 sj |
||
|
||
BS: George Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld'
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 02 Jun 13 - 02:15 PM AMEN to that YY! Don T. P.S. I too hope this scumbag gets his comeupance, but honestly, not by prosecutors making decisions which are not theirs to make. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 02 Jun 13 - 03:17 PM A bullet from the back of a bush Took Medgar Evers' blood A finger fired the trigger to his name A handle hid out in the dark A hand set the spark Two eyes took the aim Behind a man's brain... But he sure as hell can be blamed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jun 13 - 05:23 PM Of course the fact that a jurge rules stuff inadmissable doesn't stop jurors being fully aware of it. And the American system does appear to allow the lawyers an awful lot of leeway to make sure that they are so aware. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:16 PM Here's the deal... What Zimmerman's attorney is getting away with amounts to prejudicing perspective jurors and thus creating a scenario for a mistrial... The judge should put a gag order on both the defense and the prosecutor so that it will be possible to seat a jury that won't be prejudiced based on what is being released in the news... That is the way it is done... I'm sniffing O.J., Part II and frankly don't give a rip what anyone here thinks about my observations... I know the law pretty good, ya'll... Better, I'd say, than the folks here who think they know the law... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 02 Jun 13 - 07:46 PM BTW, YY... You one one hand admits that the incident with the high school woman shouldn't be considered "evidence" but on the other hand saying that you are okay with some judge down the road should choose what is evidence and what is not... The issue is that Zimmerman's attorneys are using the public media to introduce what they want, regardless of it's value, in an attempt to poison the jury pool... This ain't Perry "F'n" Mason here... Common sense tells anyone with an IQ on the plus side of an animal cracker that the pics taken days before Martin was murdered by Martin and of Martin could not have 1 chance in a trillion gazillion of having any bearing on his murder... Same exact scenario with the girl in high school... This is what racism looks like... The entire system is doing a rope-a-dope to get Zimmerman off... There will be no fair trial... That is now guaranteed... Zimmerman's hired guns have shot that possibility to hell and back... This is the worst of the American justice system... It looks rigged... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 02 Jun 13 - 08:57 PM Some of these US lawyers seem to play it very dirty indeed, and get away with it scot free. I googled Zimmerman and up came this: George Zimmerman's attorneys apologize for mischaracterizing evidence ...Lawyer Mark O'Mara said during a hearing last Tuesday that the defense had obtained video footage of three fights, including one in which he said two of Martin's friends "were beating up a homeless guy." But Zimmerman's defense team corrected that statement on Sunday, saying O'Mara had unintentionally "misstated the nature" of the footage. In a statement posted on Zimmerman's website, the defense lawyers said the footage actually showed "two homeless guys fighting each other over a bike...." "Unintentionally misstated". "Pigs seen flying low over Florida courthouse..." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 02 Jun 13 - 09:03 PM Yes, this is the way it is played, McG... The attorney puts out the shit bomb and then says, "Gee, sorry"... This is like a boxer who hits low until the ref calls him and then says, "Gee, sorry"... This was all intentional on Zimmerman's attorney's part... ALL!!! It is intended to poison the jury pool just the way that Johnny Cockran did it in the O.J. trial... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: YorkshireYankee Date: 03 Jun 13 - 11:53 AM "BTW, YY... You one one hand admits that the incident with the high school woman shouldn't be considered "evidence" but on the other hand saying that you are okay with some judge down the road should choose what is evidence and what is not..." So, Bobert... if not the judge, then who? Let the prosecution and defense decide for themselves? Sorry, but I trust them even less than I trust "some judge down the road". Is there someone else you would suggest? Problem is, the decision will be made by someone - even if it's just by default/not specifying who. Sadly, in practice (as opposed to theory), the question is not so much "Who do you trust most to do the right thing?" but rather "Who do you mistrust least?". I agree with you and McG of H that it stinks that "The attorney puts out the shit bomb and then says, "Gee, sorry"...". That does poison the jury pool, and should not be allowed. But - when it comes down to it - that is (yet another) separate issue. As I see it, we have the following issues that we've been discussing: 1) Should it be legal to withhold evidence? 2) Who should decide what evidence is admissible? 3) How do you keep inadmissible evidence out of the media/public domain? These issues all affect each other and it can be hard to tell where one begins and the other ends. The answer to 3 does not have an easy solution (as if any of them do...). The judge putting a gag order on both defense and prosecution is an idea I like. Sadly, that hasn't happened this time. Why not, I can guess, but can't honestly say I know. Perhaps we should have a law requiring such gag orders rather than leaving it up to the judge in a case. Some countries do not allow media to report such kinds of developments in a trial until the jury has been selected or sequestered - or even until the trial is over. There's much to be said for that approach, although questions of Freedom of Speech arise, and can be very complicated to sort through. I agree with you both (and many others) that it's appalling and unfair, and that in our country (the US) the outcome of a trial is much more likely to be decided by 1) how much money you have available and 2) whether you're a member of the majority or of a minority (and in that order) than by your actual guilt or innocence, which is disgraceful. But I still do not wish to give the defense or the prosecution the legal OK to withhold any evidence they don't like. I repeat my question above: who do you think should be allowed to decide whether evidence is relevant/admissible? This is not an attack. I am genuinely interested in your answer to that question. I'm open to the possibility that you have a solution that hasn't occurred to me and is fairer than the current setup. Cheers, YY |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:11 PM So the ethical thing for the defence lawyer would have been to ensure that the relevant judge received and considered the evidence, but done so in such a way that it woulld be kept in confidence, and not revealed to the public. The question of whether the proescution ought to have passed it to the defence is another matter. But in the light of the unethcal conduct demonstrated by the defence lawyers it would make much more sense for it to be revealed to the judge to pass to the defence if it was determined as relevant. But maybe commnsense in such matters is as absent as ethics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:19 PM " A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday. Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over. .... White led the Nassau County state attorney's office before resigning in December, citing differences of opinion with Corey. He is now in private practice. White said the photos Kruidbos retrieved were of a hand holding a gun and one depicted drugs. The content of the text messages wasn't specified. "I'm an officer of the court and I'm obliged to inform the court of any misconduct or any potential misconduct coming before the court. Whether it's by the defense or prosecution," White said." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:27 PM The answer to your question, YY can be found in my 7:16PM post last night... The judge should have put both the defense and prosecutor under a gag order... He obviously didn't and Zimmerman's attorney took advantage of it... This is where my problem is with the way this case is being conducted... That is irresponsible on the judge's part... Heck, once the trial begins I don't give a rat's ass what evidence people try to introduce as if the judge say's "Hey, this ain't evidence" then the jury may not hear any of it or very little of it before the judge tells them to "disregard"... But what is happening is that the initial phase of the trial has begun in public and in a case of this stature there is no way in hell that the jury pool isn't being poisoned... That is wrong... It is immoral... It is not fair to Trevon Martin or his family... I mean, they don't get to appeal if Zimmerman's attorney pulls a Johnny Cochran and get's this guy off by some very unethical trickery... So I hold the judge at fault right now... He needs to assert Travon's Martin's rights, too... And he isn't doing that... Like I said earlier... If you get some judge who has pretty much made up his or her mind they might let something slide... You have to remember that in the South lots of judges are elected and, where you might not like it, have partisan views of things... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,Don Wise Date: 03 Jun 13 - 01:37 PM Like it or not, the sad truth is that in both the US and the UK innocent people are doing life or rotting on Death Row because the prosecution- police, DA etc.- DELIBERATELY withheld evidence which would have helped the case for the defence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: YorkshireYankee Date: 03 Jun 13 - 05:33 PM McGrath of Harlow, Bobert, and Don - I agree with all of your most recent posts. The reason I have such strong feelings about the wrongness of withholding evidence is that (as I mentioned before) I have sad experience (here in the U.K.) of being on the receiving end of withheld evidence (and of a judge who had already made up his mind). My husband and I fought a speeding ticket (my husband knows his physics and realised that the camera which "caught" us speeding was set on a curve, which made its calculations inaccurate). We didn't have a lot of money (couldn't afford a solicitor), but my husband firmly believed that the British system of justice is one of the best in the world, and was sure that we would get a fair hearing. What we experienced was a real eye-opener, and included a number of... "irregularities", including withholding of evidence (of various types) the laws say we were entitled to. We kept fighting/appealing (against the advice of both sets of parents) because we believed it would be wrong to just knuckle under - even when we began to see just how overwhelmingly the deck is stacked against anyone without the money to make the system work in their favor. We were found guilty and ordered to pay £15,000 court costs - which we did not have - so eventually filed for bankruptcy. I know what happened to us is nothing, nothing, nothing! compared to what is happening to Trayvon - and has happened to so many other people. My sense of outrage - for them as well as for myself - remains. (Note: I've tried to keep my account brief. I have written - in greater detail - on Mudcat about it once before; if you're interested, you can find it in this thread/post.) But - that is why anyone arguing in favor of withholding evidence hits a very sore spot for me. Overall, I think we all agree that the "system" is not working as it should (to put it mildly) - in the US, and in many other places as well. Even more distressing is that there are many, many more places where it's much, much worse. The BIG question is - how do we change things so they are fair? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 03 Jun 13 - 08:19 PM Well, YY... I am sorry that you got screwed by the system in the UK... And you did get screwed... Bankruptcy for speeding ticket is unreal... This is the kind of kangaroo court system that I am scared of here in the US... 90% of people here in the US think that O.J. Simpson killed his ex-wife... Okay, maybe 97%??? But he got away with it... That's what I don't want to see here with Zimmerman... Again, the case is just this simple: 1. Zimmerman sees Martin... 2. Zimmerman call police... 3. Police tell Zimmerman to stay in his vehicle... 4. Zimmerman ignores police... 5. Zimmerman murders Martin... THE END... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: YorkshireYankee Date: 03 Jun 13 - 10:13 PM Bobert, I do understand what you're saying, and very much share your concerns. My thought/hope is that the (potential) "silver lining" at this point, is that if Zimmerman is found "not guilty", there are grounds for a mistrial - on the basis that (as you put it) "the waters have been poisoned" - making a fair trial pretty near impossible. Maybe it could even end up in the Supreme Court and set a precedent... P.S. Thanks for the kind words. I'm convinced they played extra dirty in our case because if we won, it would have set a precedent (about certain kinds of speed cameras set on curves being inaccurate - all over the country), and opened them up to possible lawsuits due to many previous fines, lost licenses, etc becoming questionable - which would have cost them huge amounts of £££. (BTW, £15,000 = $25-30,000) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jun 13 - 09:02 AM The key question is how far the obligation of disclosure extends. Plainly there will have been some things on Martin's phone that would NOT have been evidence in this trial. For example if some weeks before his death he had been texting friends to arrange to go to see a film or a band - that would be completely irrelevant to the trial, and so under UK rules not obliged to be disclosed. Equally, as Bobert says, material that might or might not have shown Martin with a gun or with drugs weeks before the night in question cannot possibly be evidence of anything happening on the night in question. What they might be is evidence of bad character and I would have thought that would clearly not be admissible - and so not evidence of relevance to the case. It's interesting that (AFAIK) Zimmerman is still not relying on "Stand Your Ground" laws - is he? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:00 AM So, Bobert, Since YOU know he is guilty of murder ( from the news releases) WHY NOT JUST find a tree and lynch him? Why have any trial at all? Why look at the evidence? Why bother risking a JURY might let him go? Is that what you are saying??? The point of this thread is that the PROSECUTION is not acting in accord with the law, REGARDLESS OF THE CASE. This is a reason for mistrial, and LETTING HIM OFF. DO YOU WANT HIM TO GET OFF EVEN IF HE IS GUILTY????? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this: "I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him." Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM And as for "poisoning the jury pool", I think the existing press coverage has done so quite well. Just look at Bobert not even needing a trial or evidence to declare it a murder, I would bet that if the defendent was Black, and the victim white, most here would insist that he was "innocent until PROVEN guilty". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:16 AM Why have any trial at all? Why look at the evidence? Why bother risking a JURY might let him go? Is that what you are saying??? No, that's what YOU'RE saying, Beardy, or rather shouting/ranting. I haven't read anything by Bobert that says or remotely implies any of your screed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:28 AM Greggie, And I have not read anything you have posted that contributes to the thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:30 AM I have no problems with having a trial... I just don't want it to be "O.J.'d" where there is no, ahhhhh, justice... Isn't justice what all of us want??? Is justice too much to ask... I mean, our country isn't that far removed from the Greensboro Massacre when the Klan gunned down 5 unarmed peaceful protestors and got away with it... That was in 1979 and most of us here were around then... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:31 AM *IF* Bobert sees no reason to require the prosecution TO FOLLOW THE LAW in this case, I see no difference between him and those who lynch people they are "sure" ( from news reports) have committed some crime. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:32 AM Oh, and for the record??? Yes, based on what evidence has been made public I believe that Zimmerman is guilty of murder... He was told by the police to stay in his car... He didn't... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:35 AM Where did you come up with bit of mythology, bruce??? I want everyone to not only follow the law but ***RESPECT*** it as, as well... Zimmerman's attorney is not respecting the law here any more than Johnny Cochran did in the O.J. trial... Garbage in = garbage out... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:36 AM (crosspostd) "Isn't justice what all of us want???" If by justice you mean that people get fair trials according to the law, I agree. If by justice you mean that the people YOU have decided are guilty have their rights reduced, and are NOT given the benefit of a fair trail, but are punished based on news reports, I do not agree. He may or may not have a valid defense ( I suspect not) but he deserves a FAIR TRIAL, with the prosecution playing ACCORDING to the LAW. Otherwise, it is a lynching. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:44 AM From th OP: " prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense," |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:57 AM "Fair trial" and "according to the law" are not the same things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 12:04 PM ""Fair trial" and "according to the law" are not the same things." It is possible for a trial to be according to the law, and NOT fair, but I do not see how a trial could be fair and NOT according to the law. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: KB in Iowa Date: 04 Jun 13 - 01:13 PM From th OP: " prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense," This is a quote by "Former prosecutor Wesley White" who felt the need to say that his disclosure to the defense isn't sparked by any animosity toward his former employer. If says there is no animosity then it must be true, right? It could be true, I don't know. Was this evidence that should have been turned over? I don't know, a Judge will decide that. I must say that I tend to agree with Bobert until just shy of the end. I think Zimmerman is clearly resposible for Martin's death but he may not be guilty of a crime. The Stand Your Ground law means that if Martin did turn on Zimmerman and make him feel threatened for his safety then Zimmerman could be in the right legally. I believe Martin would have to have started the actual altercation for that to be true but don't remember for sure how the law reads on that. It is a terrible law but there it is. Too bad Martin isn't here to give his version of the events. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 04 Jun 13 - 01:18 PM "I think Zimmerman is clearly resposible for Martin's death but he may not be guilty of a crime." Agreed. From OP: "Former prosecutor Wesley White said he was ethically obligated to reveal that Fourth Judicial Circuit Information Technology Director Ben Kruidbos retrieved the data that weren't turned over. Kruidbos was placed on leave shortly after White testified during a hearing in George Zimmerman's second-degree murder case on Tuesday. White said Kruidbos was interviewed by state attorney investigators twice before the action was taken. White said he wasn't surprised of possible evidence violations by Zimmerman prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda. "I was saddened by it, but I'm not surprised," he said. White first learned about the evidence through Kruidbos more than a month ago, he said. ... White led the Nassau County state attorney's office before resigning in December, citing differences of opinion with Corey. He is now in private practice." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bill D Date: 04 Jun 13 - 01:29 PM I would like to be in the courtroom when they attempt to impanel an 'impartial' jury. I halfway expect Zimmerman to get off, no matter what the 'truth' is, because he could not GET a 'fair' trial. At worst, I predict a verdict of 'involuntary manslaughter' and a year or two sentence. No one but Zimmerman knows exactly what happened that night, but *I* know that if a large guy in plain clothes and followed ME around and tried to 'confront' me...even when I tried to avoid him.. *I* would resist his advances and might even, if I could, bang HIS head on the ground if he wouldn't leave me alone! I don't think that would give him the right to shoot me 'in self-defense'.....and all this I believe no matter what is deemed as 'evidence' but some judge. There IS a difference between 'data' and 'relevant evidence', and I hope both judge & jury realize this. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: KB in Iowa Date: 04 Jun 13 - 02:10 PM bb - I am saying it is possible this has all come about because White has an axe to grind so went public with some info. Is his take on the situation accurate? I do not know, but all of this started with his revelation about a situation that may turn out to be much ado about nothing. White claims ths was not fueled by animosity, that could be true, could be false. Again, I don't know and neither do any of the rest of us here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:52 PM ""And I have not read anything you have posted that contributes to the thread."" I have long suspected that you only read the posts of people you think you might browbeat into submission. You've picked a wrong'un with Bobz. He doesn't browbeat worth a damn. I agree with you that the evidence must be passed on under current rules. Therefore the prosecutors are wrong. But, the rule should be what Bobert says, the evidence passed to the judge, who will decide, and pass it on if, and only if, admissible. That is not lynch law, but recognition that in the US an honest lawyer is likely to be an oxymoron. Not much better in the UK, among defence lawyers! Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Jun 13 - 05:59 PM ""Too bad Martin isn't here to give his version of the events."" It is precisely because he is not, that the trial must be conducted with the utmost rigour and strictly by the book, rather than being turned into the usual three ring circus of sleazy attempts to sway the Jury with inadmissible evidence and innuendo. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 04 Jun 13 - 06:07 PM Having said all that, I very much fear that the fix is already in! Justice for a black teenager is still far from a certainty anywhere in the US, but especially in the South. A Hispanic like Zimmerman would have received short shrift himself, had his victim not been black, rendering him a temporary white man. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jun 13 - 06:26 PM Zimerman's defense is based on self defense that is that he believed his life to be in danger and acted in self-defense. The only relevant evidence for that is proof of what Travon did THAT NIGHT that ZIMMERMAN PERSONALLY WITNESSED. As someone else said, |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jun 13 - 06:34 PM The DELETED messages on TRAVON's cell phone could not have been part of ZIMMERMAN's thought process at the time. Since ZIMMERMAN chose to stalk the boy, the claim of self-defense is dubious. If not for the "Stand your ground" law, I think Zimmerman would have a near impossible case. As it is, if issues of character are introduced, won't Zimmerman and his wife have to stand up and explain why they lied at their bail hearing? I have no problem with the prosecutors deciding that the gun and weed pictures were not evidence in Zimmerman's defense. Since the prosecutors had no intent to use the pictures they were nothing buts irrelevant personal information. Who decides which evidence is exculpatory? IMHO certainly NOT the tech who ran Norton utilities on the kid's cellphone. He certainly did deserve to be fired for that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 04 Jun 13 - 07:29 PM Hello? Is it no longer the case that Zimmrman has disavowed a "stand your ground" defence? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Bobert Date: 04 Jun 13 - 07:30 PM If the prosecutor is wrong then it would be right to use the past sex life of a rape victim as evidence... This is all bullshit... Tell me, anyone, how a picture that trevon took of himself a month before is fucking "evidence"??????????????????????????????????????? Or shut the fuck up about withheld so-called "evidence"... Yes, beardedbruce... You brought this up... Use your wildest imagination on how these pics are relevant to the evidence in this case... You can't and this is all 100% USDA Choice bullshit that allows the murder victim to become the bad guy... This is a sick thread and a sick legal system that is tilted toward the rights of the murderer while trampling the rights of the murdered... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: GUEST,TIA Date: 04 Jun 13 - 10:15 PM Amen Bobert. Someone please cite the statute that required disclosure of previous and deleted emails in discovery. I am not a lawyer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jack the Sailor Date: 04 Jun 13 - 10:25 PM " Is it no longer the case that Zimmrman has disavowed a "stand your ground" defense? " I haven't heard that. But how could he? He stalked the kid, the kid died, shot with his gun. None of that is in dispute Without "stand your ground" he is not allowed to put himself into a situation where he confronts people while armed when he sees a threat. Without "Stand Your Ground" all he has is jury tampering and character assassination. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Greg F. Date: 05 Jun 13 - 08:15 AM Yes, beardedbruce... Use your wildest imagination Should be no problem, his wildest imagination is the motivating factor behind most, if not all, of his threads. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:29 AM I thought I'd seen, months back, that Z was running straight self-defence without reliance on local "stand your ground" statute. I have no time to look for it now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:33 AM Bobert, "Tell me, anyone, how a picture that trevon took of himself a month before is fucking "evidence"??????????????????????????????????????? Or shut the fuck up about withheld so-called "evidence"... Yes, beardedbruce... You brought this up... Use your wildest imagination on how these pics are relevant to the evidence in this case... " My posts: *IF* Bobert sees no reason to require the prosecution TO FOLLOW THE LAW in this case, I see no difference between him and those who lynch people they are "sure" ( from news reports) have committed some crime. Date: 04 Jun 13 - 11:10 AM And what IF a text that was kept from the defense was like this: "I'm gonna check out *** house, and see what I can take. And if anybody gets in my way, I'll beat the shit outta him." Sure want to be sure that the defense can't get anything like that- why , the lynching might not go as Bobert wants. Such a text message MIGHT lead a reasonable jury to believe that Zimmerman was attacked, and that makes a difference, doesn't it? "He stalked the kid, the kid died, shot with his gun." OR "He followed a suspected burglar, was attacked by the suspect, and in fear of his life while having his head pounded into the cement, shot the suspect with his gun" Whether he showed good judgement in following the suspect I will not state- but THIS is as likely as any other scenario. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Richard Bridge Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:38 AM Zimmerman did waive a pre-trial hearing on Stand your ground - but has not absolutely waived it so it may come up at trial. Make your own blicky http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/30/17983728-zimmerman-waives-stand-your-ground-defense-for-now?lite |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: Jack the Sailor Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:41 AM Bruce, without "stand your ground" He has no business following "suspected burglers." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:52 AM ####################################################################### "Whether he showed good judgement in following the suspect I will not state- but THIS is as likely as any other scenario." ####################################################################### People do dumb things- that DOES NOT make them "murderers". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Jun 13 - 09:58 AM "A court employee who retrieved photos and deleted text messages from Trayvon Martin's cellphone has been placed on administrative leave after an attorney testified that prosecutors didn't properly turn over the evidence to the defense, an attorney said Wednesday." NO FUCKING MENTION of how old the messages and photos were. They could have been deleted the day after the killing, for all we know. But the resident lynch mob says they were too old to be evidence. Sounds like a 1940's Klan "trial" to me.... "We know he did it- so why bother with following the laws?" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Zimmerman defense-' Evidence withheld' From: beardedbruce Date: 05 Jun 13 - 10:02 AM Jack, Ever hear the words "Neighborhood Watch"? What do you think they do? What do you think HE thought they did? WHAT HAVE THEY DONE IN THE PAST????? He obviously had bad judgement- BUT THAT DOES NOT REMOVE a fear for his life ***IF*** he was having his head pounded into the pavement. |
