RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events 17 year old Trayvon Martin shot by Neighborhood watch guy Zimmerman

There is at least one legally relevant point to be made about the problem with media using outdated pictures of Martin when he was a little kid:

• In the George Zimmerman trial on Wednesday, witness Jeannee Manalo testified that she heard “howling” sounds in her living room. Later, she said, she heard cries for help and a struggle, presumably between Zimmerman and Trayvon Martin. She saw two people on the ground, she explained, but didn’t know who was on top. She then testified that she thought based on body size that Zimmerman was on top.
  
  On cross-examination, however, she revealed that she based her estimate of body size on media photos which showed Martin as a 12-year-old. In reality, Martin was 17 years old, and in the incident report was listed as 6 feet tall and 160 lbs., as opposed to Zimmerman, who was listed at 5’9”. Manalo admitted that she didn’t know “who’s bigger now.”

Trayvon Martin was actually 6'3" and a football player.

Apparently the 6'0" measurement is from an incorrect measure during his autopsy.
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin#Trayvon_Martin


So he had a six-inch size advantage over Zimmerman.

Another 911 witness to the confrontation said that based on Martin's clothing, he identified Martin as the one who was on top.

There don't seem to be any credible witnesses.

I dissagree. Martin's phone friend for example has said all along that Martin was being followed by Zimmerman and Martin was trying to get away. Her testimony contradicts what Zimmerman alleges.

You think she was a credible witness? She only heard the incident. Story changes, disrespect to the court, wild assumptions as to what sounds she heard was.

And beyond that, you needed subtitles to understand her.

If I was the defense lawyer, I would have asked her at some point if she was high on drugs or mentally challenged, and if not, what explanation she had for her odd behavior on the witness stand.

Oh yeah. SUCH a credible witness!
Her defiance of authority, illiteracy (she couldn't even read the letter she allegedly wrote with a friend), unintelligible speech, and the overt racism she revealed Trayvon Martin to have voiced in the very minutes leading up to the shooting, speak volumes about Martin's attitude and character, that he would associate with such a girl. I wonder if Trayvon was hitting it with this cow.

I'm having a hard time finding actual recent photos of Trayvon. All I get were the 12 year old, clean-cut ones. This one is the closest I got:



Is that really him?

You found her credible simply because she reinforced your pre-existing viewpoint. You've thought Zimmerman guilty since day one.

And, to be fair, since you're not on the jury, that's your prerogative.

However, it points out the problems with extensive pretrial publicity and the potential to taint a jury pool. It also brings up issues of trying cases in the media and how that can inflame the public if the case doesn't go the way of the expectations created by the press.

I'm going by how she answered questions and what she said she heard. When she was answering questions about Martin using certain words for example you could tell she didn't want to answer. She could have lied but instead didn't. In fact she could have added some things to make Zimmerman look more guilty. She didn't. Yeah she was hard to understand and looked ugly. She lied about her age and about being in the hospital and even revealed that Martin said some nasty things. I'm not naive to think that doesn't play for the defense but her story of what she heard sounds more real than the one Zimmerman has told so far.

Everyone else's testimony seems to be verifying Zimmerman's claims. These are all prosecution witnesses who are saying that Zimmerman was beat up, that the back of his jacket was wet and had grass on it, and even one guy straight up saying that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman, swinging his arms.

Her story, to me, sounds like the defense of a friend. She said that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon, but when pressed had to admit that there was no way for her to know who attacked whom. After saying that Trayvon called Zimmerman a 'cracker' she denied that it was a racial epithet, which it clearly is. I'm not saying that she's evil or doing it on purpose. She just came off as unprepared to face the possibilities of what could have happened that night.

Bingo. This has been a terrible week for the prosecution, imo. Zimmerman will be acquitted and--most likely--wrongful death civil suits will be filed against him.

What does her looks have to do with it? I'd be saying the same thing if I never saw her. My problems were her assumptions, inconsistent story, and her demeanor.

I don't completely believe Zimmerman either.

We'll never know what really happened.

Also the riots!!

What was inconsistent with her story? The defense spent hours and hours trying to get her to waiver on her story but she stuck to what she testified.

As for her looks, I put all that stuff into the same category as her demeanor. It's all in play but it doesn't mean she wasn't telling the truth.

Several witnesses testified Thursday that the guy wearing red (Zimmerman) was on top. The guy who placed Martin on top also said that person was delivering blows MMA style. Guess who was doing MMA for excercise 3 times a week? Zimmerman.

The guy was describing 'ground and pound', which he fudged the definition of to make it seems like Zimmerman wouldn't be helpless. Ground and pound is a person straddling the person on the ground and just raining down punches. If that's all it takes to be MMA style, half the bullies on the playground were training for MMA as well it seems.

But, my main point being, that you believe the testimony that paints Zimmerman as a cold blooded killer and Martin as a helpless victim. Any testimony that could cast doubt on Zimmerman's guilt or bring up the question of whether Martin could have started the conflict, you seem to want to ignore. When it's all said and done, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of Murder 2. These testimonies could derail that.

Her testimony contradicted prior written communications, including a letter she wrote earlier in the case.

She gave different accounts of what Martin first said to Zimmerman and vice-versa.

She has a demonstrated record of lying about other matters, including her age. Earlier this year, government lawyers had to acknowledge that she lied under oath when she claimed that the reason she did not attend Martin’s funeral was due to a hospitalization.

None of this means she is, per se, lying right now. However, it certainly allows the trier of fact to find her to be a non-credible witness. As doc pointed out, as a friend (or girlfriend) of Martin she has a motive (conscious or subconscious) to remember things inaccurately about the case.

On Thursday there were several that gave testimony that placed Zimmerman on top in the fight. I'm aware of the conflicting testimony so I wouldn't make the statement like you did about "Everyone else's testimony". Perhaps you should do a bit more reading?

I agree that they haven't done that yet. Not sure what they could have at this point to make that case. This really seems to be a case of manslaughter. I wonder if at this point they could let the jury potentially convict on the smaller charge?

M E M, I'll remind you of Trayvon Martin's autopsy report, that showed only bruising to his knuckles, no other injuries to indicate Zimmerman had landed any punches on him.
Zimmerman, on the other hand, had a photographed and treated broken nose and two black eyes, as well as multiple lacerations to the head.
Which person, logically from this evidence, was doing the beating, and which was the victim?

And the powder burns that showed the gun was between 1 and 18 inches from Trayvon when the bullett was fired. Indicating they were at very close quarters, when Zimmerman fired in self-defense to end the beating.

It depends on the laws of each state. However, usually it is up to the defense whether to ask the court to allow the jury to convict on a lesser charge than what was originally indicted.

This proves what exactly? We know Zimmerman recieved some minor injuries that didn't require going to a hospital. Martin wasn't the one with a history of attacking people like Zimmerman (assaulting an officer and alleged domestic abuse) As far as we know Martin was fighting for his life trying to keep Zimmerman from firing his gun at him. At best Zimmerman is a fool who killed a kid when he didn't have too.

Anything's possible I suppose. However, as a general rule, people don't fight to stop someone from shooting them. They flee. The people who are shot while fighting tend to be the ones who were the aggressor.

This is why I also feel she wasn't a credible witness.

In this case we know Zimmerman via his call with the police had already in his mind established Martin as one those assholes that always gets away. He than pursues a fleeing Martin. This didn't start with Martin being the aggressor but Zimmerman.

Two points:

1. The phone call may or may not allow us to infer Zimmerman's intent. It doesn't mean we "know" it.

2. Zimmerman pursuing a fleeing Martin would not result in Martin having bruises on his knuckles. A fleeing person isn't a punching person.

According to Martin's friend Martin referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy ass cracker”.

I'm not for Martin or Zimmerman. I think they were probably both in the wrong in some ways. I think it's a shame Martin was killed, I just can't say Zimmerman wanted to shoot anybody.

So you changed your mind about Martin's friend's credability? Not to give you a hard time but you did just say she wasn't a credible witness. This goes back to my original thinking as to why she was credible though as she just didn't give a one sided story. Zimmerman however said exactly what he needed to.

She isn't credible. Martin may never have said it.

Also, I don't have to accept that if one thing is true that it all is true.

You can do anything you want. I found her credible because her testimony obviously had things in it that the defense liked that she could have easilly left out. It just seems not credible to just pick those things out and leave the rest. Why?

That's being overly technical. As you say anything is possible but the more likely case here is that Zimmerman was saying what he was thinking. It's agressive. Martin is one of those assholes that always gets away.



True but somebody can try to get away and still end up having to fight. Martin's friend said the last thing she heard was Martin saying "get off, get off"

She didn't realize that "cracker" was a racist term and, therefore, had no reason to believe it would help the defense. Furthermore, after it became evident that quoting Martin's use of the word made Martin, not Zimmerman, look bad, she decided she "couldn't recall" if Martin had used it after all.

They're supposed to be getting into forensic testimony today. This is what I've really been waiting for.

This should have been a manslaughter charge unless the prosecution has some really damning evidence yet to present.

it's because you can't spell manslaughter without laughter.

I guess we should have him convicted of murder because he laughed at something funny that someone said. Something that the rest of the court room laughed at.

I think that would have been a more accurate charge, which I believe is what I said quite some time ago. The question is if the judge will allow the jury to consider it. I don't see why she wouldn't or even why the prosecution wouldn't ask for it.

That's a big jump. I just posted it in response to the laughter in manslaughter line.

Precedent's already been established here:



Do you ever get tired of lying?