RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case

RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nosathro -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 8:31:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro More and more the DNA evidence in NOT backing Zimmerman story. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/george-zimmermans-dna-problem/2012/09/30/40605a58-0a46-11e2-a10c-fa5a255a9258_blog.html http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/george-zimmermans-bloody-mess/2012/09/28/e204d598-09a4-11e2-858a-5311df86ab04_blog.html Capeheart has no clue what he's talking about there. Multiple forensics experts have come to different conclusions. " Florida International University biologist Martin Tracey, a DNA expert who often testifies for the prosecution in criminal cases, said that for Trayvon’s DNA to wind up on the weapon, he would have to have handled it “for a reasonable amount of time.” The absence of his DNA doesn’t mean much for the case, Tracey said. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/09/19/3010311/blood-work-tests-released-in-zimmerman.html#storylink=cpy The reporter who wrote that went to three forensics experts who all agreed that the DNA tests don't help or hurt either side. You should have read the story..it backs up much of the lack of DNA or blood that would prove Zimmerman story(s)..of course in your case if 1,000 witness and 100 pictures showed Zimmerman wrong you still belive Zimmerman. Oh by the way which of Zimmerman fairy tales are you now talking about?

Hillwilliam -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 8:35:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun " Florida International University biologist Martin Tracey, a DNA expert who often testifies for the prosecution in criminal cases, said that for Trayvon’s DNA to wind up on the weapon, he would have to have handled it “for a reasonable amount of time.” The absence of his DNA doesn’t mean much for the case, Tracey said. Short hijack. It's good to see that Marty is still kicking. He was department chair and on my committee when I was in grad school there. One cool Canuck. He looked kinda hippyish and always handrolled his cigs. He got some damn wierd looks walking across campus smoking them LOL

Nosathro -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 8:36:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl If he fell forwards, the hands would not have been underneath him had Zimmerman wiggled out. His hands weren't underneath him after the shooting according to W6. The one individual who reported his hands being underneath him came later, and couldn't even accurately describe what Martin was wearing. W6, however, said after the shooting Martin's hands were to his sides, and drew a picture depicting such. And W6 changed his story.... W6 has never changed his testimony that Martin was on top. I never said he wasnt on top. I dont think anyone has. I said finding the body face down.. which there are pictures of... makes his story just that much more unbelievable. You have ststed this several times, But you have never said what him being face down proves, he was shot from the front at very close range, that is far more important. How about Zimmerman saying in one of his fairy tales Martin fell back face up?[8\|]

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 10:01:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nosathro You should have read the story..it backs up much of the lack of DNA or blood that would prove Zimmerman story(s)..of course in your case if 1,000 witness and 100 pictures showed Zimmerman wrong you still belive Zimmerman. Oh by the way which of Zimmerman fairy tales are you now talking about? I've read the story before you posted it. The guy gets stuff factually wrong, and is refuted by actual forensics experts. quote: of course in your case if 1,000 witness and 100 pictures showed Zimmerman wrong you still belive Zimmerman. Untrue. There's still not one single piece of evidence that disproves the self defense claim. There are theories, speculation, and allegations, but zero proof.

farglebargle -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 10:36:09 AM)
How about the fact that the person making the self-defense claim is known to be a liar? Hence his claim of self-defense, isn't worthy of refutation. Of course, the prosecution will, as soon as Zimmerman takes the stand to tell his story of self-defense, completely demolish any claims he makes -- simply on the fact that anything Zimmerman says can be discounted as a lie. He REALLY shouldn't have lied to the court earlier. He may have been able to skate before, but know everything Zimmerman says is worthless. And, of course, aside from Zimmerman's testimony, anything admitted into evidence has to come from the Prosecution.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 11:20:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle And, of course, aside from Zimmerman's testimony, anything admitted into evidence has to come from the Prosecution. Not even remotely close to how it works. Zimmerman isn't even required to testify. quote: He REALLY shouldn't have lied to the court earlier. He didn't. He remained silent in court earlier, and his silence is not admissible at trial.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 11:33:18 AM)
But the facts of the case are admissible, the pattern can be superimposed. Lets see, lawyer lied, not Zims fault, kid got killed not Zims fault......and so on.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 11:43:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But the facts of the case are admissible, the pattern can be superimposed. Lets see, lawyer lied, not Zims fault, kid got killed not Zims fault......and so on. No, what happened at the bond hearing is not admissible (nor is it even relevant.) Florida is rather strict about what character evidence is allowed.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 12:45:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Raiikun quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But the facts of the case are admissible, the pattern can be superimposed. Lets see, lawyer lied, not Zims fault, kid got killed not Zims fault......and so on. No, what happened at the bond hearing is not admissible (nor is it even relevant.) Florida is rather strict about what character evidence is allowed. That is doubtful in many ways, admissibility and relevancy. And it would not be at the bond hearing but a matter of public record, and that ends the joke.

Nosathro -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 12:50:25 PM)
Even O'Mara admits that Zimmerman damaged his creditbilty over the bond hearing. Further he now admits the Fox interview futher damaged Zimmerman as well as the Osterman book. Then all the fairy tales Zimmerman made, there is plenty to show he his a liar and can be used in court against Zimmerman.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 12:53:21 PM)
It is public domain, and public record. Admissible, and relevant.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:02:56 PM)
Being public record has no bearing on whether it's admissible and relevant. Fact is, George did not testify in regards to finances at that bond hearing, at all. Fact also is, that character evidence is not admissible except under specific circumstances in Florida. There's zero chance that George's silence at the first bond hearing is going to make it into evidence at trial.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:10:58 PM)
It has every bearing on whether it is admissible and it is relevant to the case and the prosecutions charge to prove beyond reasonable doubt. I am not talking about silence, and dont be ridiculous here. As surely as if he said in a sworn affidavit, or in a private conversation with friend or foe or family is I shot that fucking kid. It is a pattern of untruths, and that is reasonable doubt, and it is all about his character. Fact is, his lawyer testifying in his behalf is him testifying to same. It is not the same as speech in that he cant be questioned on it directly unless he takes the stand. But they certainly can use it in terms of establishing reasonable doubt in his honest and accurate portrayals of events.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:14:23 PM)
Here's the Florida rule on character evidence. 90.404 Character evidence; when admissible.— 1) CHARACTER EVIDENCE GENERALLY.—Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion, except: (a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait. (b) Character of victim.— 1. Except as provided in s. 794.022, evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the victim of the crime offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait; or 2. Evidence of a character trait of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was the aggressor. (c) Character of witness.—Evidence of the character of a witness, as provided in ss. 90.608-90.610. (2) OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS.— (a) Similar fact evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is admissible when relevant to prove a material fact in issue, including, but not limited to, proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident, but it is inadmissible when the evidence is relevant solely to prove bad character or propensity.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:15:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail It is not the same as speech in that he cant be questioned on it directly unless he takes the stand. But they certainly can use it in terms of establishing reasonable doubt in his honest and accurate portrayals of events. Absolutely, completely, untrue under Florida law.

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:16:50 PM)
absolutely, completely horseshit. , except: (a) Character of accused.—Evidence of a pertinent trait of character offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut the trait. That's some pretty fucking good English there, even for lawyers.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:18:37 PM)
"Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of character is inadmissible to prove action in conformity with it on a particular occasion" - Florida law

mnottertail -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:21:19 PM)
Don't give a flying fuck about some unsourced quote: I am repeating the law you provided. Read the fucking thing with your eyes open. These are not big words.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:21:35 PM)
Fact is, under Florida law, any character evidence in regards to George is absolutely inadmissible, unless the Defense opens the door to bring in evidence on a trait.

Raiikun -> RE: Update on Trayvon Martin case (10/2/2012 1:24:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail Don't give a flying fuck about some unsourced quote: I gave the source.

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875