Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ?

VectorMan

VectorMan

Posts : 1593
Join date : 2012-06-13
Location : The Open Country Near Sherman, TX

Sal wrote:It's a pretty simple concept.

If you kill someone and want to claim self-defense, you should have to explain why it was self-defense.

The prosecution should not to have to explain why it wasn't self-defense.

That's absurd, and the definition of an unfair burden ...

... but, that's the law in FLA and 16 other states thanks to the NRA and ALEC.

They want America to be the wild, wild, west where 50% of the population are cowboys and the other 50% are packing in the hopes of not becoming a victim of one of the cowboys.

I believe Zimmerman explained why it was self-defense, more than one time, to the police. It was recorded and the jury got to hear it, as well as see the re-enactment video. Is that not good enough for you?

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Posts : 22918
Join date : 2012-06-13
Location : Armpit of Florida

2seaoat wrote:stand your ground is a double edged sword had Martin lived and simply said I feared great bodily harm

Very true. And a very valid point.

It's like I told, Sal. Both, the laws themselves, and making changes in the laws, does not always just have an effect only on the people we like. Or always have an effect only on the people we don't like.
Or only have an effect on white defendants. Or only have an effect on black defendants.
That's why you don't wanna do a willy nilly kneejerk reaction and change presumption of innocence, or burden of proof, or what is self-defense, based on the circumstances of only one example.

2seaoat

2seaoat

Posts : 36130
Join date : 2012-08-30

I do not know anybody who does not want simplification of the affirmative defense instruction in Florida. I will make this statement. I doubt if anybody can find a case in florida where a defendant who claims self defense in a killing has been found guilty where they assert the affirmative defense.

I do not think a person can be convicted of a killing since 2005 where a defendant asserts the self defense as currently written in the complex jury instructions where they have failed to separate the affirmative defense instruction.

If somebody can show me a conviction where a defendant asserted self defense, and was found guilty......I will eat crow.

Now across America the self defense affirmative defense is losing and as historically been the case some people who claim self defense are being convicted of the underlying crime.......I contend it has not happened since 2005 in Florida(this is only a hunch......I simply cannot see how a jury could convict with the instructions as written), and if my assertion is true, does anybody else see the problem.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Posts : 13870
Join date : 2012-06-14
Location : Gulf Breeze

Bob wrote:

2seaoat wrote:As a parent who instructed their kids not to speak to strangers, I would now instruct my kids if they are approached by a stranger to run like hell. I do not think Black parents can give that instruction. A black kid running faces the chance of getting shot just because they are running......the assumption of wrong doing and then the interfacing with law enforcement......and certainly they should not run while running on a bike......that is an automatic death sentence. If I was a black parent in Florida with a young kid, I would sit them down and explain that you cannot run, you cannot stand your ground and protect yourself, you cannot cry out for help because nobody will leave their home..........son curl up in a ball and pray to god because he will be the only one who can help you.

That may or may not be all true.
But it is completely ignoring why the Zimmermans are out there to start with.
It is a fact, not bigotry, that young black people have a much higher propensity to commit crimes of assault and property crimes.
No, Martin was not committing a crime. But a lot of Martins are committing crimes.

If you and Sal think this whole thing can be solved just by being against what Zimmerman was doing (and I'm agin that too), then you're just dreaming. Because even if you do take all the Zimmermans off the streets, you still have the crime.

The elephant in the room. Was Travon a victim of the environment created by the black males responsible for previous burglaries and home invasions?

Zimmerman called police 46 times from 2004 until 2012 but the police had 402 calls from residents from 2011 through 2012.

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Posts : 15430
Join date : 2010-07-10
Age : 74

2seaoat wrote:I do not know anybody who does not want simplification of the affirmative defense instruction in Florida. I will make this statement. I doubt if anybody can find a case in florida where a defendant who claims self defense in a killing has been found guilty where they assert the affirmative defense.

I do not think a person can be convicted of a killing since 2005 where a defendant asserts the self defense as currently written in the complex jury instructions where they have failed to separate the affirmative defense instruction.

If somebody can show me a conviction where a defendant asserted self defense, and was found guilty......I will eat crow.

Now across America the self defense affirmative defense is losing and as historically been the case some people who claim self defense are being convicted of the underlying crime.......I contend it has not happened since 2005 in Florida(this is only a hunch......I simply cannot see how a jury could convict with the instructions as written), and if my assertion is true, does anybody else see the problem.

Yes, Seaoat...a subtle shift in the burden of proof.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Posts : 22918
Join date : 2012-06-13
Location : Armpit of Florida

2seaoat wrote:Or if no shot were fired... who would've been charged?

Martin had scuffed knuckles and no other injuries... Z had a bloody nose and abrasions to the back of his head.

So you think a jury would find Martin Guilty of a crime if Martin had lived?

That's an entirely different situation from the one where Martin dies
Either one might be facing an assault charge based on which one was was determined to be the aggressor.
No different than many other cases which derive from a physical confrontation.

In the absence of eyewitnesses, and since both had injuries (albeit minor), it would probably come down to which one's story of how it went down is perceived to be more credible by the cops and the State Attorney's office. The other one would get charged.
Another scenario would be that one's story is no more believable than the other's. And in that case it would probably result in neither being charged.

So how that plays out would depend on the circumstances. And any scenario which includes Martin surviving, would automatically be different from what actually did happen. Simply because any of these would have Martin's own story (testimony) included.
So for that reason, trying to compare what would happen if Martin survives to what actually happened, is comparing apples and oranges.

Last edited by Bob on 7/15/2013, 2:28 pm; edited 2 times in total

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Posts : 22918
Join date : 2012-06-13
Location : Armpit of Florida

2seaoat wrote:I do not know anybody who does not want simplification of the affirmative defense instruction in Florida. I will make this statement. I doubt if anybody can find a case in florida where a defendant who claims self defense in a killing has been found guilty where they assert the affirmative defense.

I do not think a person can be convicted of a killing since 2005 where a defendant asserts the self defense as currently written in the complex jury instructions where they have failed to separate the affirmative defense instruction.

If somebody can show me a conviction where a defendant asserted self defense, and was found guilty......I will eat crow.

Now across America the self defense affirmative defense is losing and as historically been the case some people who claim self defense are being convicted of the underlying crime.......I contend it has not happened since 2005 in Florida(this is only a hunch......I simply cannot see how a jury could convict with the instructions as written), and if my assertion is true, does anybody else see the problem.

You seem to be working from a false premise. You seem to be suggesting that in all of these self-defense cases, there is never the eyewitness testimony or other convincing evidence not present in this case, which will remove the level of uncertainty which is very significant to this case.
Not all of these self-defense cases are so mired in mystery. So first of all, you need to apply all this only to the cases where that is the situation.

Now, no I cannot show you cases. But you haven't shown me cases either.
If you want us to believe that every time someone does actually commit a homicide that he always gets off on a bogus self-defense claim, then you're going to have to give me better evidence of that than just making that assertion.

Guest

Guest

It's no use... he's just talking in circles now... impossible to compete with given his demonstrated vertigo.

Nekochan

Nekochan

Posts : 7051
Join date : 2010-08-14

Zimmerman juror to write a book.

http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/george-zimmerman-juror-to-write-book_b74138

Guest

Guest

Bob wrote:But this "reasonable" doubt concept is not cut and dried.
Because how do we determine when doubt is reasonable and when it's not reasonable.
The law doesn't give us a computer program to plug all the info into which will pop out the answer and tell us either reasonable or not reasonable.
And I'm not completely confident that our brains can always do that computation and get the right answer. lol

Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? - Page 4 Th?id=H.4542375703415285&pid=1

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9Yhq1EwO5E

Very Happy

Guest

Guest

Bob wrote:

Sal wrote:

At this point, the burden should be on Zimmerman's defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the shooting was justified.

This should be as simple as Zimmerman taking the stand and explaining himself.

See I think, as smart as you obviously are, you're so prejudiced in favor of Martin and against Zimmerman that you don't even realize what you're now suggesting.

Firstly, the supreme law of the land, the U.S. Constitution, says "no person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself".
There's a reason for that. It's because, without that protection, the door opens to so much potential abuse of people's rights. And it wouldn't impact on just the Zimmermans, it would impact on a helluva lot of Martins as well.
Teo made a very good observation the other day. He said it's not wise to want to completely change a law just in knee-jerk reaction to one incident. And if you think about it I bet you'll agree with that because you're too smart not to.

And then there's your other comment about "the burden should shift to the defense".
See there again, because of one criminal case, you're actually wanting to change "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent".
The presumption of innocence is an even more established principle than the burden of proof, Sal lol

Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? - Page 4 Th?id=H.5030906705020309&pid=1

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BzNNiWyvyE

Smile

Guest

Guest

Sal wrote:

Bob wrote:

And then there's your other comment about "the burden should shift to the defense".
See there again, because of one criminal case, you're actually wanting to change "innocent until proven guilty" to "guilty until proven innocent".
The presumption of innocence is an even more established principle than the burden of proof, Sal lol

You're confusing things, Bob.

There is no presumption of innocence here.

Trayvon Martin is DEAD.

Zimmerman KILLED him.

That much has been established.

If at this point, the defense wants to claim self-defense, the burden should be on them to prove it with a preponderance of evidence, which in a case like this, would include the testimony of the shooter.

It's not like Trayvon could dispute Zimmerman's version.

And, it hasn't always been this way.

ALEC and the NRA pushed through these changes in the law in 2005.

Before then, when claiming self-defense, the burden of proof was on the defense.

Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? - Page 4 Th?id=H.4905051249576384&pid=1

So now we need to have a trial for anyone that claims self-defense?

Does that include all LEO's?

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile

Ghost Rider

Ghost Rider

Posts : 659
Join date : 2013-07-14

when things dont go the way that liberals think they should go, they want the burden of proof changed. this being criminal case, the burden of proof has and always will lie on the shoulders of the prosecution. in this case that did not happen. the defense took the prosecution witnesses apart. even after the judge told to jurors to disregard martins fathers testimony about who was yelling for help, how can they disregard what they have already heard? you cannot un-ring a bell. the prosecution failed miserably in this case.

Guest

Guest

2seaoat wrote:it would make me be goddamn happy to know that this whole fucking place was being put under lockdown

I would prefer to enable the citizens to participate and find the perp. As soon as the lockdown was lifted a citizen did in fact find the perp. It is one thing to be against stupid mind numbing bumbling, and all together another to be against the police. However, I am glad you vote for stupid and think that only the police have magic powers and posses eyes.

Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? - Page 4 Th?id=H.5051002871219329&pid=1

Oh!!!!! This just gets better and better!

Now you do want the Zimmerman's out there patrolling the streets...

How many of them do you suppose are going to be carrying if they're looking for a guy that just bombed someplace and killed tens, if not hundreds or thousands, of people?

Are you going to attempt to crucify them also if they have to shoot the bastard that is suspected of the mass killing because he/she got the jump on one of your Zimmerman's looking for him?

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljy6PTbX9I

Laughing

Ghost Rider

Ghost Rider

Posts : 659
Join date : 2013-07-14

2seaoat wrote:

If somebody can show me a conviction where a defendant asserted self defense, and was found guilty......I will eat crow.

how do you like you crow?

A PHILADELPHIA JUDGE said Wednesday he was convinced that a disabled, retired Marine was being attacked in the moments before he fatally stabbed a man last October, but he concluded that the stabbing was still a criminal act rather than self-defense.

Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner then convicted Jonathan Lowe, 57, of voluntary manslaughter and possession of an instrument of crime. The judge found him not guilty of the more-serious charges of first- and third-degree murder.

http://articles.philly.com/2012-06-01/news/31923578_1_stab-wounds-manslaughter-nonjury-trial

Guest

Guest

Over The Hill wrote:when things dont go the way that liberals think they should go, they want the burden of proof changed. this being criminal case, the burden of proof has and always will lie on the shoulders of the prosecution. in this case that did not happen. the defense took the prosecution witnesses apart. even after the judge told to jurors to disregard martins fathers testimony about who was yelling for help, how can they disregard what they have already heard? you cannot un-ring a bell. the prosecution failed miserably in this case.

Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? - Page 4 Th?id=H.4862548291421806&pid=1

Recording of their voices and a tech with some excellent voice analyzing software would tell us which one was screaming for help.

The backgrounds (police and school records) of both subjects would have to be brought out in the open also if they wish to turn it into that dirty of a fight... All requested as the Burden Of Proof to indicate to the jury who has the disposition to start something.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

Smile

Guest

Guest

Honestly, I do think Zimmerman got a fair trial. I don't agree with the jury's verdict, but I can also see that they may have had some reason for doubt. I think if the judge had had the guts to explain manslaughter to them when they asked, the verdict might have been different. But as for feeling passionate about the trial, I never have. It's one killing in South Florida among hundreds and hundreds of others per year. Lots of people followed it from start to finish and were obsessing over it a year before it was held. I don't get that at all. It was a news media circus that the news media picked to make a circus out of. That's all. Americans, being the sheeples they are, took sides and argued about it just like the mainstream media wanted them to. It detracted from the real garbage that is going on in Washington and overseas. Just like a nice chariot race or gladiators fighting to the death. At least this one didn't involve some little blonde girl. That news media favorite was getting old.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Posts : 17846
Join date : 2010-01-02
Location : God's beautiful CREATION

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Posts : 15430
Join date : 2010-07-10
Age : 74

Joanimaroni wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have noticed some take pride in what Zimmerman did extolling the virtue of protecting his neighborhood from perceived encroachment by shady outside elements.
Others see Zimmerman as a coward that used a gun in a fist fight.
While others see him as a cold-blooded murderer.

The emotions are sure spread out and intense here , Why?

Because the police didn't do their jobs.

Let's play the blame game.......

Did Trayvon's parents do their job?

His mother according to Trayvon "kicked" him out. When you see disturbing signs in a teen you have to act proactively. The kid needed intervention and help....don't just turn them over to the other parent and ignore serious problems. Counselors? Ministers? School Guidance Counselor? Anything....did they do anything?

This was a teen in a downward spiral....exhibited by multiple school suspensions, truancy, marijuana possession, interested in obtaining a gun, fighting, involved in a fight club, defacing school property, possession of questionable jewelry in his locker.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18449794-zimmerman-defense-releases-texts-about-guns-fighting-from-trayvon-martins-phone?lite

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331100/No-angel-George-Zimmermans-attorneys-want-villainize-Trayvon-Martin-photos-smoking-pot-texts-fighting.html

OMG...he was smoking pot? Well, then, string him up...uh, oh, can't do that cuz he's already dead. He was fighting? How could that happen to a teenager? What are you proving with this character assassination of a dead kid except your own stupidity?

Floridatexan

Floridatexan

Posts : 15430
Join date : 2010-07-10
Age : 74

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Over The Hill wrote:when things dont go the way that liberals think they should go, they want the burden of proof changed. this being criminal case, the burden of proof has and always will lie on the shoulders of the prosecution. in this case that did not happen. the defense took the prosecution witnesses apart. even after the judge told to jurors to disregard martins fathers testimony about who was yelling for help, how can they disregard what they have already heard? you cannot un-ring a bell. the prosecution failed miserably in this case.

Recording of their voices and a tech with some excellent voice analyzing software would tell us which one was screaming for help.

The backgrounds (police and school records) of both subjects would have to be brought out in the open also if they wish to turn it into that dirty of a fight... All requested as the Burden Of Proof to indicate to the jury who has the disposition to start something.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

That testimony was available but was excluded. Google it.

Ghost Rider

Ghost Rider

Posts : 659
Join date : 2013-07-14

bluemoon wrote: I think if the judge had had the guts to explain manslaughter to them when they asked, the verdict might have been different.

you do remember that the jury requested more info on manslaughter. the judge asked them for more specifics about exactly what they wanted to know. the jury never responded to her with specifics.

Guest

Guest

They just wanted a simpler definition. The judge couldn't give it because she was afraid the case would be overturned over her instructions. The time I was on a jury we asked a question and the judge wouldn't answer it either. We could have finished up hours earlier if he had. After the verdict he came to us and told us he thought we had interpreted the law right and done the right thing. We'd argued all afternoon and it was nice to hear that.

I think the trial was as fair as it could have been, considering Zimmerman was able to present any scenario he wanted to without being disputed. The only eye witness seemed to favor Z, but anyone can tell you that red is a very difficult color to see after dark, and I think the defense should have pointed that out. It's over and done with, I think the feds should leave it alone.

On edit- I'm a middle aged white person and I've smoked pot. Now I'm worrying that I deserve to die for it too. I only did it one time, truthfully. I did inhale though. I sure am glad nobody stereo-types me.

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Posts : 13870
Join date : 2012-06-14
Location : Gulf Breeze

Floridatexan wrote:

Joanimaroni wrote:

Floridatexan wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:I have noticed some take pride in what Zimmerman did extolling the virtue of protecting his neighborhood from perceived encroachment by shady outside elements.
Others see Zimmerman as a coward that used a gun in a fist fight.
While others see him as a cold-blooded murderer.

The emotions are sure spread out and intense here , Why?

Because the police didn't do their jobs.

Let's play the blame game.......

Did Trayvon's parents do their job?

His mother according to Trayvon "kicked" him out. When you see disturbing signs in a teen you have to act proactively. The kid needed intervention and help....don't just turn them over to the other parent and ignore serious problems. Counselors? Ministers? School Guidance Counselor? Anything....did they do anything?

This was a teen in a downward spiral....exhibited by multiple school suspensions, truancy, marijuana possession, interested in obtaining a gun, fighting, involved in a fight club, defacing school property, possession of questionable jewelry in his locker.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/03/26/2714778/thousands-expected-at-trayvon.html

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05/23/18449794-zimmerman-defense-releases-texts-about-guns-fighting-from-trayvon-martins-phone?lite

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2331100/No-angel-George-Zimmermans-attorneys-want-villainize-Trayvon-Martin-photos-smoking-pot-texts-fighting.html

OMG...he was smoking pot? Well, then, string him up...uh, oh, can't do that cuz he's already dead. He was fighting? How could that happen to a teenager? What are you proving with this character assassination of a dead kid except your own stupidity?

Your stupidity for blaming the police and making up what you thought were probabilities that were inconsistent with evidence and eye witnesses.

Trayvon WAS a troubled kid. A kid that was angry. A kid that had plenty of time to run or even walk fast to his father's girlfriend's house. He didn't do that, did he?

You said you didn't follow the case closely....to be so vocal, perhaps you should have.

Guest

Guest

The eye witness did not describe the color of the jacket. He described the color of skins. Zimmerman was on the bottom getting the shit beat out of him. If that's manslaughter to defend yourself from getting your head bashed in then anybody who's a victim of a violent beating needs to just lay there and take it.

Guest

Guest

Floridatexan wrote:

Damaged Eagle wrote:

Over The Hill wrote:when things dont go the way that liberals think they should go, they want the burden of proof changed. this being criminal case, the burden of proof has and always will lie on the shoulders of the prosecution. in this case that did not happen. the defense took the prosecution witnesses apart. even after the judge told to jurors to disregard martins fathers testimony about who was yelling for help, how can they disregard what they have already heard? you cannot un-ring a bell. the prosecution failed miserably in this case.

Recording of their voices and a tech with some excellent voice analyzing software would tell us which one was screaming for help.

The backgrounds (police and school records) of both subjects would have to be brought out in the open also if they wish to turn it into that dirty of a fight... All requested as the Burden Of Proof to indicate to the jury who has the disposition to start something.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpO_oVtXCa4

That testimony was available but was excluded. Google it.

The evidence that was excluded from the case that I know of was excluded by the prosecuting attorney.

Excluding it puts a doubt in my mind as to why the prosecuting attorney would want to exclude something when he's attempting to prosecute an innocent man who says he was only attempting to defend himself.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQzUCO7rG0M

Smile

Sponsored content

Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ?

76 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 12:35 pm

VectorMan

77 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 12:49 pm

Hospital Bob

78 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 1:24 pm

2seaoat

79 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 1:29 pm

Joanimaroni

80 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 1:30 pm

Floridatexan

81 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 1:37 pm

Hospital Bob

82 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 1:53 pm

Hospital Bob

83 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 2:37 pm

Guest

84 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 3:03 pm

Nekochan

85 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 7:41 pm

Guest

86 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 7:53 pm

Guest

87 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 7:59 pm

Guest

88 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 8:08 pm

Ghost Rider

89 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 8:18 pm

Guest

90 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 8:32 pm

Ghost Rider

91 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 8:35 pm

Guest

92 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 9:05 pm

Guest

93 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 9:10 pm

TEOTWAWKI

94 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 9:16 pm

Floridatexan

95 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 9:18 pm

Floridatexan

96 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 9:29 pm

Ghost Rider

97 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 9:44 pm

Guest

98 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 10:02 pm

Joanimaroni

99 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 10:07 pm

Guest

100 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ? 7/15/2013, 10:11 pm

Guest

101 Re: Why such a wide and passionate set of feelings on this trial? Wasn't this a fair trial ?

Sponsored content