Pages Menu
TwitterRssFacebook
Categories Menu

Posted by on Jul 5, 2013 in Crime, Featured | 47 comments

(Video) Trayvon Martin’s Mother On Stand Identifies Her Son’s Screaming 911 Voice

22763220_BG3 (1)

Today will be one of the most emotional days in the trial of George Zimmermann for the shooting murder of teenager Trayvon Martin: Martin’s mother and brother are taking the stand — and both insist the screaming vote on the 911 tape is indeed the 17-year-old, Skittles-armed Martin:

Prosecutors on Friday called Trayvon Martin’s mother and brother to the stand in the trial of the man who fatally shot him.

George Zimmerman is charged with second-degree murder. His defense team argues that he shot the teen in self-defense.

A key piece of evidence was at the center of Friday’s proceedings: a 911 call on the night of the shooting on which screaming can be heard.

Lawyers on both sides want to convince the jury of who was doing the screaming, Zimmerman or Martin.

The audio was played in court for Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton. She said she recognized the screaming as that of “Trayvon Benjamin Martin.”

Defense attorney Mark O’Mara asked Fulton if she had no doubt that it was her son screaming.

“Absolutely,” she said.

Martin’s older brother, Jahvaris Fulton, 22, also took the stand Friday.

Prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda asked him if he recognized the voice on the tape.
“My brother’s,” Fulton said, adding that he had “heard him yell” before, but “not like that.”

The question of whether Zimmerman’s actions were self-defense or murder could rest on who was the person screaming.



Reuters take on it:

The mother of Trayvon Martin said in court on Friday she recognized the voice of her son screaming for help in an emergency call on the night the black teenager was shot dead by neighborhood watchman George Zimmermann.

Sybrina Fulton’s testimony came as the state was preparing to wrap up its case after nearly two weeks of testimony aimed at showing inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s account of the fight in Sanford, Florida, in February last year that ended with Martin’s death.

Fulton told jurors she was certain it was her son who can be heard screaming for help in the background of an emergency call made to police moments before he died.

“I heard my son screaming,” said Fulton, who added that she first heard the recording in the office of the mayor of this town near Orlando where her son died.

Testimony from voice-recognition experts has been ruled inadmissible in the trial on the grounds that it was impossible to tell from the brief, poor-quality recording whether it was Martin or Zimmerman calling for help.

In addition to Martin’s mother, the state’s final witnesses included his brother, 22-year-old Jahvaris Fulton, who said he too was convinced it was his brother who can be heard screaming on the recording.

Other witnesses for the prosecution are expected to include the central Florida medical examiner who performed the autopsy on the teenager. Martin’s father may also testify.

It will then be the turn of the defense to present its case.

Legal experts said that before doing so, Zimmerman’s legal team could simply make an argument for acquittal on grounds that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof.

My own prediction on this case is:
1. Zimmerman will be acquitted or the jury will ask about convicting of manslaughter (which they are reportedly allowed to do).
2. Zimmerman if free will have a status similar to what O.J. Simpson did: many Americans will not accept the verdict at all.
3. The Martin family will file a civil suit and likely win it.

The Martin case has become highly politicized with liberals feeling Zimmerman was a cop wannabe with an itchy trigger finger and many conservatives suggesting Martin was up to no good or without saying it a thug. It’s no coincidence Zimmerman’s one major media interview was with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, about a knee-jerk conservative Republican partisan as you can find.

An interesting take from conservative talk show host Michael Savage:

“White people generally think Zimmerman is innocent, except for liberals who are sure he is guilty; black people probably to the 99th percentile are sure Zimmerman’s a murderer. So where does Michael Savage fit in? I’m an independent observer and I call them as I see them,” the conservative host continued. “I think Zimmerman committed what he’s being charged with: manslaughter. He didn’t intend to kill him, but he may as well have intended to kill him.”

Savage said that the Kel Tec 9mm handgun Zimmerman carried did not have the safety applied and had a bullet in the chamber, suggesting that Zimmerman was prepared to shoot someone that night.

“Had he not chambered a round prior to meeting Trayvon, and had he not taken the safety off — even if Trayvon, during the altercation even if Trayvon had tried to grab the gun away from Zimmerman — had that gun not been chambered with a round and safety off, Trayvon Martin would have had to use two hands. You can’t do it with one hand,” Savage asserted.

“Because Zimmerman carried a loaded weapon with the safety off, Trayvon Martin is dead,” he continued. “Therefore, the responsibility is in the hands of Zimmerman.”

Finally, Savage claims that it sounds to him like Zimmerman said a racist slur under his breath as he spoke with the 911 operator. “And I’m afraid that the fact that he has this racist statement — made this racist statement on the 911 call — and that he was carry a loaded gun with a bullet in the chamber and the safety off, you have to find this man guilty of second-degree manslaughter is my opinion,” Savage declared. “Something’s wrong with this whole story.”

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The Moderate Voice
  • sheknows

    I am completely puzzled as to why the defense thinks they can show Martin as the aggressor when had Zimmerman just left him alone, as he was TOLD to do by the police, he would be alive now. That one fact in itself clearly shows who the aggressor was here. To to stalk and follow someone is threatening and is considered an act of aggression. That’s what animals do when they hunt. To take it upon yourself to confront them is an act of aggression.
    Zimmerman had no business going anywhere near Martin, ESPECIALLY with a loaded gun. His neighborhood watch responsibility ended with a phone call to the police. He is a self appointed vigilante with serious issues of self aggrandizement and shows to be lacking any shred of remorse.
    I am absolutely astounded the prosecution is not arguing it all from this vantage point. So far I do not think the prosecution is doing a very good job. All they are doing so far is deflecting the insinuations and attacks from the defense on Martin. THEY should be on the attack. Just my .02

  • adelinesdad

    My non-expert view is that the prosecution is not doing well because there wasn’t much of a case to make to begin with. My suspicion is that this case would not have been brought to trial at all had it not been for public pressure, so the state it just doing this to say they tried.

    Safety off and bullet in the chamber is consistent with someone looking to murder. It’s also consistent with someone prepared to defend himself against someone he believes (incorrectly) to be up to no good and he doesn’t know is not armed.

    No, following someone, though ill-advised in this sort of situation, is not an act of aggression. Zimmerman has the right to walk on public property wherever he wants, just as Trayvon did, and the 911 operator testified she can give only suggestions, not orders. The principle question, in my view, is who started the physical altercation. If Zimmerman started it, it would be absurd to claim self defense just because he was losing the fight that he started. But the evidence is mixed on the question, and that means acquittal.

    Ultimately, I agree with the defense that “there are no monsters here”. Trayvon is not a thug, and Zimmerman is not a murderer. I don’t know for sure what happened, but I think it’s likely this was a cause of misjudgment on the part of Zimmerman combined with overreaction on the part of Trayvon, that tragically escalated to the point where Zimmerman felt the need to use the method of last resort to defend himself. Lots of lessons to be learned there, but no case for conviction, in my view.

  • yoopermoose

    I don’t agree adelinesdad. Zimmerman was following Trayvon with a loaded gun. If someone was following me around, with or without a loaded gun, I would feel well within my rights to defend myself because the person following me is the aggressor.

    I have not been following the trial except for updates, but it appears that Zimmerman is arguing that even though he followed Trayvon with a loaded gun, he had every right to shoot Trayvon because he, Zimmerman, was losing the fight that he, Zimmerman, instagated by following Trayvon.

    Zimmerman is not a monster, but I believe he is guilty.

  • yoopermoose

    I just want to add that I am not sure what the laws are regarding following someone around. If a man is following woman around her neighborhood, would that be considered an act of aggression? I believe so.

  • adelinesdad

    I think this might get to part of the reason why this is so politically divisive. yoopermoose, I won’t venture to guess your view on guns generally, but as a general observation I’ve noticed that people that tend to assume people with guns are up to no good take the side against Zimmerman. While those who recognize that possessing a gun is lawful and reasonable take Zimmerman’s side. In this case, the law sides with Zimmerman–he was in lawful possession of his gun and, as far as I can tell, was doing nothing illegal or threatening with it before the altercation. That makes some people uncomfortable, I realize, but that’s the law. Simply carrying a gun (not drawn) is not a threat.

    As for the issue of following, I don’t know the law either so I won’t speculate further except to say that I don’t think that following represents enough of a threat to justify a preemptive, physical confrontation without something else going on like threatening words (I don’t know that Trayvon did physically confront but it’s plausible and the prosecution hasn’t disproven it). For one thing, you don’t know for sure that the person is intending to follow you, as opposed to coincidentally following the same route. Secondly, you don’t know that the person intends to do you harm.

  • slamfu

    I don’t see what the problem is. Zimmerman’s actions were perfectly legitimate under Florida’s very commons sense based Load Your Weapon, Stalk Your Victim, Initiate Confrontation Then Stand Your Ground laws. Open and shut case.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    While I sense a little sarcasm, slamfu,regrettably this is exactly the way many view this case.

  • SteveK

    I’ve noticed that people that tend to assume people with guns are up to no good take the side against Zimmerman.

    You’ve noticed that, but have you also noticed that Mr. Zimmerman was told, quite forcefully, by the police to back off.

    The reason I ask is because in my world people who don’t follow lawful orders from the police ARE up to no good. Whether they have a gun or not.

  • StockBoyLA

    But we all know that Zimmerman was following (stalking) Martin. Zimmerman got out of the car with a loaded weapon with the intent on confronting Martin. I don’t see how that can be legal. Yes, walking on public property is legal, but taking the law into his own hands is not legal. He played the parts of judge, jury and executioner.

    I’m sorry, but what crime did Zimmerman see Martin commit? Why did Zimmerman leave his car with a loaded weapon and stalk Martin? I don’t think walking around being black is a crime.

    As I recall the police and Florida weren’t very interested in this case from the beginning and were dragged into by being in the national spotlight. It doesn’t surprise me that Florida is doing a half-assed job in prosecuting this case. It seems that they need direction from the top, “this is what you should focus on and the message….”.

  • SteveK

    It’s common knowledge that Mr. Zimmerman was told to ‘back-off’ by the police… He didn’t obey that order.

    And still there are those who will try to make his actions that lifetaking evening as those of an upstanding citizen.

  • adelinesdad

    Slamfu, stalking implies a certain intent that hasn’t been proven, but in any case is it fair to take your comment as conceding that following/stalking and initiating confrontation are two separate actions?

    Dorian, can you cite an example of one of the many people arguing that Zimmerman should be off the hook because he should be allowed to defend himself in a fight that he started? The question is whether he started it.

    StockBoyLA: “But we all know that Zimmerman was following (stalking) Martin. Zimmerman got out of the car with a loaded weapon with the intent on confronting Martin.”

    How do you know that he didn’t get out of the car with the intent to keep an eye on him until police arrived so they wouldn’t lose him (as he expressed concern they had done before), or with the intent to converse with him about what he was doing, and that Trayvon wasn’t the one who first came to violence?

  • SteveK

    He was told to back off.

  • KP

    Facts are helpful in murder cases. Even with all of the admissible evidence at their disposal, juries can get it wrong sometimes. OJ comes to mind.

    So, it gets difficult for anyone — who is not expressly directed by the judge on the law, and who is not following the case closely, to know.

  • sheknows

    A’s dad.
    “stalking implies an intent that hasn’t been proven”?? Florida Defines stalking as “a person who willfully, maliciously and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person, commits the offense of stalking.”
    According to every state, intent doesn’t HAVE to be proven. The mere act of it is by nature one that causes distress and fear in the person being stalked, therefore the states say it is in itself a punishable offense.

    As I have said, as Steve has said, as everyone but the prosecution seems to have said harshly enough…Zimmerman was TOLD by the police. not given a suggestion or told ” use your own judgment”. He was told to “not pursue”.
    He didn’t “walk down the street” casually after Martin. He drove by him several times and slowed down and paced Martins’ walking all the while staring at him. That’s when his GF told him to run.
    . Where was the rest of his “neighborhood watch” organization ? There isn’t any. He is a self-appointed, lone vigilante who carries a loaded gun around. He is big trouble just waiting to happen.
    I know for certain that no one in MY neighborhood watch carries a gun when they do the neighborhood drives.

  • SteveK

    Here’s a complete, unedited audio of “George Zimmerman’s 911 Call” (heads-up: some semi-strong language)

    I recommend taking the time to read some or all of the comments just below the article… They give a pretty good overview of how people on both sides of this issue see the ‘interaction’ between two of our fellow human beings.

  • slamfu

    The 911 operator didn’t actually tell Zimmerman to not follow Martin. When asked if he was following him, Zimmerman answered yes, then the operator said “Ok sir, we don’t need you to do that”, which is not an order. Small detail, but pertinent.

  • KP

    I watched the testimony of the dispatcher. Under oath he was very clear; he cannot give orders. He can make suggestions. The suggestion to Zimmerman was “We don’t need you to do that” in reference to the following of TM.

  • SteveK

    There are many who don’t like ‘knee grows’ or other ‘suspicious characters’ in their neighborhood.

    And therefore these people seem to be willing to turn a blind eye to this and other similar ‘tragedies.’

    But watch out if something like this happens to ‘one of theirs’ because when asked to turn the other cheek things get pretty ugly… Pretty fast.

  • KP

    “It’s common knowledge that Mr. Zimmerman was told to ‘back-off’ by the police… He didn’t obey that order.”

  • SteveK

    “Now Imagine [s]He’s White!”

    Pardon the subtitles (and some of the language) but it was the best, and shortest version on YouTube.

  • KP

    Steve, I think you would enjoy the movie “Mud” starring Matthew McConaughey.

    A bit dark, but an excellent film.

  • KP

    On a separate note; as D. H. Lawrence said in “Mountain Lion”:

    “And I think in this empty world there was room for me and a mountain lion.”

    Peace

  • SteveK

    Edit to add: For those who don’t have 5 minutes you can forward the video to 03:30 and get the point that I’m trying to make.

    PS to KP – I like how Matthew McConaughey acts… Even ‘Sahara’ the generally ‘panned’ movie based on a great Clive Cussler novel.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Slamfu said:

    I don’t see what the problem is. Zimmerman’s actions were perfectly legitimate under Florida’s very commons sense based Load Your Weapon, Stalk Your Victim, Initiate Confrontation Then Stand Your Ground laws. Open and shut case.

    I said:

    While I sense a little sarcasm, slamfu, regrettably this is exactly the way many view this case.

    adad says:

    Dorian, can you cite an example of one of the many people arguing that Zimmerman should be off the hook because he should be allowed to defend himself in a fight that he started? The question is whether he started it.

    What’s this question have to do, if anything, with my statement, by which I stand?

  • StockBoyLA

    “How do you know that he didn’t get out of the car with the intent to keep an eye on him until police arrived so they wouldn’t lose him (as he expressed concern they had done before), or with the intent to converse with him about what he was doing, and that Trayvon wasn’t the one who first came to violence?”

    So let me get this straight…. Zimmerman has been following Martin in his truck. Martin notices Zimmerman following him, then decides to run. Zimmerman who is much larger than Martin and with a gun gets out of his truck and follows Martin. We’re supposed to believe that Zimmerman was just going to keep an eye on Martin until the police came or that he was going to ask Martin what he was doing? Let’s not forget that Martin had committed no crime and had a right to be walking on the street, wearing a hoodie to protect himself from the rain.

    Put yourself in Martin’s shoes. You’re walking alone and someone is in a truck watching you. You decide to run because you feel unsafe. WHen you run he comes after you. WIth a gun. If I were in Martin’s shoes and someone was coming after me carrying a gun I’d sure as hell run. I would not wait for some gun-toting lunatic to get close to me. I’d pray that if he opens fire the bullets would miss me.

    Furthermore if I’m walking down the street it’s no one’s business what I’m doing and if it was simply someone coming up to me, I’d tell them to piss off.

    The fact that Martin ran away from Zimmerman and Zimmerman pursued him tells me that Zimmerman was following and stalking Martin.

    So, AD, tell me where you live. If you’re white I’ll have a black guy (much bigger than you) stalk you with a gun when you’re outside alone or with your children. If you’re black, I’ll have a white guy (much bigger than you) follow and chase you around with a gun. If you’re out alone, or with your children, do you think you’d actually wait for a much larger guy, chasing you with a gun, to catch up to you so you can talk to him and find out what he wants?

  • StockBoyLA

    SteveK, thanks for the links!

  • StockBoyLA

    AD, about who started the fight…. let me get this straight…. Martin runs away from Zimmerman. Zimmerman gets out of his truck with a gun and starts chasing after Martin. And there is a question as to who started the fight? In my mind the threat begins when a person starts watching me (as Zimmerman, safe in his truck, was doing to Martin). The threat increases if I run to get away and the guy starts chasing me, as Zimmerman did to Martin. The threat intensifies more when that person has caught up to me and can beat me to a pulp. The threat doesn’t start when someone is physically close. If I feel in danger (like Martin rightfully felt when Zimmerman was watching him from his truck) than in my mind the threat starts at that moment. Not at the moment someone is already beating me.

  • sheknows

    Z: “oh crap, now he’s running”
    Police: ” are you following him?”
    Z: “yes”
    Police: “ok sir, we don’t need you to do that”

    Z stalks Martin, Martin sees him, tells his gf he’s being followed ,she tells him to run, Z calls police WHILE following Martin, then sees him running ( in Zimmerman’s mind he interprets Martin’s running as guilt ( of something) not fear of being followed by some weird guy in a car in the middle of the night). Right here is when everything went to hell. If Z had done what he was supposed to do ( meet the police at a designated area) and NOT continue to purse Martin as he was instructed to do, this never would have happened.
    A scene in Grand Canyon shows a black teen running through a white neighborhood just jogging home and stopped by police, slammed to the ground and dragged to the station for not having any ID on him and resisting arrest, whatever. What would George Zimmerman have done after confronting a frightened teen while carrying a loaded weapon.. with the safety already off?? Oh yeah, we already know.

  • adelinesdad

    sheknows, regarding the definition of stalking, doesn’t “maliciously” imply intent? And did Zimmerman “repeatedly” follow?

    Dorian, I apologize if I misunderstood, but it sounded like you were saying that many people view this case as slamfu described: where Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation but then still can legitimately claim self-defense. I haven’t heard that argument made by defenders of Zimmerman.

    StockBoyLA, we know that Trayvon was running, at least according to what Zimmerman said on the 911 call (and I think Rachel confirmed?). But I’m not aware of any evidence that Zimmerman was running after him. In fact, in the 911 call, Zimmerman was still speaking about a minute and a half after reporting that Trayvon was running, and Zimmerman doesn’t sound very winded to me. Running and talking, even for a short time, is quite difficult to do, in my experience. Now, it’s possible he started running after hanging up with 911 and caught up to Trayvon, which certainly would be frightening. It’s also possible Trayvon doubled back and confronted Zimmerman as he was waiting for the police to show up.

    The 911 call also shows that Zimmerman was talking with the dispatcher about where Trayvon was, consistent with the claim that he was following Zimmerman with the intent to keep track of where he was until the police arrived. Zimmerman also says at the end of the call that he’s not sure where Trayvon is, consistent with his story that Trayvon could have jumped out from somewhere to confront him later.

    I don’t dispute that Trayvon did nothing wrong to justify Zimmerman’s suspicion. His misjudgment on that front does not make him a murderer, though.

    Also, I don’t have the figures on the relative weights of Zimmerman and Trayvon at the time of the incident. I’m not sure it matters much, but I’d be interested to see it if you have it.

    If someone is chasing me around with a gun I’d run like mad, screaming all the way, and call the cops as soon as possible. Now, if someone was walking in my direction while looking at me with a gun in a holster, I’m not sure I’d react that way. Just depends on how it makes me feel, I guess (and I won’t pretend I’m immune to prejudices based on how someone looks). But either way, I certainly wouldn’t get in a fight with him if I could avoid it. Which brings me back to the question that I think is central and still unresolved: Did Trayvon initiate the fight or did Zimmerman?

  • KP

    As the great, great Merry Clayton sang (accompanied by Mick Jagger ;)) on the song “Gimme Shelter”:

    Rape, murder!
    It’s just a shot away
    It’s just a shot away

    And finally:

    “Love, sister, it’s just a kiss away.”

  • adelinesdad

    From various random online sources it seems Trayvon was 158 pounds and Zimmerman, 194, for what it’s worth.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Dorian, I apologize if I misunderstood, but it sounded like you were saying that many people view this case as slamfu described: where Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation but then still can legitimately claim self-defense. I haven’t heard that argument made by defenders of Zimmerman.

    That’s exactly what I am saying unless one believes that following an innocent young black man in one’s truck, getting out of the truck with a loaded gun — against the advice of police — chasing the young man who has every right to be where he is and confronting this unarmed young man is not a confrontation and is self defense. You apparently do. I don’t. Sorry.

  • adelinesdad

    Dorian,

    I think I’ve made it pretty clear that if Zimmerman initiated the physical confrontation, then I don’t accept his claim of self-defense. The argument I’m making, and defenders that I’ve heard are making, is that it has not been proven that he chased or confronted him. Can we have a discussion about the actual arguments on both sides, rather than the strawmen we may construct to make the other side seem as absurd as possible? If not, I’m not interested.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    Let me say it one more time, ad

    In my opinion, following an innocent young black man in one’s truck, getting out of the truck with a loaded gun — against the advice of police — chasing the young man who has every right to be where he is and meeting up with this unarmed young man is confrontation and not self defense.

    Now, that is my opinion. Many others, including yourself, apparently do not share that opinion. Fine. Shall we now wait and see what the jury decides, rather than both of us “constructing strawmen”?

    Thanks

  • sheknows

    A’s dad, ” stalking implies a certain intent that hasn’t been proven” Those are YOUR words. MY words argued your point of defense for Zimmerman by saying what the states say…that intent does not NEED to be proven and is already considered malicious by it’s very nature.

    Zimmerman interpreted his running as an act of guilt ( which was not his call ANYWAY) and not an act of fear because some crazy guy was following him in his car late at night!
    If Z had gone to meet the police as instructed, Trayvon Martin would be alive today. IMHO.

  • KP

    I have watched all but a few minutes of the entire trial. The prosecution just rested it’s case, Friday eve at 5:00pm EST. TM’s mom, Sybrina Fulton, was their best witness over the 18 days when she testified Friday morning first thing. She was believable, solid and never wavered.

    Late Friday afternoon, just after 5:00pm, the defense’s first witness, was Gladys Zimmerman, George’s mom. Gladys, raised in Peru and now a US citizen, claims the screaming was George. Both mother’s unequivocally claim to hear their son’s screams on the 911 tape for 40 seconds.

    The medical examiner, Dr. Shiping Bao, was the last witness for the prosecution. I am not sure if he helped or hurt them.

    To prove second degree murder, a prosecutor must convince the jurors beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted according to a “depraved mind” without regard for human life. The defense will attempt to show justifiable use of deadly force.

    Many will have trouble ever justifying the shooting death of 17 year old TM, so that is a hurdle for the defense. However, the prosecutions case was surprisingly inconsistent, at times weak and at other times sounded like it was on the behalf of Zimmerman. The defense even turned a couple witnesses.

    Eventually, jurors will be carefully instructed on the law, along with what they can and cannot consider. They do not hear everything we do. My hunch is that they will have a very difficult time finding the 2nd degree murder charge, as of today; and that the hurdle will be raised further as the defense hasn’t really even started yet.

  • sheknows

    Adad…After Martin began to run, how do you think he wound up face to face with Zimmerman? Do you honestly believe or even remotely think it POSSIBLE that a 17 year old kid who is being followed by some weirdo in a truck late at night is going to run TOWARD the stalker and confront HIM??
    It doesn’t take ANY common sense to realize just who confronted whom.

  • sheknows

    KP.. I have also stated the prosecution did the worst job I have ever seen. We here at TMV argue better for Martin’s case then the prosecutor.

  • KP

    It was horrible … I did want to say how bad it was because I want to remain objective.

    To your question above:

    After Martin began to run, how do you think he wound up face to face with Zimmerman?

    Sheknows, that’s a good question and it made up the early part of the prosecutions case. Prosecution witnesses shared what they heard and saw. Like I said, some of the testimony didn’t go so well for the prosecution. And legally, all the defense has to do is show doubt.

  • KP

    Perhaps part of the reason the prosecutions case was poor is that the case itself is not strong. The prosecution had very few witnesses who helped them.

    To mount a case they were forced to call witnesses the defense would have called, to pre-empt them. That made the prosecution look bad after cross examination. The prosecutions biggest problem was that so much of the courtroom testimony supports Zimmerman’s story; more than the prosecution team are inept.

    Keep in mind; I am talking about courtroom testimony so far. Now the defense goes. Then the jurors deliberate.

  • sheknows

    Agree KP. What I watched of it made me shudder because everything was reversed! Usually the prosecution is on the offense and the defense is exactly that, defending the premise that a person is innocent until proven guilty.
    In this trial, the defense went on the attack against Martin’s character, his friends, his past, even his right to BE there at that late hour.
    All I can say is that the prosecution did a lousy job of putting ZIMMERMAN on trial, which is what this was. It wasn’t Martin on trial, but the prosecution failed to do it’s job.

  • KP

    In this trial, the defense went on the attack against Martin’s character, his friends, his past, even his right to BE there at that late hour.

    The judge hasn’t allowed what you are suggesting. I am trying to stick to courtroom testimony and keep separate the media malpractice that has been going on for months. The only references I recall to TM’s state of mind and perhaps character came from prosecution witness, Rachel Jeantel (recounting his racial slurs directed at GZ).

    The defense hasn’t even started their case.

  • adelinesdad

    Dorian,

    I’m OK moving on from our disagreement on whether it has been proven that Zimmerman was chasing Trayvon. However, I can’t simple let this go:

    “…including yourself, apparently…”

    I’ve said several times know that I *don’t* believe that Zimmerman should be found not guilty if he was *chasing* Trayvon. I understand you believe that he was chasing him. I’m saying it’s not proven. I can survive with you not agreeing with me on that. But you can’t simply continue to say that I believe it’s OK for someone to chase another person and then claim self defense. You’ve successfully sidestepped my request for an example of *anyone* who believes that. Ok, fine, but don’t then tell me that *I* believe it when I’ve already said several times that I don’t.

    I’m fine with letting the jury decide the case (My worry is that many will not accept their verdict). My point was simply that the prosecution’s apparent shortcomings reflects the weakness of the case itself rather then their own failures, as KP observes also.

  • DORIAN DE WIND, Military Affairs Columnist

    OK, you “win” on all counts, ad.

    Just curious: Why are you worried that “many will not accept [the jury’s] verdict”?

  • adelinesdad

    sheknows,

    I’m afraid I may not be understanding your argument but I think your argument is circular: Since he was stalking, it was therefore malicious (because stalking is malicious by definition), therefore it was stalking (since it was malicious) and illegal regardless of intent. I think you’ve got that backwards, but I’ll leave it at that.

    And yes, I believe it’s possible Trayvon doubled back. I don’t know that he did, but all we need is reasonable doubt. The lack of evidence that he didn’t is all that is needed, but to add to that is the fact that there was about 5 minutes between the time Zimmerman says Trayvon was running and the time that Trayvon’s call with Rachel was dropped. During that time they went from the front of a complex of townhomes to the back of it. If it was a chase, it must have been an extremely slow-speed chase, or else went in circles. Or, Trayvon could have doubled back and met Zimmerman who was walking around while waiting for the police to show up.

  • adelinesdad

    Dorian,

    If the jury finds him not guilty, do you think there won’t be people who will feel Zimmerman got off unjustly? And the reverse is true if he is found guilty, of course. Either way is worrisome.

  • KP

    The defense ME, Dr. Vincent DiMaio, hurt the state case today. Casts the state medical examiner, Dr. Shiping Bao, in a bad light.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com