Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
31
The importance isn't as obvious to me.  Did the issue come up at the trial?  If Zimmerman felt that he was in an extremely dangerous situation against a mad dog attacker, he would be justified in shooting in the attacker's direction, whether or not the latter saw the gun.
32
I hope you will explain why she thinks the issue of whether or not Trayvon saw the gun is so important in determining Zimmerman's guilt.

Do you think it isn't important?

As I said, Bloom doesn't distinguish between TM actually seeing the gun, and GZ having a reasonable belief that he saw it. With that caveat, the importance of the issue seems obvious to me.
33
I listened only to the audio selection available on Amazon and found it hard to believe it came from a Yale law graduate (where Hillary, Bill and Alan Dershowitz got their LL.Bs).  I hope you will explain why she thinks the issue of whether or not Trayvon saw the gun is so important in determining Zimmerman's guilt. 
34
Is her main argument really that Zimmerman kept the gun against his backside so he couldn't have gotten it out while on his back so therefore he got it out before so is guilty?

I would say she relies more on the argument that TM couldn't have seen the gun, because of its location and because of the darkness. She ignores completely whether GZ could have reasonably believed TM saw the gun.

I'm working on a post to give my overall impressions of the book. Until I'm done with that, I'm not reading any on-line reviews.
35
Thanks.  I hadn't been aware of the book until now.  I did go on Amazon and was surprised by the number of reviews and comments on reviews, but not by the lopsided 1 star - 5 star division.  (Is her main argument really that Zimmerman kept the gun against his backside so he couldn't have gotten it out while on his back so therefore he got it out before so is guilty?   ::)  Wow!)  For me, the most interesting comment was the speculation that the book was written to influence the supposedly forthcoming trial of GZ versus NBC.  Anybody know if that trial is actually going to take place?
36

Miami Herald, 3/12/14
Quote
George Zimmerman's parents are suing actress Roseanne Barr in Florida, claiming a Twitter post she made listing their address and telephone number forced them to flee their home.

37

Bloom's version of B-29's story implies that the first vote split 4/2 for acquittal.

That should have been  '4/2 for conviction'.
38
Post-Verdict Events and Thoughts / Celebrity Boxing Match Canceled
« Last post by nomatter_nevermind on March 22, 2014, 10:57:40 PM »
It happened over a month ago, but I missed it until now.

Huffington Post, 2/18/14

New Jersey Star-Ledger, 2/9/14

TV Guide, 2/9/14

I'm thinking the desire of many to see GZ get stomped, was outweighed by the 'outrage' against treating him as any kind of celebrity.

39
Suspicion Nation: The Inside Story of the Trayvon Martin Injustice and Why We Continue to Repeat It, by Lisa Bloom, 2014, published by Counterpoint.

I think the most interesting thing about this book is the bombshell mentioned in the thread title. Bloom claims to have interviewed juror B-29, aka 'Maddie'.

Quote
After ten hours of deliberations they took their first vote. Maddie, crushed, voted not guilty, along with another juror who'd initially wanted to convict. Two more continued to hold out for conviction, but Maddie knew it was hopeless. [p. 19]

This is what B-29 said in an ABC interview aired on 7/25/13.

Quote
My first vote was second degree murder. [4:40]

I was the juror that was gonna give them the hung jury. Oh, I was. I fought to the end. [5:20]

Bloom's version of B-29's story implies that the first vote split 4/2 for acquittal. There is an earlier mention of two jurors who 'strongly favored acquittal from the beginning' (p. 18).

Juror B-37 described an even split on the 'initial vote', in her 7/15/13 interview with Anderson Cooper (20:40).

Quote
Cooper: Did you take an initial vote to see where everybody was?

B-37: We did.

Cooper: So where was everybody, how was that first vote?

B-37: We had three not guilties, one second degree murder, and two manslaughters.

I will discuss some other aspects of the book in subsequent posts.
40
Post-Verdict Events and Thoughts / Re: The Case Goes Academic
« Last post by jeanmarc8 on March 01, 2014, 01:42:52 PM »
RJ and NM_NM: nice find and IANAL. 

I think the more interesting discussion would be how police departments/municipal governments could plan to respond to “social change organizations that seek to harness advocacy campaigns to news stories”.

The “success” of such groups, as evident in this case, suggests that future events will try to be run on a  parallel course, and that is visible in current news in Florida.   I don’t think the leadership in Sanford ever got ahead of the news cycle or were able counter the unsubstantiated claims from the unfriendly press. The city leadership’s delay in seeking to obtain more certain information was likely perceived as stalling by the public based on the inputs from the unfriendly press. This gave more credence that the Sanford leadership had something to hide in the process.   I think the only option the Sanford leadership really had was to schedule the grand jury inquiry much earlier, and force those involved to put their evidence (or lack thereof) on the record. That would have included Julison, Crump, W8/RJ as well as the remainder of TM’s family. As I understand the Grand Jury process, they would not have had legal representation while providing testimony, which may have been interesting as well, because it would have limited Crump’s role as the spokesman.

I think the grand jury might have answered some of the more puzzling parts of this case, such as the following (though I believe the grand jury proceedings are sealed so we would not be aware of the answers):
1.   Resolution of the widely claimed but doubtful interaction (? meeting/ ?telephone conference)  on the night of the event between the senior police leadership and GZ family.
2.  A more precise timeline for W8/RJ from being identified up to the full accounting for the initial interview, including a complete and audible copy of that first interview by Crump/Julison.
3.  A better understanding of the “what, when, where, how and why” of TM’s trip to Sanford, and his activities for the several days before the incident.
4.  More information on TM’s school history was than revealed in the trial.
 
A Florida grand jury in March 2012 should have been able to sort out the facts of the case, as compared to the claims that were presented repeatedly in the press without much critical assessment. The grand jury would have been able to assess the credibility of W8/RJ and SF, the two prosecution witnesses with the closest ties to TM. They also could have assessed the credibility of the various witnesses from the townhouses on the night of the event. At least I would hope they could sort those out, because 6 Florida jurists in July 2013 were able to do that, with some help from the defense team.

The grand jury option would have put the prosecution in an interesting position. The prosecutor allegedly has the ability to “indict a ham sandwich” through the grand jury process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States retrieved 20140227); however in this case, the prosecution (before Corey et al) might well have considered a “no bill” to be reasonable since it supported their assessment of the case. The grand jury option may have offered a much earlier endpoint for the case without much downside given the eventual outcome and the multidimensional costs of the case. (http://www.nysun.com/editorials/zimmermans-bill-of-rights/87790/ retrieved 20140227)

Again, IANAL.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
Site Meter
click
tracking