(posted this once already; it doesn't seem to have taken - so apologies if it eventually shows up twice...)

I've already made it pretty clear where I stand on this, i.e.:
I'm with BB (and a few others) in believing that you don't get to choose which bits of the law should apply to a case depending on who you think is guilty/innocent.

I'm with Bobert (and many others) in thinking that: this evidence is not/should not be considered admissible evidence; that the defense should not have been allowed to release it to the media/the media should not have been allowed to use it; this may well "poison the well"; and it seems all too likely that justice will not be served.

I don't see what was so terrible about the original post; it contained factual info that struck me as worth sharing.

In BB's third post, he says, "Regardless of one's opinion of the shooting, it deserves to be tried in a fair, legal fashion, without opening up unwarranted areas for appeals or declarations of mistrial."

To me, that is a pretty sensible assessment of the situation (one which I think even Bobert would agree with). In other words: if you feel Zimmerman should not "get off", you (logically) would not want the prosecution to be playing fast & loose with the law, because that increases the chance(s) that Zimmerman will get off due to a mistrial.

Seems to me that folks on this thread actually agree when it comes down to it - they just don't seem to be understanding what each other are saying (getting personal/saying nasty things doesn't help, of course).

When people keep saying the same things over and over and still not understanding each other, perhaps it's time to call it a day (or should that be "call it a thread"?). Just a thought...