Author Topic: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?  (Read 67821 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DebFrmHell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 954
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #15 on: December 15, 2012, 04:38:15 AM »
That's Austin Brown, or McLendon.

Please let us not confuse the Browns and the Greens.

Austin saw only Zimmerman.

W-3 saw a 'white T-shirt', and no other identifying details. Everyone else describes Martin's hoodie as dark gray.

W-3 also said something about the person in the hoodie also being the one who was handcuffed.

I'm afraid it's down to W-6. Fortunately, he's very credible.

Sorry about the mixup in colors Brown/Green.  Sloppy on my behalf.

That is not exactly true.  W3 does say that the person on top was in white but she distinguishes Zimmerman as being in red when he is with LE.  To me, she is talking about two different people.

I would think there is something to be said about poor lighting, the light refractions and misty weather conditions to make that dark hoodie look so light.  It certainly photographed much lighter.

I agree.  W6 is very credible.

BUT, even w/o a witness Zimmerman still has the injuries, witness reports of the altercation moving from north to south, and the prosecution has admitted that Martin hit Zimmerman at some stage while also saying they have no idea who started the physical fight.

I don't see anything big that contradicts the narrative.  I am not including W8 simply because I think she can be easily impeached.  So the "chase" boils down to a witness who couldn't describe any distinguishing feature that would place one person in front of the other.

MJW!   Thank you for providing the link.

IMO.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #16 on: December 15, 2012, 06:36:06 AM »
The one log entry that put the button and the phone in Martin's pockets is contradicted by all other pertinent evidence.

Oops. I meant the button and the earphones, of course.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #17 on: December 15, 2012, 09:47:50 AM »
Here is an attempt to make a case that the DNA evidence implies Zimmerman's guilt.  Assuming they get the test results Capehart mentions in during their case, can somebody here fashion an argument that can be used by the prosecution during closing summation that helps them prove it wasn't self defense?  Thanks.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #18 on: December 15, 2012, 10:16:24 AM »
Here is an attempt to make a case that the DNA evidence implies Zimmerman's guilt.  Assuming they get the test results Capehart mentions in during their case, can somebody here fashion an argument that can be used by the prosecution during closing summation that helps them prove it wasn't self defense?  Thanks.

Why would Capehart (follow his politics to see why he's writing the way he's writing) or anyone else expect  DNA on GZ? GZ was the one doing all the bleeding. I don't see how the prosecution could use that at all, but BDLR has surprised me with his attempts to pull of some stupid stuff so far....

I also don't believe they could suddenly pull out DNA in the summation. I could be wrong of course...but I doubt it (I doubt both statements).

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #19 on: December 15, 2012, 10:33:29 AM »
I also don't believe they could suddenly pull out DNA in the summation. I could be wrong of course...but I doubt it (I doubt both statements).

My post assumed that the technician, who did the tests, would testify what the results were during the prosecution case.  Now tell me why the prosecution couldn't give their interpretation of them during their closing summary.  Thanks.

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #20 on: December 15, 2012, 11:37:11 AM »
My post assumed that the technician, who did the tests, would testify what the results were during the prosecution case.  Now tell me why the prosecution couldn't give their interpretation of them during their closing summary.  Thanks.

If they came in during the trial and if they say what Capeheart prays for every night, and if the DNA tech testifies--why does the prosecution need to give an interpretation during their close? The only thing they'd need to do at that point is remind the jury.

If the DNA tech testifies to something other than what Capeheart's wet dream is, and the matter is hashed out on direct and cross and maybe even re-direct, then the prosecution couldn't very well attempt to spin the results in any other way.

So I guess I have no idea what you're driving at. And I'm not sure you do either.



Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #21 on: December 15, 2012, 11:38:17 AM »
My post assumed that the technician, who did the tests, would testify what the results were during the prosecution case.  Now tell me why the prosecution couldn't give their interpretation of them during their closing summary.  Thanks.

PS: Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!
 ;) ;D

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #22 on: December 15, 2012, 11:40:49 AM »
Capehart's theory is what, exactly? That someone other than Martin inflicted the multiple injuries? That's all the DNA evidence he cites supposedly shows.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #23 on: December 15, 2012, 11:56:24 AM »
If they came in during the trial and if they say what Capeheart prays for every night, and if the DNA tech testifies--why does the prosecution need to give an interpretation during their close? The only thing they'd need to do at that point is remind the jury.

If the DNA tech testifies to something other than what Capeheart's wet dream is, and the matter is hashed out on direct and cross and maybe even re-direct, then the prosecution couldn't very well attempt to spin the results in any other way.

So I guess I have no idea what you're driving at. And I'm not sure you do either.

There are facts which you hear during the testimony stage of a trial and there are deductions from the facts which are heard during the concluding summaries from the advocates.  The prosecution would try to argue that from the facts (a technician did some tests and reported these were the results), one can conclude that they make it more likely that Zimmerman didn't kill in self defense than it would be if those facts weren't there.  I was asking what that prosecution argument might be.  Of course that would be only part of what they might present to establish proof that it wasn't self defense.


Maybe Jeralyn can step in and help explain to you what evidence is all about.   >:(

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #24 on: December 15, 2012, 01:22:08 PM »
Here is an attempt to make a case that the DNA evidence implies Zimmerman's guilt.

Capehart 'is a member of the Post editorial board and writes about politics and social issues for the PostPartisan blog.' That's a long way from being a forensics expert. I don't understand why Capehart gets so much attention.

In the column, Capehart only mentions one source he consulted on interpreting the evidence. That source is a former prosecutor, so also not a forensic specialist. Could Capehart not find one person who actually works in the field to say what he wanted? How much shopping did it take to find the source he did use?

The column doesn't mention the effect of the rain. The rain would wash away particulate evidence and, as Redbrow has pointed out, dampness promotes the multiplication of DNA-devouring bacteria. If Capehart asked his consulant how a rainy environment wold affect his analysis, he must not have liked the answers.

Near the beginning, this:
Quote
Despite claims that Trayvon grabbed Zimmermanís gun, Trayvonís DNA was not found on the weapon or its holster.

Whose claims?

The link reveals that the 'claims' are those of Mark Osterman, not Zimmerman or his defense team. The subtitle of the book review is:

Quote
A new book written by George Zimmermanís best friend offers a sharply different account of the night Trayvon Martin died.

It's fifth sentence is:

Quote
Zimmerman never said that to the police.

This bit of disingenousness, and Capehart's incuriosity about the forensic impact of rain, together destroy Capehart's credibility in my opinion.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #25 on: December 15, 2012, 01:55:07 PM »
The odd thing about Osterman's version of events as told in the book is that it doesn't match what he told FDLE investigator David Lee in the April 26 interview shown on page 78 of the 284 page PDF. According to that interview, Zimmerman told Osterman that Martin reached for the gun, but Zimmerman slapped his hand away, and pulled the gun. There's nothing to suggest Martin ever had procession of the gun or even touched it.
« Last Edit: December 15, 2012, 01:58:11 PM by MJW »

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #26 on: December 15, 2012, 03:46:51 PM »

In the interview with T.C. O'Steen, page 31 of the 284 page discovery PDF:
Quote
"She saw Zimmerman far down from her. He had a reddish colored coat on and was handcuffed."

A different time, maybe different lighting.

W-6 at one point said he wasn't sure if Zimmerman's garment was red or white. (3:24-44)

Offline annoyedbeyond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1407
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #27 on: December 15, 2012, 03:53:05 PM »
There are facts which you hear during the testimony stage of a trial and there are deductions from the facts which are heard during the concluding summaries from the advocates.  The prosecution would try to argue that from the facts (a technician did some tests and reported these were the results), one can conclude that they make it more likely that Zimmerman didn't kill in self defense than it would be if those facts weren't there.  I was asking what that prosecution argument might be.  Of course that would be only part of what they might present to establish proof that it wasn't self defense.


Maybe Jeralyn can step in and help explain to you what evidence is all about.   >:(

I have a fairly decent grasp of what it is, thanks though.
Once again, you've gotten so hung up in the minutiae you fail to actually grasp the big picture. Summations are exactly that. Why do you believe a prosecutor would use their summation to go back and put a shine on evidence already chewed over, beyond just ...you know...summarizing it along with the rest of the case?

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #28 on: December 15, 2012, 05:53:36 PM »
A different time, maybe different lighting.

The point is, because in the same interview in which she said the person in the white T-shirt was on top, she also said Zimmerman was in red, she could not have believed Zimmerman was the person on top. She also said the person in the white T-shirt was the one she saw laying face down in the grass. Though the interview summary does not explicitly indicate the person on top was the person who was later shot, there's no other reasonable conclusion, and I have little doubt she would testify to that in court.

Offline RickyJim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1580
  • Rate Post +0/-0
Re: How Would the Prosecution Present Their Case?
« Reply #29 on: December 15, 2012, 06:25:29 PM »
I have a fairly decent grasp of what it is, thanks though.
Once again, you've gotten so hung up in the minutiae you fail to actually grasp the big picture. Summations are exactly that. Why do you believe a prosecutor would use their summation to go back and put a shine on evidence already chewed over, beyond just ...you know...summarizing it along with the rest of the case?

The summation is where they try to make a theory that explains a jumble of facts that may have been presented over a period of months to a judge or jury.  I think summation is the only place they could point out that what Zimmerman said on the NEN call contradicts some later statement.  I don't think they could present a spreadsheet in their case in chief where they show all the ways Zimmerman gave different versions of the same event.  Only in summation can they say, these contradictions, and this DNA and this ballistics evidence show Zimmerman probably didn't fire in self defense or it is beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't self defense.  One of the ideas I had in mind in starting this thread was to find out how they might make this final deduction.  I never see it in the anti-Zimmerman screeds, like Capehart's.  They just assume that it is obvious that the evidence they cite proves Zimmerman's guilt.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking