Zimmerman Trial: Sufficient evidence has been introduced to support a guilty verdict.

Now whether all 6 members of a jury in that area of country are unbiased enough, hard to say.

But there's still a bit of reasonable doubt regarding whose screams were heard that night.

Someone stated that a parent knows her own child's screams, but that's obviously not true, as both mothers claimed those screams belonged to their child.

And let's not even go down the "this or that mom is lying" road

I firmly trust that each mom sincerely believes those screams belong to her own son.

If nobody can say with certainty who made those screams, I think that is enough reasonable doubt

But that's just my opinion, which doesn't mean a hill of beans in that courtroom

I don't think she was lying but I didn't get any
sense of certainty from her, which I did from
Trayvon's mom.

It doesn't make sense that it was GZ's screams,
to a reasonable person, unless they buy the
entirety of the defense's claims, which are
patently absurd and don't fit the forensics.

It seemed to me that Trayvon's mom looked a bit unmoved.

Maybe she's just an emotionally "strong" person. Maybe she is still in the shock phase of grieving. Whatever the reason...I saw her and asked myself if I would be able to listen to screams I believed belonged to my child without totally breaking down. I could not, no matter how much time had passed. I am, though, willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Zimmerman's mom looked pained to me. Was she pained because she really believed they were her son's screams? Was she pained because she's a mom whose heart can empathize with the pain of another mom? Again...I don't know, but I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt.

Both sides tried to introduce emotion into the mix of facts and "facts". They succeeded, and each mom canceled the effect of the other mom.

No absolute evidence there = reasonable doubt, IMO.

before having an opinion on guilt/innocence? Jus sayin...

that Zimmerman will be found Not Guilty yet, right?

before the end of the trial. Isn't that what jurors are told?

What if one side or the other gets a NSA video from a space satellite with 1080P HD video showing clearly what happened that night?

I'm keeping an open mind... I know that Z killed TM and it was a low-down despicable act. But WAS IT ILLEGAL UNDER FLORIDA LAW? I'd like to see Z thrown in jail... but do we convict people for an evil act that conforms to the word of the law?

^^ Note: not to say that HE DID follow the law but playing Devils advocate.

the newscaster said that the verdict should be guilty because that's what the evidence shows, and the blogger says that the jurors could very well find the evidence to show that he is guilty. Did you read the blog before responding?

not any other source that might contain anything about the trial case or participants. They will determine the verdict of the case.

breaking the law.

the jury will decide if THEY think he broke the law or not.

Guessing before seeing the defense case is lame.

I know the argument they're making and the
evidence & their claims.

It's not likely they have new evidence.
Their presentation in general works against them.

Maybe it's lame to you but it's pretty interesting
to me.

if you want to judge guilt or innocence before seeing all the evidence, more power to you... my apologies for questioning you. But I'll just watch it til the end.

doesn't make any sense if people really look at his claims. He claims Zimmerman gave a coherent theory, supported by many of the witnesses.

That claim is false. There is no evidence, except Zimmerman's claims, Trayvon Martin circled back and attacked him. There is clear evidence Zimmerman initially pursued Martin.

There is no evidence Martin was commiting a crime. Zimmerman's reason to pursue Martin was his description of Martin being suspicious. There is no evidence to support Zimmerman's account. There is evidence Zimmerman profiled Martin with negative language.

There is no collaborating evidence or witness testified, Zimmerman cut off his pursuit of Martin, except Zimmerman's words. There is only one witness, testified to the initial encounter of who attacked whom if you believe her.

There is only one witness other than Zimmerman, making a claim they actually saw Martin beating Zimmerman, MMA style if you believe him. That is Zimmerman's strongest witness, but even his testimony has inconsistencies. He didn't see who started the fight either. Even Zimmer, put some damper on Good's account, by claiming it was too dark and no lights was on in the area, Martin supposedly came out of no where. Zimmerman also claimed, that he directly told Good to help him. Good's claim, was he thought it was getting serious after a while, and then he went to call 911. That makes no sense. He also claimed, that he didn't know 100 percent, who was calling for help. Good also claimed he yelled for both of them to stop. That does not come up on any of the 911 tapes.

I'll say this one more time, which I think people are deliberately trying to evade now. Just because a party has the most injuries in a fight, does not mean that party was fighting in self defense, especially when that party has a loaded gun pointed at the other person. Even Zimmerman's injuries does not support he was defending himself. It only proves Martin was fighting off his assailant and caused injuries to him. If a helpless woman was fighting off her assailant and scratched him,does not mean she was the aggressor. I don't know too many people think it is reasonable, to carry a loaded gun, with the safety precaution off, around in a holster. Just what gun manuel teaches that? It is risky at most. Abrams as a lawyer, totally neglets the Deadly Weapon Doctrine effect also, known to lawyers.

The only person testifying, Zimmerman had his loaded gun in his holster is Zimmerman. Zimmerman is the only one saying Trayvon saw the gun, and he thought his life was in danger if he grabbed it. That is conflicting there. Either he thought the gun was when he thought his life would be in danger or his wounds? And why would he go after his gun, only when he thought Trayvon saw it? He knew he followed Trayvon with a loaded gun all along. So why would he call for help all the while, and only think of it after Trayvon grabbed for it?

Lets go even further. How would Trayvon even know the gun was loaded? Only one person knew the gun was loaded and the safety off. Only one person knew his life was in danger if that gun went off. And what was Trayvon going to do with the gun if he didn't know it was loaded, or even how to use it?

It also does not make sense if Trayvon reported Zimmerman on his last call to a friend, and Zimmerman ended up dead, if he was going to kill him in cold blood. That is how coherent Abrams ( a lawyer) thinks Zimmerman's theory is. All it does is exposes Abrams.

and actually, in fact, up to no good, and this was somehow
provable. But he wasn't, and therefore it's not, not even
close. So the jury has to believe that Zimmerman is
not a liar -- but he's already been blatantly proved
to be a liar, and with no apparent remorse.

I had to google the deadly weapon doctrine effect...
is this what you mean? (from Wikipedia)

what I meant, and why it is called murder, whatever degree people want to put on it. Zimmerman went after Trayvon Martin from the start, knowing he had a loaded gun on his person, that was loaded and ready to fire. That automatically puts Trayvon Martin at a huge disadvantage in the fight. It only takes one bullet to kill you.

And to further explain this,Zimmerman showed no other evidence of self defense except with that gun. That was his first choice to defend himself period. Trayvon apparently only had his hands. There is also a huge advantage, Zimmerman had in size. He was over 40 pounds heavier at the time. Trayvon also has a slim physique, while Zimmerman is more stocky with better leaverage in a close encounter. It was also a minor fighting a full grown adult man.So the notion Zimmerman was fighting for his life, is absurd, but that is what they want you to believe.

he was just wandering around looking for an address at just the very the same time he loses site of Martin. What a coincidence! More likely he was wandering around trying to find him again since following Martin is all he has been doing.

Abrams doesn't believe that the jury will find Zimmerman guilty. That's a reasonable position. Abrams could be wrong.

The blogger says he thinks there's enough evidence that the jury could find him guilty. That's a reasonable position. The jury could vote in any number of ways; it's hard to predict what, exactly, the jury will find compelling and how they'll interpret reasonable doubt. The judge agrees. It's possible.

From there, he assumes that means there's enough evidence for him to (reliably) be found guilty. That's a leap. Just because a jury *might* find GZ guilty doesn't mean that in any sense there's enough evidence that we should expect any reasonable jury to find him guilty.

Personally, from what I've seen, bits and pieces (with lots of skewed polemic that says more about beliefs and attitudes than evidence), I dunno. I could see the jury saying "guilty, 2nd degree murder." I could see the jury saying "not guilty" a little more easily. I could even see, depending on the charge to the jury, a verdict of manslaughter--sort of splitting the difference.

Don't see much critical thinking in the blog post. Just criticism.

I was reading today that 'reasonable doubt' is often
misunderstood to mean "shadow of a doubt" but it's
not the same thing at all.

I hope they adequately instruct the jury so as not
to misunderstand.

"Reasonable Doubt" has to stand up to scrutiny.
If the majority of the evidence indicates guilt in
accordance with the law, jurors aren't supposed to
vote "not guilty" just based on a vague feeling he
might be a nice guy down deep and it wasn't his
fault.

It has to have some basis in evidence. The evidence
for self-defense is weak, and the claims are absurd.
Perhaps the jury will be dumb people but I doubt it.

Therefore he must be not right in the head.

(Actually just getting my post count up. No need to argue!)

n

what he is saying makes a great deal of sense
so maybe you need to take a nap and read it
later.

but your profile says you have been here since 2003, way back to DU1. Why so few posts? And now about 50% of your total posts are in the last 90 days.

I just find that curious. Myself, I can clearly never resist an opportunity to open my mouth and insert my foot, although I am not the most prolific poster by post count. I tend to write longer posts instead of just one line or one words posts. Thus I am still well below 50,000.

he'll need to be in some sort of protective custody. I don't think the Aryans will protect him.

Florida has mandatory minimum sentencing laws,
I have read, if a murder involves death of a child
(under 18) and the use of a firearm.

He could get a mandatory 25 years even just
for aggravated manslaughter.

Wikipedia: The State of Florida has a very strict minimum sentencing policy known as 10-20-Life:, which includes 10 years mandatory prison time for using a gun during a crime, 20 years mandatory prison time for firing a gun during a crime, and 25 to life mandatory prison time in addition to any other sentence for shooting somebody, regardless of whether they survive or not.[citation needed]

.

There are people watching this hoping it'll be open season.

So is every other analyst on tv legal or otherwise. Their arguments are based solely on what the media decides they want said. Obviously, all of the media for political and monetary reasons has decided Zimmerman is innocent, and they will ignore actual facts no matter how glaringly apparent. They think we're stupid and can't digest anything that's been going on in this live televised trial.

We all know the media is worthless. We also know that the jury is paying no attention to anything they say and is sequestered from seeing it or knowing anything about it. All their commentary and opinions and willfully ignoring the most basic facts isn't going to have shit in shinola to do with the outcome of the case. So why the media has so obviously chosen sides is anyone's guess, and you can bet your sweet bippy that it's political and thanks to big bucks from the NRA.

No point whatsoever in listening to whatever it is they're spewing. Not one single word matters.

I suspect that the media wants a not guilty verdict because it will be a much bigger story. They are probably hoping for rioting. They couldn't care less about Zimmerman himself. The bigger the story, the more viewers they'll have. I don't think that their agenda is political, it's much more basic than that - money.

"Finally, they also could conclude that the absence of any of the defendant’s blood or DNA on Trayvon Martin’s hoodie means Trayvon did not attack the defendant."

So how does he think Z got his injuries and will the jury believe that beyond a reasonable doubt?

which simply aren't supported by the forensics.

Rachel's testimony as well challenges his version
of who was the attacker.

How do you get to a reasonable explanation especially when multiple witnesses saw an altercation?

Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant" as testified
by the ME. Not consistent with his claims of what
Trayvon was doing to him, either.

"I think he’s going to testify for all the wrong reasons because he has always been able to lie his way out of trouble.

Ain’t going to work this time.

I have one final reason for believing he will testify. His lawyers did not voir dire the prospective jurors on his right to remain silent and not testify. I always did that in my cases to make sure the jurors understood that they could not use his silence against him by presuming he had something to hide."

http://frederickleatherman.com/

This guy is definitely not going with the rest of the experts.

Abrams was saying the state didn't meet the burden of crossing beyond reasonable doubt, so it's entirely appropriate. But a guilty verdict before the defense even begins? That's mind-blowing. I hope this blogger isn't a lawyer.

he has an opinion. doesn't almost everyone?

Of course the justice system allows for innocent
until proven guilty. In my personal opinion as
a non judge non lawyer and non jury member
Zimmerman has already proven his own guilt
beyond a doubt.

I started out giving him the benefit. The trial
has left no question for me. I don't see what
else the defense could possibly bring that would
change my point of view at this point but
I remain open minded.

I don't want to see anybody go to the hell
of jail, I feel sorry for even the worst people.
But under the law I believe he is guilty.

"I am an author, blogger, former law professor, and former felony criminal defense attorney in state and federal courts specializing in death penalty defense, forensics, and complex litigation. I believe in due process, equal justice under law, the rule of law, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. I am not now, never have been, and never aspired to be a member of the 1%."

http://frederickleatherman.com/about/