it.

      Ragspierre in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 9:52 am

      In a lot of cases I try, that is all you have. Juries are remarkably good at separating the wheat from the chaff.

    Exiliado in reply to MegK. | July 8, 2013 at 9:51 am

    Don’t forget: The state has no case.

    They will improvise, improvise, improvise. They are “fishing” for anything new that pops up.

Well..when you have a cases that’s basically made up of he said–he saids, innuendo, narratives and optics pushed by those with a financial stake in the outcome…that’s what you go with

Will BDLR have plastic surgery after this fiasco?

Now GZ is guilty because he holstered his gun?

    freddby in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 10:26 am

    I wonder if BDLR is going for, “GZ knew TM was already dead or he would have fired more shots.”

    Observer in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 11:10 am

    BDLR is so incompetent that he’ll probably be offered a cabinet position in the Obama administration after this trial.

BDLR is now just diddling chickens with a LEO. Not pretty.

Was their a point to BDLR’s cross-examination? On the whole, I think he scored points for the defense. I for the life of me cannot understand why he would want to emphasize the restraint Zimmerman exercised in firing only one shot and then holstering his firearm. Hardly evidences hatred or ill-will

Lucien Cordier | July 8, 2013 at 10:24 am

I can’t make any sense of Diana Tennis’ tweets. Is it just me?

    Matt in FL in reply to Lucien Cordier. | July 8, 2013 at 10:26 am

    It’s not just you.

    Lisa_PA in reply to Lucien Cordier. | July 8, 2013 at 10:37 am

    It sounds like she’s complaining because no matter what she says, someone gets mad or disagrees with her. I bet the more realistic she has to be about the strength of the state’s case, the more the lefties are going to be upset with her.

As the defense, I would think they would argue in closing that although Zimmerman was trained, as testified to by Osterman, to fire multiple shots, he restrained himself and fired only once. This hardly demonstrates hatred, a depraved mind, or ill-will.

i hope MOM doesn’t do the “is this georgie on the tape screaming for help”

    Jazzizhep in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 10:27 am

    i guess he’s going with the “we have 6 ppl say it was georgie, they only have two” defense..none of which carries any more weight than the two mothers

Why do both prosecutors LAUGH when they ask their questions?

Is that their way to hint to the jury to not believe what the witness is saying?

My broadband is still out of action until my new modem comes, and I don’t have TV, so your Twitter feed and blog commentary is much appreciated again today!

they are bringing up pretty boy to be tough on female witnesses

George Zimmerman has impressive friends.

    Jazzizhep in reply to betty. | July 8, 2013 at 10:41 am

    Diane Tennis nailed it, these are basically character witnesses w/o being character witnesses…the reason for the endless trail of “that is georgie on the tape” witnesses

      Observer in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 11:05 am

      The same can be said of Trayvon Martin’s mother and brother. The state knows damn well that wasn’t Trayvon’s voice screaming for help on the 911 tape. They put the mother and brother on the stand to evoke sympathy, not to establish an evidentiary point that defies common sense.

    Matt in FL in reply to betty. | July 8, 2013 at 10:41 am

    Geri Russo came off as calm and self-assured. Guy tried, but could not shake her. His friends make good witnesses. Even if they’re biased by friendship, they still are good. Well-spoken, intelligent, etc. I don’t know how much weight that carries with the jury, but at least they don’t have to strain to hear and/or understand them.

O’Mara CAN ask a non-leading question, contra BDLR who seems not to bother trying.

    Tertullus in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 11:16 am

    I don’t understand why the defense did not object more to the prosecutions constant leading questions of the prosecution’s witnesses. At least make BDLR have the police officers declared “hostile” to his case. That would have put him in a pickle.

Notice the state’s question: “When you first heard the tape, were you aware that Zimmerman was under police investigation.” Big mistake. This opened the door for O’Mara to ask questions to show Zimmerman was not charged at the time and was not charged until months later and then not by the locals, but the special prosecutor.

The inference is that the local prosecutor’s opinion was there was no basis to charge. O’Mara could never have gotten this in if the state hadn’t opened the door.

O’Mara is quick on his feet to catch this opportunity. Great lawyering.

MOM is tip-toeing a dangerous line with this questioning, witness is getting close to bringing in GZ’s character )the restraining order and fight w/ATF

    Lisa_PA in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 11:25 am

    You must have missed it last week. They already brought that in. It doesn’t seem to me that the defense is the one worried about character being brought into the trial.

Anyone else notice that the witnesses that are being called are all women who are in the same demographic as the jury, and are all testifying to a long and comfortable friendship with Zimmerman? The psychological impact on the jury of seeing women just like them who obviously trust and like the defendant is genius on the part of the defense team.

    Matt in FL in reply to divemedic. | July 8, 2013 at 10:52 am

    @divemedic: Good observation. I hadn’t consciously noticed that, but it doesn’t have to be obvious to be effective, does it?

    myiq2xu in reply to divemedic. | July 8, 2013 at 10:57 am

    what about the psychological effect of BDLR behaving like a dick to all of them during cross?

    Pauldd in reply to divemedic. | July 8, 2013 at 11:04 am

    Bingo! Notice how the defense is presenting back door character evidence. The defense doesn’t want to raise the issue of character directly because that would open the door for the state to present “bad” character evidence. Instead, the defense is making the point repeatedly that George is the type of person who has good friends who think he is innocent and who are supporting him. One would not expect the friends to gather around and support him if he were perceived by them as being a “wanna-be cop / vigilante” who would shoot someone down in cold blood.

    DerHahn in reply to divemedic. | July 8, 2013 at 11:26 am

    This is where I think the prosecutors in this trial might have made the same kind of blunder that the OJ prosecutors did in jury selection. I’m almost sure they were thinking an all female jury would be likely to identify with TM’s mother as well as tend to view guns as ‘icky’ and self-defense as unnecessary. I’m hoping it will boomerang on them in the same way. The jury is much more likely to identify with GZ and might be likely thinking “I’d have been scared of TM, too!”

    Excellent point, Divemedic! This is why I like following the trial through this blog and its comments, even when I can’t watch it.

Ms. Benjamin comes across as being of being much like this juror demographic. BDLR better be careful here.

It looks like the jury consultant is earning his keep.

    Ragspierre in reply to Jim. | July 8, 2013 at 11:03 am

    My thinking, exactly. This lady is WONDERFUL on several levels.

    Note how the State changed its approach, too.

The defense strategy is very clever–the most useful thing the defense can do in its case is present character evidence for Zimmerman (all the fact evidence solidly came out during the prosecution’s case). But introducing direct character evidence would open the door for the prosecution to bring in its mudslingers.

So instead, the defense is introducing indirect character evidence from witnesses who are ostensibly being called to testify to the voice ID, but in giving the background information to explain why they know Zimmerman’s voice, they show what a good guy Zimmerman is. And the jury will get the message: This is a good guy with good friends, not a cold-blooded or rage-filled killer.

if LB hasn’t heard the GZ NEN this is a potential win for the State…. if she says that is GZ, it is a wash, but if it is not, big win for STate

I was just thinking of why this case seems so different. Even on the rare occasions when one has an innocent client, that client is rarely a good upstanding citizen like Mr. Zimmerman. Ordinarily the defense would not like to have the defendant’s background talked about so much, because it is usually bad news. But in this case, it seems that everyone that knows Mr. Zimmerman has good things to say about him. He really is a good upstanding citizen, and the defense says, the more the better.

    Ragspierre in reply to Tertullus. | July 8, 2013 at 11:07 am

    It also has the effect of personalizing and humanizing “Georgy” for the jury.

    That runs directly counter to the cartoon the State is trying to draw.

    Tertullus in reply to Tertullus. | July 8, 2013 at 11:08 am

    As an example, the defense can ask the witness “How did you come to recognize Mr. Zimmerman’s voice” and the answer NOT come back as . . . “I heard the bitch screaming when he got smacked the third time we wuz in prison together”

Here’s where he again tries to prove that George Zimmerman had no intentions of inviting Trayvon to dinner.

Uncle Samuel | July 8, 2013 at 11:14 am

George was not yelling, excited or as vehement as BDLR.

I have said before, BDLR has an unnatural talent to embarrass himself.

Why does he insist in inflicting a tone to his quotes that is obviously NOT in the recording?

Does he realize that embarrassing himself equates to embarrassing the institution he represents?

Is he aware of the damage he is doing to our faith in or justice system, an what it means to our national pride?

What an unpatriotic moron !!!!!!!

    kentuckyliz in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 11:29 am

    It harms his own case. With such a blatant and obvious mischaracterization, the jury wonders, what else has been mischaracterized?

I cannot believe the incredibly duplicitous tactic that BDLR employed when on cross with Mrs. Osterman. He cranked the volume up on Zimmerman’s NEN call to intentionally distort the audio. This not only created a noticeable change in his voice, but amplified all ambient sound – gusts of wind, heavy breathing, etc. When Mrs. Osterman said she couldn’t hear GZ say “fucking punks,” I assume that she (and, likely, the entire court room) literally could not hear him say that.

Is there no standard in a court setting for presenting evidence? Why did neither the defense or Judge Nelson comment on the audio quality, beyond MOM’s statement made in passing about it being “max volume?”

In most cases, the state presents focused cross-examination to make its points, and the defense goes on fishing expeditions during cross to see whether they can come up with something that might stick.

Notice the complete roll reversal here.

BINGO! “…especially with my kids”…

The one question too many…!!!

Thanks for letting her clearly state what everyone else is thinking, that using two bad words as evidence of hatred and ill will is ridiculous.

BDLR keeps trying to put words in Benjamin’s mouth and she refuses to cooperate

Grady Seasons to the prosecution:

“It’s like a nightmare, isn’t it? It just keeps getting worse and worse. “

I wonder if the jury is as pissed at the prosecutor as we are in listening to him? George was resigned and weary in how he said it and Bernie is yelling it with malevolence in his voice. The jury has to be mad that their time is being wasted and Bernie comes off as a bully for his efforts.

What the hell was Bernie doing by yelling “black male fucking punk” when there is no record of such a thing ever happening? Can he just make up shit? Does he really think the jury is going to be impressed with him for doing that?

Wow…. if BDLR’s cross is that using cuss word indicates a depraved mind then.. there are a lot of M..erF..ers should be sitting on deathrow.

It would be priceless if any of the witnesses asked BDLR:

Sir, why do you keep yelling at me?

BDLR says he was yelling so she could hear it… lying sack of shit.

BDLR has both sides of mouth sybdrome. one side: screaming “effing punks” means a depraved mind. other side: saying “effing punks” under breath means a depraved mind. BTW, BDLR saying he only says effing punks loud is so the witness can hear was HILARIOUS!!!

Why don’t they add a charge of cussing or using profanity to his murder 2 charge? I think of George’s comment about the assholes always getting away as a lament and I wish that lady would have said that as opposed to saying it was merely a comment.

Andrew’s Twitter commentary is hilarious today.

John Donnelly’s testimony got GZ a little teary-eyed for a moment there.

“George was not yelling, excited or as vehement as BDLR.”

Yes, BDLR is making a great case of why Prosecutors should all be suspected of murderous intent.

If a man’s future didn’t hang in the balance, this whole thing would just be laughable farce.

Life is a tragedy for those who feel, but a comedy for those who think. – Bruyere

More and more backdoor character evidence. He is the type of person who has close, personal friendships with very respectable people who are gathering around to help him.

By contrast, Travon was friends with . . .

From the crystal ball: After George Zimmerman is acquitted BDLR screams from a red face shaking his fists in the air, “Those f**king punks! Those A**holes always get away!”

Do you guys think the fact the jury didn’t want a mid-morning break bodes well for GZ…they are really interested in and engaged with the defense witnesses

    Matt in FL in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 11:40 am

    re: no mid-morning break

    It might be that they’re engaged,and it might be that these are lightweight witnesses. They’re not slogging through detailed crime-scene recreations or endless arcane DNA evidence.

    Ragspierre in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 11:40 am

    That’s my read. They are also trying to get this done.

      Jazzizhep in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 11:42 am

      true

      Pauldd in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 11:42 am

      Yes. The jury has already made up its mind to acquit and wants to get this over with already. Of course, this is pure speculation

      legacyrepublican in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 1:21 pm

      Ragspierre. Just wanted to say thank you. I have enjoyed your comments and insights throughout the trial too.

      Andrew has done an awesome job of course, but I have noticed every so often to you will add a touch to the canvas that makes the painting looker even clearer and less hazy to us wannabe lawyers sitting in our armchairs.

    MegK in reply to Jazzizhep. | July 8, 2013 at 11:54 am

    As I recall any time they have been asked if they wanted a break they’ve said no. I suspect they just want this to get done.

In Texas if it is found that you were justified in the use of deadly force you are immune from civil liability. Is that the case in Florida too? Here’s the Texas statute:

CPRC CH. 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON
CPRC § 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY.
A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune
from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

legacyrepublican | July 8, 2013 at 11:45 am

Darn it all!

I wanted the Dancing Nelsons to appear on the Tonight Show doing the Prosecution One Step.

Where is the humor that I have come to expect from Hollywood after the O.J. trial, where???

Is Diana Tennis really a lawyer. She seems like a retard.

wow, “I wish to god that I didn’t have the ability to tell that”

coming from a combat medic who recognized the voice of someone screaming for help. powerful testimony.

    gregm in reply to aerily. | July 8, 2013 at 12:35 pm

    Wonder if she is a ‘reformed’ liberal, you know the ones who spit on the troops when they came home.(probably not old enough)

    I remember doing a TM on one who did that to me.

Another mine field for BDLR with no mine sweepers.

All the defense witnesses so far are reputable persons and MOM has been very careful in pointing that out.

BDLR comes out as a moron every time, trying to discredit persons whose integrity seems out of questions. Compare to jeantel, bao, rao, etc…

    hesperus in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 12:02 pm

    So, in other words ALL the prosecution witnesses are NOT reputable, and ALL the defense witnesses are? Wow, such insight.

      Ragspierre in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 12:08 pm

      Oh, no! Several of the State’s witnesses were credible and reputable.

      Do you have ANY discernment…???

        Exiliado in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 12:12 pm

        No, she does not.

        As she does not even recognize how fallacious her comment is.

        She is just a troll.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 12:32 pm

          Again, I apologize for the poor quality of trolls we’ve been getting lately. I’ve looked high and low, but most of the good ones have exclusive contracts with specific blogs or they’re taking vacation time to clear out the Taco Bell trash and Cracker Jack bags from their mothers’ basement ‘IT Labs’.

          I’ll keep looking, but don’t get your hopes up. Obama has created so many low paying, part time, “you want fries with that?” jobs, that some of the better trolls are actually working real jobs.

          Ragspierre in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 12:39 pm

          Part time…

          We did have that A-Grade ‘Concern Troll’ the other day — he at least put some thought and effort into it. But now we’re back to the D-Grade baby trolls. It’s like they’re not even trying. Boo.

      MegK in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 12:39 pm

      Yes, a lot of the prosecution witnesses were reputable, unfortunately for the state most of them support Zimmerman’s account. By the way I can think of at least 3 of the state’s own witnesses off the top of my head who stated they did not believe Zimmerman sounded angry or hate-filled on that call. I guess everybody’s in agreement.

        Exiliado in reply to MegK. | July 8, 2013 at 1:00 pm

        I am sorry. Most of the time I count some of the prosecution’s witnesses AS defense witnesses. After all, they came to the stand to confirm GZ’s version.

        I would give my kingdom for an opportunity to see BDLR one more time trying to discredit some of his own witnesses.

        I wish so much for MOM to call some on them.

          MegK in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 1:27 pm

          I get confused by that myself sometimes. Hard to believe John Goode was actually a state’s witness! I guess the fact that he couldn’t actually hear the punches landing on Zimmerman’s face over his own screams was a key piece of evidence for them.

      graytonb in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 1:25 pm

      …/Pretty much, yes:) /

      ConradCA in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 2:48 pm

      The lead investigator for this case was reputable.

      guycocoa in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 6:04 pm

      I’m sure Dr. Bao would think of himself as reputable if he had that fact, not opinion, in his notes.

Why is Diana Tennis on this twitter feed? Her comments are incredibly frivolous.

when he said “I wish to God, I …” I thought/hoped he was going to say: had been there to help him.

txantimedia | July 8, 2013 at 11:59 am

John Donnelly’s testimony was very powerful. I’d be shocked if it didn’t affect the jury.

BDLR is NOW going to replay…for the umpteenth time…the NEN call.

And ask a former grunt about that ‘orrible, ‘orrible language.

What a buffoon.

Finally!

MOM objected to BDLR histrionics and the judge, surprisingly, agreed.

Having fun here again with you!

BDLR is an example of an attorney who has become too absorbed with his case and cannot objectively evaluate the evidence. I think he might actually believes that Zimmerman sounds “angry” rather than “lamenting” and “frustrated” . By playing the non-emergency tape over and over again with defense witnesses, he is digging a deeper an deeper hole for himself.

Donnelly confirmed that he donated $2500 to Zimmerman’s defense fund, $500 to Zimmerman’s personal website, and spent close to $1700 on the clothing.

If I were a juror, that wouldn’t matter at all to me. That testimony is as good as gold.

    Ragspierre in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 12:10 pm

    That is called “candor”.

    He made those statements forthrightly, too.

    Jurors love that.

    MegK in reply to hesperus. | July 8, 2013 at 12:15 pm

    I really don’t think the testimony about who was screaming is all that important. All of these folks paint a picture of a guy who was well liked by co-workers and associates, hard-working, ambitious, and active in his community. Hardly the angry racist vigilante cop wannabe the prosecution is trying to portray.

      Immolate in reply to MegK. | July 8, 2013 at 12:43 pm

      All along, I’ve been trying to construct in my mind as a hypothetical juror a scenario in which an unarmed person, when faced with a person with a gun, begins screaming for help. If someone has a gun, you either become compliant in order to avoid provocation, run away to avoid being shot, or try to take it away from them or otherwise disable their use of it. The only scenario in which the gunless person might scream is when he is running away.

      According to Zimmerman, Martin didn’t know about the gun until just before he was shot. In that case, Martin might scream if Zimmerman had him pinned and was beating him down, but the evidence doesn’t allow for that. The prosecution hasn’t offered a plausible scenario in which Martin is screaming, have they?

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Immolate. | July 8, 2013 at 1:10 pm

        Your logic is so far out in left field – it doesn’t fit anything – the timeline, the map, the testmonies of witnesses.

        Remember, GZ NEVER pulled the firearm until he had no other options. No one would help subdue Martin.

        No cop would have waited that long.

        No cop would have shot only once.

        Clearly GZ did not intend to kill TM.

          hesperus in reply to Uncle Samuel. | July 8, 2013 at 2:41 pm

          “Remember, GZ NEVER pulled the firearm until he had no other options. No one would help subdue Martin.”

          ‘remember?’
          So, you were there? How do you state this as fact?

        Uncle Samuel in reply to Immolate. | July 8, 2013 at 1:11 pm

        Sorry, I jumped the gun on your comment – should have read it twice before commenting.

      Uncle Samuel in reply to MegK. | July 8, 2013 at 1:07 pm

      ACTUALLY – both the State/Prosecution and the Media are following the false, criminal Crump/Julison/Jackson story line.

      The Prosecution’s case is 85-95% fiction.

      A Reckless Endangerment case is probable, plus disbarment for certain parties.

      guycocoa in reply to MegK. | July 8, 2013 at 6:13 pm

      The testimony about who was screaming for help is only tangentially related to that subject. The defense is brilliantly using the identification of the screamer to bring in character witnesses for GZ without ever having the witnesses testify about GZ’s background or anything he may have ever done wrong in his life that had no effect on what happened between GZ and TM.

This is the place Truth is supposed to come out.

If this is not a recrimination of what the state is doing…..

txantimedia | July 8, 2013 at 12:09 pm

Rags, care to speculate on why MOM is pounding home that “that’s George’s voice” meme? Apparently he thinks this is an important element to fix in the jury’s mind.

    BubbaLeroy in reply to txantimedia. | July 8, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    The only way that the jury can convict is if they believe that it was Martin screaming for help. It is the only evidence whatsoever that the state has disprove self-defense.

      maestro in reply to BubbaLeroy. | July 8, 2013 at 1:35 pm

      . . . and no one with an IQ above room temperature could possibly believe that Martin, who sustained no injuries save the abrasion ON HIS KNUCKLES and the single gunshot, could possibly have been screaming like a bitch for over a minute.

      There were no reports or recordings that showed any screaming after the shot, so that’s out.

      All the screaming was BEFORE the shot was fired. Every time the state attempts to remake this absurd argument, their vanishing credibility dissolves a little more into the atmosphere.

        maestro in reply to maestro. | July 8, 2013 at 1:38 pm

        if that isn’t clear enough, Martin had no reason (i.e. no injuries) to scream for a minute or so before the shot. If he were to have screamed, it would have been only after bering shot, which we know didn’t happen.

        It’s absurd.

        Wolverine in reply to maestro. | July 8, 2013 at 4:00 pm

        Martin was screaming to his buddies to come help beat the crap of the creepy ass cracker.

    Ragspierre in reply to txantimedia. | July 8, 2013 at 12:13 pm

    Boy, there’s a box of reasons.

    It establishes…very clearly and viscerally…that Zimmerman was under attack, and was scared.

    It concurrently robs the State of any pretense it was Martin.

    It also robs the State of any notion that Zimmerman was stealthily trying to do any-flucking-thing. He is publishing to all within earshot what is going on.

    I could go on….

    It’s a way to put up a bunch of character witnesses without calling them character witnesses.

      divemedic in reply to MegK. | July 8, 2013 at 12:24 pm

      ^^^ This ^^^ Plus, many of the witnesses are women that are remarkably like the jury. People subconsciously believe other people that they feel commonalities with.

        MarkS in reply to divemedic. | July 8, 2013 at 12:59 pm

        The downside being the jurors might feel the need to comfort a mother, like themselves, grieving for the loss of a son

          Voluble in reply to MarkS. | July 8, 2013 at 1:07 pm

          That is why you reinforce the fact that Zimmerman is someone’s son… thus the witnesses.

          Really though, if this jury has to hear more to convince them there is no evidence here then they have no business being near a courtroom. It really is that simple and I think BDLR probably pissed a bunch of them off today with his antics so he is only digging the hole deeper.

          Exiliado in reply to MarkS. | July 8, 2013 at 1:07 pm

          If they say “guilty” there will be TWO mothers to comfort.

          When they think, “That could have been my son…” It depends on whether they see themselves as mothers of trouble-maker thug sons who are like Trayvon, or mothers of pretty much normal sons who are like Georgy.

Aaaaand Angela Corey has left the courtroom – guess she wanted to beat the crowd out for lunch….

list of defense witnesses (or prosecution witnesses that flipped): Jag Officer, SPD Detective(s), Court Bailiff (uncle), Air Marshall, Loveable Grandparents, etc..

States witnesses: Ms. Diamond Dee-Dee (19 yr old about to be a HS senior) and his mother and cousin

I hate to beat a dead horse, but the army vet is an absolutely perfect “back door” character witness. He knows little about the facts of the case and hadn’t even listened to the 911 tape until last Saturday.

Yet he makes large contributions to Zimmerman’s defense fund, as well as individual in-kind contributions (i.e. clothing) to help his friend. Why would he do that?

The obvious inference is that he knows Zimmerman’s character and he knows that is not guilty because his friend would never shoot anyone down in cold blood. He knows that Zimmerman’s character is totally inconsistent with what the state is asking the jury to believe.

I would have the exact same reaction if my best friend was accused of murder. I would know that couldn’t be true because I know my best friend’s character. I would not be contributing money to the defense fund of my best friend if I thought there was any chance that he was who was a “wanna be cop/ vigilante”

So the defense gets in incredibly favorable indirect “character” without putting Zimmerman’s character in issue. This is a stoke of genius by a fine defense team.

    txantimedia in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 12:41 pm

    It’s even more than that. Donnally testified about his combat experience and how, even under the incredible cacophony of combat he knew who was hurt before he got to them. He also said he’s heard a 250 pound man scream “like a woman”. That couldn’t have been lost on the jury.

    Add to that his obvious emotion when relating those experiences and his reluctance to listen to the tape, and you have credibility stacked on credibility.

    Ragspierre in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 12:45 pm

    Ezzzzakly.

    For the jurors to discount what he powerfully testified to, they would have to believe he would knowingly lie for the sole purpose of protecting a bad guy…or even a guy about whom he had reservations.

    Funny that hesperus can readily believe that someone would do that, huh?

      Pauldd in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 1:04 pm

      The one thing about all this incredibly favorable “back door” character evidence, is that the defense will have to be careful about how they use it in closing argument. I would be concerned that if they take the “back door” character evidence and argue directly the inferences that can be drawn for it, the state could maybe move for a mistrial.

      The defense needs to highlight the testimony, and maybe hint at the favorable inferences, but not do it too obviously that they are putting Zimmerman’s character in issue for the first time during the closing. That would be unfair to the state. Whether this would warrant a mistrial caused by the defense, is a subtle legal question that I will leave to law professors to address.

      In my view, the defense can steer clear of this type of misstep. They can let the jury completely on their own draw the obvious inferences without making the argument explicit.

        Ragspierre in reply to Pauldd. | July 8, 2013 at 1:11 pm

        Yep. I agree. But it isn’t hard to do. You just recount for the jury the exact testimony they have heard, and allude to the quality of the people who gave it.

        Which is exactly what I expect O’Mara to do. He is doing a very effective job. And BDLR is NOT.

        Compare and contrast the affect of the testimony of the State’s versus the defense witnesses. Any net negatives at all so far for the defense? I’d say they are all strong positives.

        And, while you have to avoid “Golden Rule” invocations to the jury in closing, EVERY ONE of them can be put in the position of reflecting on how their friends would testify for them if they were innocent. Would they be prejudiced in their favor? Sure. Would they be discounted? Hopefully not.

      Voluble in reply to Ragspierre. | July 8, 2013 at 1:10 pm

      Don’t forget the woman who testified Zimmerman mentored some young kids. That sort of thing shouldn’t matter but I have to think it will… especially with a female jury.

        Ragspierre in reply to Voluble. | July 8, 2013 at 1:16 pm

        Yes. I matters very much. It serves, for one thing, to dilute that whole “wannbe cop” thing. So does his involvement in the other community activities we have heard in the testimony.

        It helps paint him as a guy who was active in the community, doing good stuff.

        Ragspierre in reply to Voluble. | July 8, 2013 at 1:21 pm

        Along those same lines, it would be a real coup if O’Mara could introduce…say…a LEOs testimony who had been involved in the case of the homeless guy that Zimmerman defended.

        Just a recitation of the facts of Zimmerman’s acts.

Andrew just tweeted “This most divisive trial since the Tawana Brawley fraud..”

Funny, we were discussing exactly that last night.. I don’t do tweets but… way to go Andrew!!

inquisitivemind | July 8, 2013 at 1:09 pm

Who in here would pony up $4700 for something they believed was a lost cause?

    a lot of people I know wouldn’t put up that kind of money to help a close friend.

    That being said, Zimmerman has some pretty impressive friends and family. Retired CSM that now works for the Sheriff Dept, Federal Air Marshal, PA and former Combat Medic. Not exactly the kinds of folks that would go about lying for someone in a court of law.

I am not a grammar nazi but for the sake of clarity should not the header read, “Day 10 analysis of the defense case.?”

OMG! If the whole sentence is the question does the question mark still go inside the quotation marks?!! Panic!

    I write for a living. I have my own rules for punctuating quotes. Sometimes my editors disagree.

      Jazzizhep in reply to MSimon. | July 8, 2013 at 1:29 pm

      it took me a while to get it, but i think it was a subtle jab at the prosecution…such as “day 10 analysis of the defense’s case and witnesses?”…meaning the defense case has been going on since the beginning…but i don;t know, just a guess

      Jazzizhep in reply to MSimon. | July 8, 2013 at 1:36 pm

      and if your being serious benny, then u hve takn gram nazi 2 new hites…worr’ing about weather a question mark gose inside or outside of a quote mark is absurd…

    Alan Cain in reply to Benny. | July 8, 2013 at 1:26 pm

    LOL. If the question mark goes with what’s inside the quotation marks then it belongs there. If it doesn’t, then the question mark belongs outside the quotation marks.

    Ex.

    I am not a grammar nazi but for the sake of clarity should not the header read, “Day 10 analysis of the defense case.”?

    If the question was located inside the quotation marks, the question mark would need to be also.

inquisitivemind | July 8, 2013 at 1:16 pm

Interesting side note:
HLN has changed their lower headline from :
MURDER OR SELF-DEFENSE (last week)to
SELF-DEFENSE or MURDER

Not sure if it has anything to do with which side is presenting this week vs. last – just interesting how ordered words can manipulate the subtle nuances in folk’s psyche.

marshahallet | July 8, 2013 at 1:32 pm

The defense can’t have it both ways. Why are they putting on friends of George to ID the voice on the tape when their own experts said the tape was too short and too distorted for voice identification to be credible?
http://georgezimmermantrialwatch.blogspot.com/2013/07/george-zimmerman-trial-whos-scream-is-it.html

    Jazzizhep in reply to marshahallet. | July 8, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    the State’s expert witnesses wanted to testify about tests that were favorable to the State based on dubious and unacceptable scientific methods…they were disallowed as expert witnesses, if they knew GZ they coulod have testified, like TM’s mother, that the screams were not GZ…BIG diff between expert testimony and those of family members

    Even more interesting – the prosecution isn’t raising this issue.

    Perhaps they (the prosecution) are merely going through the motions at this point. My guess is that they aren’t convinced of GZ’s guilt in this case either.

    Ragspierre in reply to marshahallet. | July 8, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    It IS getting it “both ways”, but the larger point is the difference between fact witnesses and expert witnesses.

    In our system, experts are recognized to carry a LOT of persuasive weight with jurors, who are laypeople.

    Hence, we have rules to very carefully qualify people who will be called “expert” in a court.

    Fact witnesses are just folks. Jurors take them at face value.

    Just like Martin’s momma.

    Exiliado in reply to marshahallet. | July 8, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    Comprehension is your newfound friend.

    The prosecution tried to present some hocus pocus computer analysts. A real expert made it clear that the technology was not reliable, that a better identification could be made by a person familiar with the voice.

    txantimedia in reply to marshahallet. | July 8, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    The FBI voice expert testified that scientific analysis was not possible, but persons familiar with the voice could identify it. That opened the door for both prosecution and defense witnesses to testify as to whose voice it was.

    Edgehopper in reply to marshahallet. | July 8, 2013 at 1:52 pm

    Because the expert also said that while it was too short for expert voice ID techniques, identification by family and friends would be the more accurate way to identify it. The defense expert didn’t say that no one could identify the screams, just that experts without familiarity with the voices couldn’t do so.

[…] Zimmerman Trial Day 10: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses […]

Perhaps someone could explain to me why, in the police taped phone call, GZ twice commented upon TM behaving oddly as though he was on drugs or something an yet no testimony was allowed about the drugs present in TM’s blood? Tis does not seem to make sense. If TM was acting oddly because of drugs, it could also alter his behavior and decision making ability which could have led to his attack on GZ. That would seem to be pertinent to the defense.

Is it allowed or just unusual for members of the jury to interrupt and ask their own questions in Florida?

BDLR will try AT ALL COST to avoid a testimony that brings up Tracy Martin saying the voice was NOT his son.

I wish I would have set my DVR, will this be available on DVD when it’s all over with?

Officer Singleton not in uniform today, but was when she testified for the state? Significance?

    Exiliado in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 1:48 pm

    There was a controversial issue with some WW2 medals she wore with her uniform.

      Matt in FL in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 1:57 pm

      I forgot about the uniform medals. Thanks.

      Jazzizhep in reply to Exiliado. | July 8, 2013 at 1:58 pm

      no there wasn’t a controversy…some two bit rag “reported” from an a WWII vet said her medals looked like various WWII medals, and then an unnamed source said “the SPD buys its medals from the Army surplus store”….same deal as the civil grand jury…bunch of loons

        Well no. It is in fact a violation of the law to wear medals you are not entitled to. Not loons at all. Just citizens who know what is what.

          Jazzizhep in reply to MSimon. | July 8, 2013 at 2:21 pm

          oh ok, you are right…SPD or the Det. Singleton buys their accommodations at the surplus store hoping no one notices that she didn’t really deserve them…read the whole article, IT WAS A JOKE, JUST LIKE THE CIVIL GRAND JURY..perhaps of all the medals being awarded around the country, it is possible for some medals to look like, or even be exactly like those one issued 67 years ago

    inquisitivemind in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    She got promoted? or just her off rotation

    txantimedia in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 1:49 pm

    No and none.

    Jazzizhep in reply to Matt in FL. | July 8, 2013 at 2:00 pm

    she probably was told not to wear uniform b/c the uniform gives weight to the testimony…or a standing rule to wear uniform when testifying for the state because it is an extension of their primary duties

MOM went for it.


Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend