Predict the Zimmerman verdict

2seaoat wrote:I didn't see most of the prosecution's closing. Did he focus on that 2 minutes in the timeline?


No, he only referenced briefly the timeline, and made some self serving comment on the pert chart which he informed them he has put into evidence.   He briefly referenced the chart.

It is necessary to understand that the defense will now give their closing arguments.  After they are done the State gets one more shot at the jury.  They have already shown their hand on the timeline, but he is holding the obvious total incredible story Zimmerman has told for that final close.  He does not want to give Omara an opportunity to take the wind out of those arguments, and in fact the Defense's timeline pert chart has also been admitted into evidence........Omara is smart....he knows where they have gone on the exhibit, and argued about the detail of when the police officer arrived at the scene......that he was still in the car....gee why is that so important....perhaps the policeman really did not get to the scene as quickly as the chart...........

Please watch the talking heads and see who is going to talk about the state rebuttal.......as one person has said today.....the experts on most of the major show trials.....have simply completely missed the jury verdict.......but to not even understand the rebuttal phase in discussion of the state's closing......well I am a Dilbert....so what would I know.

2seaoat wrote:he 6' kid was referred to by the prosecutor during closing arguments as a 17 year old MAN. Big mistake. He also said Zimmerman told a by-stander to call his wife and tell her I just killed someone...incorrect. He said tell her I shot someone.

My son was 17 his junior year in high school.  I never saw my son as a man during his junior hear......he was 6'3".....I thought of him as an immature kid, like I do with most high school juniors.  Nothing in a closing statement is evidence.....any disparity in closing with the evidence will be rebutted.  It is rare for objections to happen in closings as the case law is clear in non interjection during the same.......Omara will rebut with use of the evidence.  

Captn Kaoz wrote:If it was manslaughter, the prosecution should have charged it that way.  Instead the prosecution overcharged the case and then failed to prove it.  When they felt they were not going to win,  they asked the judge to allow the jury to consider manslaughter.  This will probably ensure a conviction and allow the National Guard to standdown.

So much for justice.  

Sir BP wrote:It was reported that one juror refused to look the State Atty in the eye in his first closing argument.

2seaoat wrote:The State's closing argument was very confusing to hear.

You do understand they are not done.....they get a second bite of the apple in rebuttal.   They are simply attacking credibility of the one person who can have the state of mind which could make this killing justifiable.   If the jury denies the credibility of Zimmerman, his killing will be unjustifiable, and the jury instructions will be followed and he will be convicted of manslaughter.  Just pay close attention.  Omara will do a brilliant job arguing that Zimmerman is credible, that the physical injuries show a rational fear for his life, and therefore the killing was justified.    The state will show the compression and fight sequence and focus on the three point field goal............unjustifiable act......manslaughter.

gulfbeachbandit wrote:

Sir BP wrote:It was reported that one juror refused to look the State Atty in the eye in his first closing argument.

I knew he was 'Not guilty" before he even fired a shot.  
Lets dig him up and shoot the druggy, thief, expelled from school, violent attacker again.

Dreamsglore wrote:Again, that's your opinion Seaoat and judging by some of your opinions,even on other subjects, I can't put much weight on them. You have totally bypassed the fact this case is about race. Clearly, a simple observation but you missed it. Now you're spouting legal technicalities about laws and jury instructions and all that baloney. The facts are the jury is going to vote based on their life experiences not the legal technicalities. The appeals court, if it goes that way, will be deciding that law. It's really that simple so all this spouting of this and that is meaningless. History has proven juries vote in that manner regardless of the law. I view this as a self defense case because that's all the evidence proves. The age of the defendant is not a factor to me. To some people it is and they can't get past that which factors greatly into their opinion. The jury may not be able to either and the're going to vote based on those feelings.

Bob wrote:I was waiting in line earlier today at CVS to price a prescription.
Ahead of me was a young black girl with her two year old boy in a stroller.
He was the cutest smiling little thing I have ever seen.  He had no clue that he was black and I was white.
He'll need about five more years to get indoctrinated into race.
God how I wish it didn't have to be like that.