TalkLeft Discussion Forums

George Zimmerman Trial Coverage => Closing Arguments => Topic started by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:09:31 AM

Title: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:09:31 AM
Guy started about 12:05 PM

Talking about 'human heart' and a dark, rainy night. The thinks he's a poet.

TM a 'child' again.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cashmere on July 12, 2013, 10:13:37 AM
OMG.... so sinister...  so evil.....  "all of the lies he told"  "all of them"  ...............if theatrics do it for the jury.......then Guy is doing ot for them.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:14:17 AM
I don't think Guy has made a single point he didn't make in the opening statement. He hasn't begun to touch O'Mara's arguments. You might think he doesn't know there is such a person.

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 10:16:30 AM
Not yelling. Doing some weird guttural growl and whisper thing.

Oops. Now he's yelling. Never mind.

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cashmere on July 12, 2013, 10:16:40 AM
All the lies, All the lies...

After months of people getting away...  that's why that guy got out of the car.

If he really wanted to help the police, he would have driven to the back gate... what he always told the police they did.  But he didn't do that.

Trayvon Martin may not have the blood of Zimmerman on his hands, but Zimmerman will forever have Martin's blood on his hands..

More lies, more lies, so many lies...

Can't keep up with it all ..
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:17:17 AM
Guy repeated a variation of Bernie's claim that GZ said the suspicious people always escaped through the back. He argued GZ would have gone in his car to meet the police at the back gate if he didn't have bad intentions, or something like that. I forget the exact words.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:18:12 AM
And Zimmerman's heart is reflected in "fscking punks."

As O'Mara predicted, Guy is just calling Zimmerman a liar based on the inconsistencies.  Why isn't Guy providing a clear trail of evidence for his theory of the case? Rhetorical question.

Emotional ploys.

Interesting to me, this sort of play out was predicted and discussed in detail, before Zimmerman was even charged.  Meaning that the evidence doesn't support a charge.  It takes bogus legal arguments or conjecture to find guilt.

The dead deserve the truth, says Guy.

Guy is going to tell us what happened after Zimmerman hung up with NEN.  "What was Zimmerman doing for those two minutes?"  That's his answer? A question?

Use your common sense, use your heart.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:19:23 AM
Guy said four minutes wasn't the time TM had to run home, it was the time he had to live. The arithmetic is off, and the point is a red herring.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Lousy1 on July 12, 2013, 10:21:02 AM


Use your common sense, use your heart.

Check in your intelligence, brains and deductive ability outside the door
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:24:42 AM
Martin has every right to be afraid.  Every child's worst nightmare, being followed by a stranger, etc.  Yeah, sure, "he's starting at me, he's got his hands in his waistband, sh!t, now he's running."  Full of fear, sure.

If Martin had been mounted on Zimmerman, as Zimmerman claims, Zimmerman could not have gotten the gun.  Try it in the jury room. (that'll backfire, Martin's legs aren't necessarily tight against the sides of Zimmerman's body).  Guys says he isn't going to show the jury on the mannequin (doll).

Why would Zimmerman go through, past the T, if he lost sight of Martin.  There is no reason.  (well, use some conjecture, connect those dots, maybe Zimmerman is looking down a street that has some street lights for a glimpse of a fleeing Martin).

If was yelling help, why wasn't he hoarse afterwards?

This isn't self defense, this is self denial.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:29:45 AM
PowerPoint presentation of Zimmerman lies.

Guy insinuates that Zimmerman's head didn't hit concrete.

Didn't Martin have a right to defend himself too? just dropped there in the middle of a rant about Zimmerman 's injuries.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:32:55 AM
Guy said TM 'fighting for his life', at the same moment he was supposed to be trying to get away when Guy was on the doll.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:33:32 AM
Do you think if Martin had seen the gun, the shot would hit Martin in the middle of his chest?

Guy challenges the jury to compare the NEN and walkthrough because they can't be reconciled.

This case is not about stand your ground, it is stay in your car.  ROTFL.  Yes, he said that.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 10:35:58 AM
On the whole...Bernie was better.

This guy's watched way too many hours of bad lawyer shows.

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Meni on July 12, 2013, 10:36:34 AM

George could have ONLY reached for the gun if Trayvon had gotten up?

Now they're suggesting he retreated from delivering the beat down on Zimmerman?

I thought he'd try to go there.

It's so hard listening and watching Guy
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: ding7777 on July 12, 2013, 10:37:16 AM
Has anybody yawned yet?
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 10:37:40 AM
Who is responsible for Trayvon Martin laying on the ground...

Dunno Guy, you're supposed to prove it to us.

Now he's getting weepy about how he wishes he could put his hand on TM's shoulder. Then instantly he's mad and hitting the podium because "Trayvon will never be a piece of cardboard!"

Sheesh. But that little black asexual dummy is...what?
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:38:13 AM
Said in an angry tone, "Trayvon Martin will never be a piece of cardboard."

There are no Rachael Jaentels on CSI.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 10:38:33 AM
Now he's invoking Law and Order.

How about going over your own evidence? Would that work for anyone?

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:39:00 AM
Guy challenges the jury to compare the NEN and walkthrough because they can't be reconciled.

I think he is right about that.

Earlier Guy said that GZ's account of what TM said got worse with retelling. I checked my notes, and I think the opposite is true. GZ often dropped the obscenity from the later versions.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:41:28 AM
Has anybody yawned yet?

The audience looks awake.  I'm listening pretty close, but a good chunk of the remarks are just odd.

Who made this trial?  Who chose the lighting, weather conditions, time, etc.  Zimmerman did.  He chose everything, and that is why we are here.  The evidence is enough, I am not asking you to fill in the gaps.  Do what you do every day.  Start at the beginning, get to the end, apply your common sense.

Your verdict won't bring Martin back to life, but will forever define you.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:41:59 AM
Guy told the jury that their verdict wouldn't bring TM back to life, as earnestly as if he really thought they didn't know it. Pitiful, in my opinion.

We're still waiting for the sly trick Jeralyn suspected.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 10:44:13 AM
Would be nice if Guy made an effort to be coherent.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:44:44 AM
Guy suggested that if GZ could get to his gun, that meant TM couldn't have been 'on top' of him.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:47:06 AM
Guy has brought up the speculation that TM was afraid to lead GZ to Chad, repeating that Chad was 12.

If TM was worried about Chad he could have called him and told him to lock the doors, and then called the police. But he kept talking to Jeantel, which earlier Guy said was proof he wasn't going after GZ.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:47:49 AM
Guy brought up Hannity and 'God's plan'.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 10:49:35 AM
Objection.

Guy misstating burden of proof and so forth.

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:51:40 AM
Guy insisted he wasn't wrong to say that GZ pushed the gun into TM's chest, again citing the contact damage to the clothing. (This was before the sidebar for the objection AB mentioned. I had a glitch getting this posted.)

ETA: Both the WFTV talking heads thought the sidebar was because Guy had gone over time.





Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:54:17 AM
Why didn't Martin go home?  Use your common sense.  Did he want to lead defendant to the residence with 12 year old Chad (I'm pretty sure he said 12 year old).

I think Guy is just going through a punch list of items that he thought were best in defense closing.  It's a bit repetitive, he's covering the "Zimmerman can't get the gun while pinned" argument again.  I don't have the impression that Guy has some sneaky twist.

Guy covering the supposed failure to prove "didn't push gun into chest" by saying contact wound with shirt is the same thing as pushing gun into chest.

Guy predicts that jury will get instructions after lunch.  Guy talks about burden of proof in a certain way (I don't remember the details) and O'Mara objected.  Sidebar.  Hopefully the last one of the trial.  O'Mara won.  Court will instruct the jury on the law.

One last thing (yeah, sure).  Brought up by the defense.  Race.  This case is not about race, it is about right, and wrong.  It is that simple.  Ask yourselves, all things being equal, and 28 y/o Zimmerman was wearing a hoodie, and a 17 y/o called the police, and the 17 y/o had hate, and if Trayvon Martin who had shot and killed Zimmerman, what would your verdict be.  Wow - that was the secret clincher!  Pull out the race card.  Quelle Surprise!

To the living we owe respect, but to the dead, we owe the truth.  What do we owe Trayvon Martin?  16 years and 21 days forever.  he was a son, a friend, a brother.  The last thing he tried to do was get home.  The self serving statements and lies, and hate in his heart, words that they can't now take back.  The physical evidence refutes his lies, and the law that the judge is about to read, that applies to all of us, this is the truth.

Judge gives choice of instructions before or after lunch.  Jury picks after.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 10:54:30 AM
Jury going to lunch. She'll read the jury instructions when they get back.

Court in recess until 2PM.

and that...would appear to be that. At least of that.

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:56:16 AM
12:53 PM.

Guy stood down.

Nelson asked jurors if they wanted instructions before or after lunch. After.

Nelson read admonitions.

12:54 PM.

Jury dismissed for lunch.

Sidebar.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 10:56:28 AM
ETA: Both the WFTV talking heads thought the sidebar was because Guy had gone over time.

They were wrong.  It was because Guy was making a point of law in a way that O'Mara took as misleading, and O'Mara objected.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 10:57:01 AM
Lawyers are still in sidebar.

Talking heads on WESH giving Guy a tongue bath. Doesn't seem like we were watching the same event.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 10:59:11 AM
12:58 PM.

Recess until 2:00 PM.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 12, 2013, 11:01:21 AM
Thanks again for the recaps, all.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 11:01:32 AM
Talking heads on WESH giving Guy a tongue bath. Doesn't seem like we were watching the same event.

That's been the case since March last year.  Nothing the press has reported on this case is accurate, and the opinions are driven by agenda.  And the jury disrespects the press, if we believe what we heard during voir dire.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 12, 2013, 11:02:36 AM
Your verdict won't bring Martin back to life, but will forever define you.

And here's hoping that definition won't read:

"See Denny, Reginald"
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 11:04:16 AM
That's been the case since March last year.  Nothing the press has reported on this case is accurate, and the opinions are driven by agenda.  And the jury disrespects the press, if we believe what we heard during voir dire.

Except for a handful of LCD types...who doesn't disrespect the press?

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 11:19:54 AM
Nothing the press has reported on this case is accurate, and the opinions are driven by agenda.

Since the case has been in trial, it seems to me the majority of TV legal experts have been saying the defense is winning. Mostly they have also been saying that both sides are doing a good job, which is not my opinion. I think the state has been playing a weak hand badly. But IANAL, just someone who would like to serve on a jury but probably never will.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 11:23:22 AM
Since the case has been in trial, it seems to me the majority of TV legal experts have been saying the defense is winning. Mostly they have also been saying that both sides are doing a good job, which is not my opinion. I think the state has been playing a weak hand badly. But IANAL, just someone who would like to serve on a jury but probably never will.

Yeah...I'm pretty sure that would be a disqualification right there!  ;D ;D

Maybe if Ricky gets his way and we have professional juries?
 ;)
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 11:41:41 AM
Looking back over Twitter.

Christina Vasquez says Shellie Z. 'blinks back tears' when Guy was saying TM had every right to defend himself.

Rene Stutzman: 'Jurors seem completely captivated by John Guy.'

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: cboldt on July 12, 2013, 11:43:29 AM
Rene Stutzman: 'Jurors seem completely captivated by John Guy.'

I would wager that she is projecting.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 11:52:09 AM
I would wager that she is projecting.

Maybe. Some of her other tweets suggest she's not impressed with the rebuttal.

'Lot's of drama and indignation from John Guy but no evidence.'
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 11:57:26 AM
Before lunch one of the WFTV talking heads, the anchor/interviewer guy, said one of the jurors teared up at some point in the rebuttal. I don't recall if he named a source.

Schaeffer said that's never a good sign, but I doubt it means anything. Many people can empathize with parents losing a child, and Guy was pulling out all the emotional stops. IIRC all but one of the jurors is a mother.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 12, 2013, 11:58:17 AM
Rene Stutzman: 'Jurors seem completely captivated by John Guy.'
And lots of motorists seem completely captivated by bad car wrecks.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Evil Chinchilla on July 12, 2013, 12:07:45 PM
Before lunch one of the WFTV talking heads, the anchor/interviewer guy, said one of the jurors teared up at some point in the rebuttal. I don't recall if he named a source.

Schaeffer said that's never a good sign, but I doubt it means anything. Many people can empathize with parents losing a child, and Guy was pulling out all the emotional stops. IIRC all but one of the jurors is a mother.
Hopefully the other five jurors will remind her of their legal obligation, as set out in the jury instructions, that they are not to let sympathy influence their decisions.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 12:47:55 PM
Before lunch one of the WFTV talking heads, the anchor/interviewer guy, said one of the jurors teared up at some point in the rebuttal. I don't recall if he named a source.

Schaeffer said that's never a good sign, but I doubt it means anything. Many people can empathize with parents losing a child, and Guy was pulling out all the emotional stops. IIRC all but one of the jurors is a mother.

You'd think someone else would've mentioned that by now wouldn't you?
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 02:19:07 PM
Didn't get back to just a bit ago.  So Guy didn't have anything to say about the button?  I see he tried the Tray didn't go home because of bad pedophile might go after Chad.  Like I said, O'Mara should have said 4 minutes in pitch darkness. 
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 12, 2013, 02:22:27 PM
Didn't get back to just a bit ago.  So Guy didn't have anything to say about the button?  I see he tried the Tray didn't go home because of bad pedophile might go after Chad.  Like I said, O'Mara should have said 4 minutes in pitch darkness.

The only time the button has been mentioned was how it maybe pulled the shirts out but that was Bernie.

O'Mara already said it was dark. About a hundred and forty seven times. One of the times he was saying it was back when you were accusing him of talking down to the jury.

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: RickyJim on July 12, 2013, 02:31:37 PM
Did Guy explain how Z could have seen M in the dark?  Really the darkness kills the state case and should have been repeated 500 times.  The defense should have called Austin to give his "the moon hadn't come up and only one porch light was on monolog.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Meni on July 12, 2013, 02:39:02 PM
Did Guy explain how Z could have seen M in the dark?  Really the darkness kills the state case and should have been repeated 500 times.  The defense should have called Austin to give his "the moon hadn't come up and only one porch light was on monolog.

I thought MOM referring to Lauers exterior light not being on, how dark it really was(he gave a range as to how far you could see IIRC) , and then holding up the tiny flashlight keychain (while mentioning the darkness then) in evidence sufficiently made the point to the jury. It did not appear lost or glossed over circumstance.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 07:33:54 PM
I thought MOM referring to Lauers exterior light not being on

If you are talking about the part I am thinking of, O'Mara didn't say it wasn't on. He said the state hadn't proved it was on, and it was their burden.

I don't think he was talking about a light in the back. From the beginning of the case, and I mean the case, not just the trial, I don't recall that there has ever been an issue about the lighting of that unit in the back. I think O'Mara was talking about this light, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/9206967511/) and whether GZ could see the house number on 1211 Twin Trees Ln.

I think that's a moot point, except as another illustration of GZ fantasizing or confabulating. By his own account, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2560.msg115563.html#msg115563) GZ had reached Retreat View Circle by the time the dispatcher asked him where he wanted to meet the police. On the NEN call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw#t=02m52s), it was after that when the dispatcher asked him for the address where his truck was parked (2:52).
 
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Meni on July 12, 2013, 07:38:34 PM
If you are talking about the part I am thinking of, O'Mara didn't say it wasn't on. He said the state hadn't proved it was on, and it was their burden.

I don't think he was talking about a light in the back. From the beginning of the case, and I mean the case, not just the trial, I don't recall that there has ever been an issue about the lighting of that unit in the back. I think O'Mara was talking about this light, (http://www.flickr.com/photos/81587998@N06/9206967511/) and whether GZ could see the house number on 1211 Twin Trees Ln.

I think that's a moot point, except as another illustration of GZ fantasizing or confabulating. By his own
account, (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2560.msg115563.html#msg115563) GZ had reached Retreat View Circle by the time the dispatcher asked him where he wanted to meet the police. On the NEN call (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9A-gp8mrdw#t=02m52s), it was after that when the dispatcher asked him for the address where his truck was parked (2:52).
 

You are right-
On all accounts!
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 12, 2013, 07:45:50 PM
Did Guy explain how Z could have seen M in the dark?  Really the darkness kills the state case and should have been repeated 500 times.  The defense should have called Austin to give his "the moon hadn't come up and only one porch light was on monolog.

I think Surdyka's 911 call gives us a benchmark for how far a person could see another person. I don't see how how that is trumped by vague statements that it was 'very dark', which is something Surdyka herself also said.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: MJW on July 12, 2013, 09:05:15 PM
Guy's approach of constantly referring to TM as a child makes the denial of the phone evidence even more harmful to the defense.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: Meni on July 12, 2013, 09:22:53 PM
Guy's approach of constantly referring to TM as a child makes the denial of the phone evidence even more harmful to the defense.

Bernie could not remember to refer to Martin as a child.
He referred to him several times as man-
Using both man and child in the same sentence.

I'm sure that didn't go unnoticed.
Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: annoyedbeyond on July 13, 2013, 06:38:13 AM
I think Surdyka's 911 call gives us a benchmark for how far a person could see another person. I don't see how how that is trumped by vague statements that it was 'very dark', which is something Surdyka herself also said.

Yes, because we should completely believe the witness who's been so discredited (remember her claim--which had no place in court--that she was an Olympian?--or even the "pop pop pop"?

You butcher George for minor inconsistencies that are easily understood and not even seen as an issue by experienced police investigators, yet you want to rely on this woman as some sort of touchstone?

Seems odd to me.

Title: Re: State's Closing Rebuttal
Post by: nomatter_nevermind on July 13, 2013, 08:04:11 AM
Yes, because we should completely believe the witness who's been so discredited

Response (http://forums.talkleft.com/index.php/topic,2517.msg116684.html#msg116684) on Surdyka thread.