rigorousintuition.ca

Strangely, he still became involved in a fatal altercation with the person he was most definitely not following.

Rory » Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:45 pm wrote:

Freitag » Fri Jul 19, 2013 2:40 am wrote:

seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 18, 2013 3:27 pm wrote:the police told him NOT to follow him

At which point he stopped.

At which point he says he stopped.

Rory » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:04 pm wrote:Rather than do the multi quote bonanza thing

He was running, like on foot? Or did the engine of his car stopped running?

Rory » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:33 pm wrote:But he was running after Treyvon?

Look who’s talking: Was there a mole on the Zimmerman jury?

For a bunch who established during voir dire that they all but loathe the media, some of the Zimmerman jurors may have been quite eager to reach out to the communications industry – and early enough to violate the rules of sequestration.

The first troubling sign was the announcement Monday that Juror B37 had signed a deal (later rescinded) with literary agent Sharlene Martin to market her story. The timeline proffered was that the juror had reached out to Martin on Sunday; if true, that would mean that, on a day when scores of Americans were in church struggling to make sense of the verdict, B37 was already working furiously to turn the death of Trayvon Martin into a personal profit center. Such a bent would be in keeping with the personality profile offered by Gail Brashers-Krug, a federal prosecutor and law professor turned criminal defense attorney, who after viewing B37’s voir dire told Slate:

“She really wants to be a juror. She seems to be going out of her way to minimize the disruptive effect of a multiweek trial on her life. Jurors rarely do that. … Both sides tend to be very skeptical of jurors who are particularly eager to serve on high-profile cases. Often they have their own agendas, or are attention-seekers.”

But it isn’t B37’s mere desire to cash in on the trial that raises eyebrows: It’s how soon she may have started. According to mediabistro, Martin, the literary agent, claimed that B37 had been referred to her “by a high ranking producer at one of the morning shows.” That means the juror would have to have established a relationship with a national morning-TV producer, asked said producer to recommend an agent, contacted Martin, and agreed to a deal with her – all within a single Sunday.

That timeline doesn’t appear to make very much sense. Instead, it’s all but certain that B37 or someone acting on her behalf had started testing the waters earlier – i.e., while the jury was still hammering out its verdict, or even before. Martin’s initial announcement of the deal stated that B37 would be co-authoring the book with her husband, an attorney. What role did he play in the negotiations, and why didn’t Anderson Cooper think to ask about any of this when he interviewed the juror for the Monday edition of his CNN program, Anderson Cooper 360?

Adding to the concern over potential juror misconduct, Zimmerman neighbor and friend Frank Taaffe had appeared on both the FOX News Channel and HLN on Saturday a few hours before the verdict was read, and had claimed to possess inside knowledge that the jury was at that moment polling 5 to 1 in favor of acquitting the defendant, with one juror holding out for manslaughter. At 2:48 PM on HLN, Taaffe at first merely claimed he was “very comfortable” in this assessment and “firmly believe[d]” it was the case; prodded by host Nancy Grace to explain how he had arrived at his belief, he went even further, stating, “I know it’s 5 to 1.” Grace appeared to dismiss that allegation as ludicrous speculation, opining that Taaffe must have “a Ouija board down [his] pants.”

Later, at 7:44 PM, Taaffe declared to FOX’s Harris Faulkner that he had “some insight into the fact that it’s 5 to 1 in favor of acquittal, and the one holdout is now looking at the manslaughter charge.” The comment whizzed right by Faulkner, who didn’t even deign to ask Taaffe how he could know this.

Perhaps Taaffe was just blowing hot air. Yet three days later, when CNN’s Cooper aired the second part of his interview with B37, she confirmed that the penultimate jury poll had indeed been 5 to 1, with one juror holding out for manslaughter. In other words, Taaffe’s “insight” into their deliberations had been entirely correct.

Could it have been mere coincidence that Taaffe happened to put the vote at 5 to 1 at the exact moment this was accurate? It’s possible. It’s also possible that he did indeed have inside access to the deliberations. Was it via juror B37 and/or her husband, who, as we’ve established, were likely in contact with that “national morning-TV producer” by the time Taaffe made his brazen claim? Does the producer in question work for FOX or HLN? Or is s/he at CNN, where the juror chose to tell her story mere hours after her literary deal fell through?

And what if Taaffe’s source wasn’t connected to B37 at all? That would mean that two out of six jurors, or a full third of the jury, had violated the rules of sequestration. While the nation focuses on B37’s troubling comments to Cooper, and the pro-defense bias they arguably revealed, we should be looking deeper into the possibility that the verdict was compromised by simple and repeated misconduct –all on the part of jurors who, either on their own or through proxies, couldn’t wait to make contact with the media they purportedly deplore.

http://blogs.orlandoweekly.com/index.ph ... rman-jury/

justdrew » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:30 pm wrote:so if there was jury tampering or juror misconduct, can the trial be thrown out and re-run?

barracuda » Fri Jul 19, 2013 12:43 am wrote:

justdrew » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:30 pm wrote:so if there was jury tampering or juror misconduct, can the trial be thrown out and re-run?

I would say "no" in this case. You'd have to trace the jury misconduct pretty directly to the defendant, in which case it might be argued that there was no jeopardy in the first place. Otherwise, double jeopardy attaches to the State of Florida v. Zimmerman for the death of Trayvon Martin. Once a verdict is entered there can be no mistrial.

At least I think that's how it goes.

Freitag » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:06 pm wrote:

Rory » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:04 pm wrote:Rather than do the multi quote bonanza thing

He was running, like on foot? Or did the engine of his car stopped running?

On foot. TM ran, GZ followed. 911 told him to stop, he did. He was looking around for an address or cross street to give police when he was attacked by TM.

Freitag » Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:08 pm wrote:

compared2what? » Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:07 pm wrote:

Freitag » Thu Jul 18, 2013 5:56 pm wrote:

seemslikeadream » Thu Jul 18, 2013 11:14 am wrote:you don't know that there is no evidence to that fact...only two eye witnesses and one is dead...the other is a proven liar

There is evidence. GZ's story never changed, from the very first moments after the shooting. He willingly talked to the police, despite knowing that he didn't have to.

You understand that the word of the person who did it isn't really evidence you can take to the bank, right?

The consistency of his story and willingness to tell it to the police, counts for something in my opinion. As opposed to, say, Jodi Arias, who had to change her lies multiple times to fit the forensic evidence.

Try to bear in mind that you're assessing the word of someone who was so freaked out by the sight of an unarmed black teenager walking home from the store that he called 911 about it.

"Freaked out" is your characterization.

His actions could also be viewed as simply doing his job on Neighborhood Watch, observing someone who fit the profile of recent crimes in the area. (Or maybe he's a racist asshole, I really don't know. Just saying there are different interpretations.)

The evidence presented at trial all supported his version of events.

No. There was quite a bit of evidence that didn't support his claims of having been brutally attacked. For example, he was barely injured; Martin didn't have any of his DNA under his nails; and his gun grip didn't have any of Martin's; and Martin had neither any reason to attack him nor any history of that kind of assault.

How much injury does someone have to inflict upon you, before you know they intend to harm you?

• How much injury does someone have to inflict upon you, before you fear for your life enough to kill him or her in self-defense?

Does GZ have to wait until he's beaten half-unconscious before he can defend himself?

If TM was punching him with closed fists, there wouldn't necessarily be DNA under his fingernails. TM wouldn't necessarily have had a lot of contact with the gun, and it was raining, which could have washed off any DNA.

Zimmerman neighbor John Good, described by the AP as having "perhaps the best view of the struggle," said he heard noise while watching TV on the night Trayvon Martin was killed and stepped outside to investigate. He described seeing a MMA-style scene unfold. In his telling, the two men were "tussling" on the ground, with the person on top in a straddle position and throwing punches "ground and pound" style. He described the person on top as darkly-clad, with the one on the bottom in either red or white, and having lighter skin. Per the evidence, Trayvon was in a dark-colored sweatshirt and Zimmerman was dressed in red that night. When asked if he believed Trayvon was on top, Good replied, "Correct ... that's what it looked like."

That hardly proves he was attacked. They were fighting. Nobody disputes that.

Well, it supports his story of being attacked. (Yes I realize he could have started the fight and ended up on the bottom. But as it happens the witness didn't see Zimmerman being aggressive towards Martin, it was the other way around, consistent with Zimmerman's claims.)

Freitag wrote:Trayvon Martin attacked Zimmerman, that's why it was self-defense, and why Zimmerman was acquitted.

Neighbor Jonathon Manalo, who was the first one to step outside and took cellphone photos that night that were shown to the jury today, described "blood running down [Zimmerman's] nose from both nostrils and over his lips." He said Zimmerman's demeanor was calm, and said Zimmerman asked him to call his wife. "Just tell her I shot someone," Manalo recounts Zimmerman as saying. He said Zimmerman told him at the time that the shooting was in self-defense. When asked if that "seemed completely true," Manalo replied, "yes."

Unless you think that whenever someone says something that seems to be completely true, it must be, that's really not proof either.

I didn't offer it as proof, just refuting SLAD's claim that there was no evidence.

A nationally renowned gunshot wound expert testified Tuesday that Trayvon Martin's gunshot wound was consistent with accused murderer George Zimmerman's story that the teen was on top of him and leaning over when he was shot.

Link

Again: They were fighting. That says nothing about who attacked whom. And anyway, his injuries were not severe enough to support his claim that he was being brutally assaulted. If you don't find that conclusive, fine. But it is evidence.

Well, again, I don't know how assaulted one must be before one can defend oneself.

And he did have injuries.

And I can also understand that, even having acted, in his own opinion, reasonably, he might exaggerate the severity of the assault. I mean, he just shot somebody, and shit gets real all of a sudden, he realizes he could be in trouble.

Freitag » Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:06 pm wrote:

Rory » Thu Jul 18, 2013 4:04 pm wrote:Rather than do the multi quote bonanza thing

He was running, like on foot? Or did the engine of his car stopped running?

On foot. TM ran, GZ followed. 911 told him to stop, he did. He was looking around for an address or cross street to give police when he was attacked by TM.