Zimmerman Trial Part 4 (percent, african, attorneys, how much)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Dale Cooper

Oh thank god!

George is not not not going to testify.

Thank you, jesus!

Good for the defense,b/c GZ is a bold faced liar.

[Dale Cooper]

Originally Posted by Cruzincat

All Pollack has to do is say his web site was getting inundated with requests, so he put that in their to deflect the traffic for now.

Exactly. He wasn't advertising George's routine. He was simply saying "for information........blah blah, and we'll get back to you after the trial."

[MJJersey]

Now that the trial is over, what was the State's theory on malice and what evidence did they present to prove it?

[Donna-501]

O'Mara may object to a manslaughter being added. Isn't that a surprise.

[Dale Cooper]

Originally Posted by Donna-501

I guess since he lied she thinks it is OK because you get info "after the trial".

Who lied?

He was excused.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by MJJersey

Now that the trial is over, what was the State's theory on malice and what evidence did they present to prove it?

Their theory is he said "a_holes". Evidence? None. Even their own witnesses said they didn't hear malace in Zs recorded words on the NEN tape.

[Tilt11]

Originally Posted by Donna-501

O'Mara may object to a manslaughter being added. Isn't that a surprise.

Why the hell wouldnt he? I would too. Hes representing his client. Dont get all bent out of shape because you know the State didnt prove murder.

[Bulldogdad]

What no more jokes about the Zimmer training program?

[FancyFeast5000]

Originally Posted by Tilt11

We'll see. I dont see the judge holding them to that. And really, where are they going to go? What can they possibly tell the jury that is proves Zimmerman murdered, when its clear there is evidence he was defending himself?

It's against the rules of evidence/procedure to argue about the evidence/testimony presented. It won't be the Judge "keeping them honest" so to speak. The attorneys will OBJECT to anything the other attorney says in closing argument which is not based on evidence presented from the witness stand or physical exhibits, and then the Judge will rule on those objections.

[JanND]

Originally Posted by MJJersey

Zimmerman's DNA wouldn't mean anything because it was his gun. Even if Martin's DNA was on the gun or the holster, they were fighting in close combat and then Martin got shot in the heart. His blood and DNA could have easily gotten spewed all over the gun, it wouldn't mean they were fighting for it.

There are very relevant issues related to the DNA for both sides. One would have to watch the testimony, rather than make an 11th hour observation on something that was covered multiple times.
In short...The presence of Trayvon Martin's DNA would either prove or disprove the Defendent's story in part. There was none....End of story.