To establish reasonable doubt for Trayvon.

BDLR is currently doubling down on proving the reversible error of Nelson denying West's oral motion in limine to prohibit the State from implying that following someone is illegal.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Hi, Truthiness! Glad to cyber see you! And Wow! I hope Baez isn't making it up, as is his wont... Seriously - that's huge if true. Thanks!

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

2:37 p.m.
De la Rionda says Lauer didn’t see anything, but heard something going on outside.

He says the incident started further down and not at the “T” intersection where the defendant claims.

He describes Surdyka’s testimony saying the bigger man on top and the voice in the 911 call being that of a child.

He describes what he says are the defendant’s claims.

He says Jon Good saw the victim on top of the defendant.

De la Rionda says there was a fight and struggle. He says the defendant had 18 months of MMA fighting.

He tells the jury they can’t just take that in a vacuum. He says the defense will parade the photographs of the injuries. He asks if he needs to show them the ME photo.

He moves on to Selene Bahadoor’s testimony.

He says at the very end before shooting the victim, the victim grabbed the gun. De la Rionda says there was no DNA on the gun.

He says Bahahoor matched up with Jeantel’s testimony.

He asks if the defendant cut Martin off as he was heading home, which was near the back entrance to the complex.

2:28 p.m.
He alters a Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quote about having a dream, saying a witness would be judged not by the color of her skin, but by the content of her testimony.

He says her colorful words are an example she was telling the truth.

He mentions that she lied about not going to the funeral.

He moves on to the non-emergency call. He says it is up to them to decide if the defendant was told not to follow.

He plays the portion of the recording where he says the expletive phrase.

It shows what the defendant was feeling at the time, he says.

He says it is frustration and ill-will and hatred and shows the defendant made up his mind that Martin wouldn’t get away.

He plays more of the call.

He asks why it was necessary to utter the words “[expletive] punk.”

He shows an aerial photo of the housing complex. He says Zimmerman claimed to not know the name of the street and later said in the walk-through the name of it.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

kbp, you and several others must be a riot irl. We gotta all have a RT get together someday.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Maybe George ran around the back and chased Trayvon. I'm sure MOM will have a timeline.

You'll hear the facts...when exactly do you plan to do that Bernie? A good time would have been during you case in chief.

Here comes the button...

Oh are you serious? The gravitational effect of the button is what pulled the sweatshirt out.

Bernie = shark-jumper

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Yea I did it, and per Rene Stutzman's tweet I posted I was correct about what they would claim in theory of case.

How embarrassing... but so has been the entire persecution been an embarrassment.

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

BDLR is talking like a Traybot... he does not seem to grasp what the Prosecution needs to do?


They are supposed to state and prove what happened... raising a bunch of "...what if" and "it might have been" .. is NOT what the prosecution needs to do.

It is starting from a position of "reasonable doubt" about what happened... he is actually making the defence case for them????

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Bernie is trying to create doubt of George getting his head bashed, while minimizing the damage that did happen ...next we're not sure if anything happened except a death?

BINGO! The drawstring is pulled, proving that Zimmerman grabbed it to pull Martin toward him as Martin tried to get away.

Somebody make the stupid stop.

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Yes! THIS!!

That's what they did on JOA too - paraphrase: "Well, the defense didn't prove it couldn't have happened another way..."

_________________
All posts are my own opinion and do not necessarily reflect the views of Random Topics. Differences are allowed here.

Distort the evidence to allow 10-15 degrees of more "de-escalation"?

Is Bernie arguing simultaneously that Martin and Zimmerman were engaged in a fight, but that Martin could not have caused Zimmerman's injuries, because there's no blood on Martin's hands?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)

Correct. The State is the one with the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beware quoting posts with tweets in..... the double code stuffs up the post.. so... remove tweets from fom the quote of somebody's post

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

It does seem that way.