Skip to comments.George Zimmerman: Defense plans many witnesses
Posted on 07/03/2013 11:00:28 PM PDT by Red SteelEdited on 07/04/2013 3:10:35 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
George Zimmerman's team plans to put on "a lot of witnesses," defense attorney Mark O'Mara told WKMG-Channel 6 Tuesday night.
Those witnesses will include family members, friends, neighbors and an expert on a timeline for the night Zimmerman fatally shot Trayvon Martin, O'Mara told Tony Pipitone.
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Significant...it means zim was doing the bleeding at that point of the struggle...exactly as he said
This supports the defense. The media are idiots
I missed the part where GZ said that TM got his hand on the gun. Did anyone hear George ever say that?
That's hardly a bombshell. There is useful and probative DNA in maybe 1/3 of such cases, and the absence of it proves nothing. And it also was not first revealed at trial.
I wonder why there is not more commentary on the fact that no DNA was found on the trigger? I mean, that turns this shooting into quite a whodunnit! Right?
Officer Tim Smith's DNA was not identified on the weapon's slide, so apparently he lied on the stand about taking and clearing it!
I can't think of any reason for the prosecution to have put this DNA guy on the stand, except that they hoped the jury would be stupid enough not to understand there was nothing of any relevance to either side presented.
(Although, FWIW, the witness testified that they "could not exclude" Martin's DNA from the holster swabs...)
I want to know if they found DNA from the cop who handled Z’s gun on the gun. If they mentioned it I missed it.
One of my favorite pics as well. Thanks for posting.
I know I am being silly, but really. Does there have to be DNA on a gun for Martin to have reached for it or touched it? RME
The statement I heard was that GZ felt TM's hand moving in the direction of the pistol. He never has said, to my knowledge, that TM had his hand on the pistol.
Her police chief has just put a stop to such fakery in the Sanford PD because of outrage from veterans after they saw her on TV in the witness box.
She (and the corrupt prosecution team) hoped all those impressive-looking military service bars would influence the jurors as to her credibility.
“Take gun from him”....
Actually supports zim version since he was bleeding at that point and Martin wasn’t. Zim’s blood all over that gun is exactly what you’d expect if zim was getting beaten and bloodied and Martin was the aggressor
In fact, ANY of zim’s blood on Martin supports zim’s version. And LITTLE Martin blood supports it, too, since Martin wasn’t seriously bleeding until gunshot.
Any ‘Martin blood on front of zim in any location supports Martin getting sprayed or smeared with zim blood
Well, he is deposing the race hustler - Crump. He has something in mind.
There are rumblings of a civil lawsuit against Zimmerman if the criminal case doesn’t get him. Do you think there’s any chance he is declared innocent but loses a suit for millions?
The persecution is about to rest and so far they haven’t even provided proof that TM is dead... They haven’t even proven the most basic element of their case.
I think the purpose of that type of metal is to begin conveying to the public that they are a para-military organization, and no long police officers.
That doesn’t mean that TM ever actually touched the gun, only that he tried to get it away by reaching for it.
I never heard him say that. Only that TM 'went for my gun'. While watching (only watched once) I got the impression TM never got to it.
No meaningful probability, no. I believe he'll be acquitted. He won;t ask this judge for a finding of immunity, but he will ask the civil court judge for a hearing and finding of immunity. He'll probably win that, and whoever sued Zimmerman for money damages will have to pay Zimmerman's legal fees, lost income, etc. for suing him.
Perhaps she earned all those medals through an affirmative action program.
The DNA expert found a mix of DNA on both the holster and the slide. He wasn't able to exclude Trayvon Martin as a possible contributor to that DNA.
If the talking heads wanted to say it another way, they could say "DNA found on holster and slide that expert said couldn't be ruled out as Martin's."
Not to be contrary, but IF the ribbons she wore are authorized by her department and were all authorized specifically for her, then she is in the right on wearing them.
To not wear the authorized ribbons on a dress uniform is an infraction of the uniform rules.
If she was following her department’s rulebook, then it is the rulebook we should be criticizing, and not the person following it. Her superiors are to fault - not her.
This is the same prosecution team who couldn't even find DNA on Martin's hands.He must have left it all on Zimmerman's head.
The ribbons are not PD award ribbons. They are ribbons issued by the U.S. Department of Defense. The Sanford PD purchased them used from the local Army-Navy Store.
The officer-ette shilling for the State obviously was not in WW2....by what right does she wear ribbons indicating she was? Have service and valor ribbons worn by vets now become watered down so that emotion and not facts validates the fake and improper wearing of military ribbons and awards?
Please read the last paragraph of the article linked to the above post for more clarification. Thanks.
I tend to doubt this - unless as a last resort. At this point, if the prosecution rests I would move for dismissal of all charges as unproven. I also doubt this judge will grant such a move.
In the end this will come down to what it always involved: beyond a reasonable doubt. Then - like the Casey Anthony jury - we will have to hope for true American justice.
I am beginning to suspect what I think you are saying: the prosecution is just going through the motions... although there are some troubling contradictions -- like the judge disallowing Zimmerman bringing up Trayvon's mind-set prior to the incident... even bringing his parents into court... different set of rules for the prosecution: everything Zimmerman ever thought negatively is proof he is a conniving murderer, and, oh yeah! Welcome to Trayvon's parents every day, even to appear on the witness stand.
The defense will probably put on an abbreviated case recalling Diamond Eugene and Chris Serino, and possibly Ben Crump and Sybrina again, an actual medical examiner and some surprise witnesses, before putting on its experts who will pull all the disparate facts together for the jury who Bernie tried to put into a deep sleep Wednesday with his DNA expert.
I’m not clear how the last paragraph of the article for this thread addresses whether the Sanford PD used military ribbons for their own awards or not.
You are alleging that the officer is a “faker”. Can you definitively provide a link that identifies the ribbons on her uniform are not authorized for the Sanford PD? THAT is the standard for her being a faker, not the fact that the ribbons are appropriated from military designs.
If (and only if) the Sanford PD appropriated the ribbon designs from the military and redesignated them as Sanford PD awards the wearing of the ribbons by this officer are appropriate - provided she is actually authorized to wear them (i.e.: she was given the Sanford PD award represented by each).
To refuse to wear an awarded ribbon is considered insubordination in the military - I would imagine that there is a similar stigma attached to it in police departments. To castigate the woman without knowing for certain that the ribbons do not represent valid Sanford PD awards is the same as insisting she be insubordinate.
However, the apparent fact that the Sanford PD went cheap and used military ribbons is deplorable, and is a worthy target for criticism and even ridicule.
But to castigate a police officer for following the rules as they are laid out by her superiors (again - barring definitive evidence that the ribbons are unauthorized) is ridiculous.
There is an excellent youtube vido of the riots. It is in the stree images of looters. A few even on cameral saying they don’t care they just want. Even fewer actually trying to stop they looters by reason.
And yet Officer Tim Smith did take the gun from him and he didn't leave any DNA on the gun because it is a hard surface.
Please pay attention in class and in court.
The expert said he specifically could not exclude tm’s dna from the dna samples on the holster. IOW the governme can not say tm touched the holster!
In FL in capitol cases anyone over 16 is chaged as an adult. I believe the lowest was 14.
“The expert said he specifically could not exclude tms dna from the dna samples on the holster. IOW the governme can not say tm touched the holster!”
So, it’s a win-win for zim. No Martin DNA confirms zim story and also any Martin DNA supports zim story.
In any case, lots of zim blood confirms zim story
no EXCLUSION of martin dna. There was more than just zim dna on the holster.
You know what? I think most people are past being afraid of speaking their minds. Just don't slander anybody or threaten violence.
Do you remember where on Martin they found zim DNA? I saw the testimony, but too many tests for me to remember.
“this was also explained by the specialist because the gun surface was too hard”
The gun specialist go the trigger-pull question wrong when asked what Zimmermans pistol pull was and if it was within factory spec’s. Zimmerman was packing a double/double semi and the “specialist stated that it pulled 4.75 lbs. she also stated that was within Normal factory settings. Actually, virtually all double/doubles are set between about 7~ 10 lbs. most singles such as the 1911 and its variants are factory set around 3.5 ~ 4.5 lbs. the defense did not challenge this, probably not a big deal anyway as most folks care less about this statistic.
I just hope that the defense not rest its case until the truth about the DeeDees comes out.
It's not her fault. The police department issues the ribbons, and they admit to using WWII surplus ribbons from the army/navy store.
It is hard to believe I know, but it is certainly not the officer's fault.
“being on three jury’s recently, young folks are the worst”
I’m with you on that. I sat on a 3-week trial in Ventura, CA, where more than half the jury were in their early 20s — arrogant, liberal, shallow, stupid, mouthy, and ready to take on the world. It was one of the most awful experiences of my life. In the jury room there was more discussion of, and more weight was given to, the way-cool high heels of one attorney, and the extreme goober-like appearance of another attorney. Those issues actually impacted their decision; facts were not a big consideration.
“GZ has made a statement thar TM tried to take the gun from him.”
I believe that what GZ actually said was that TM “grabbed FOR” or “grabbed AT” the gun. If so, then he most likely didn’t actually touch it.
The State's witness was NOT ordered or forced to wear them by any regulation. She WANTED to wear them, perhaps to influence the jurors as to her credibility...and therefore she was a faker twice over.
The ribbons, many from WW2 seventy-some years ago, were NOT "appropriated from military designs"....they are GENUINE military service ribbons that somehow find their way to military surplus stores....perhaps the DOD cleaning out stockrooms.....or the surplus stores bought them from pawn shops. Old ribbons, medals and uniforms are often purchased for Halloween costumes, collections, etc.
But the CONTEXT in which this State's witness wore them is wrong....as evinced by the outrage of vets across the country when they saw her on TV.
The rest of your post is incorrect in so many aspects that I don't have the time or desire to parse it.
Needless to say, the Sanford PD has put an immediate stop to such misleading displays of U.S. military ribbons being worn on PD uniforms by some cops in its department.....and the Chief is taking steps to produce the department's own legitimate service awards in lieu of issuing 'stolen honor' ribbons bought second-hand at the Army-Navy surplus store.
but the jury will never know this.
like that doctor wearing the i voted sticker.
She was not ORDERED by her superiors to wear the WW2 and other ribbons. It was HER choice.
So why was it her superior's fault....or the "department's" fault...alone?
In actuality, it was HER fault, enabled by a faulty and unofficial departmental conceitery.
That's why the error in judgement is being swiftly rectified by the Chief as we speak...er, type.
I, myself, certainly wouldn't be so presumptuous or devious as to wear military awards issued for bravery, combat, etc. in a war that took place before I was even born. I would display them in a place of honor in my home, for example, but not on my own chest....and certainly not in a courtroom or on national TV.
They were worn by the State's shill witness to lend "creds" to her testimony, nothing more.
As I stated in my initial post, I had not seen any showing that the ribbons were unauthorized. To be honest - I still have only seen your assertion.
Assuming your assertions are true, then the police officer should be reprimanded to the fullest extent allowed by the Sanford PD operating procedures. Wearing an unauthorized ribbon on a uniform is certainly a punishable offense.
You state that the “PD” bought the ribbons. Does that mean that the department purchased them, or that the officer did? If the department did, then how did the officer end up with them? In your last paragraph you state that the chief is “taking steps to produce the department’s own legitimate service awards in lieu of issuing ‘stolen honor’ ribbons”. That sounds like the officer was given the award by the department - which is the crux of my position.
Can you provide a link to a story that shows that the ribbons are actual ribbons awarded to a soldier that found their way to a surplus store and were subsequently purchased and worn by the officer?
Your account is the only one I have seen that alleges the ribbons are unauthorized, although I have read several threads where the ribbons’ military background was identified and cited as a problem.
I’m sorry that you feel my conditional response was so full of error that it is unworthy of parsing, but I am trying to understand the entirety of the situation.
Both had tons of armed volunteer employees on the rooftops during that time....being a customer of L.A. Cold, I could never quite get 'confirmation' that they also had paid sharpshooters uptop.
I guess FLA laws are different than Indianas'.
'Separation-of-witnesses' means that anyone to be called as a witness in the case cannot be in the courtroom during the testimony and arguments of other witnesses.
Why are the thugs parents even in the room? ................................................ FRegards
Wearing miltary medals and ribbons and such are NOT illegal on police uniforms, or my sweat shirt, for that matter. Just don't wear ones you haven't earned on your uniform if you're in the military service. That's a no-no.
If you haven't perceived the gist of my too-numerous and detailed posts on this matter, I'm sorry. I don't have time to spend on everything you manage to bring up. Plus I don't want to spam this thread with long, drawn-out discussions that lead nowhere.
If I read anything more on this subject I'll certainly ping you. Or maybe you can write to the Sanford police chief for his explanation.
I think the article linked to this post pretty much covered the subject, maybe not as deep as you'd like....but enough to illuminate most thinking people on why the State's shill witness won't wear those ribbons on her uniform again when testifying on the stand.
Thanks for the intereststing debate.
Capt. James McAuliffe with the police department in Sanford, Fla., told Marine Corps Times on Wednesday that they immediately suspended their current awards system and will no longer use Defense Department ribbons when honoring their police officers.
The ribbons were authorized - but the policy is now changed. That matches my assessment of the probable situation. The officer was not "faking" anything.
The problem lies with the department, not the specific officer. She was within her department's guidelines for use of the ribbons.
I have to get on a plane for an international trip. Have a good day, FRiend.
Yes, this photo suggests that one should get a rifle, before buying a handgun.
Again, does she look likes she is old enough to be a WWII vet?
There will very probably be a motion to dismiss, but BEFORE the defense begins its arguments. However, the Judge appears to be bought and paid for, so it will most probably be turned down.
After recent events in Egypt, they may re-think that.
Manslaughter is not a verdict that can be brought in this trial.