Live video: George Zimmerman Trial - jury selection, trial, verdict, eye rolling

[Shogun]

Ok breh. You're right. The prosecution doesn't have the right to cross-examine the author of the evidence the defense presents.

The defense has all the right to cross examine the evidence/authors of evidence of the prosecution. But not opposite.

Got cha.

Breh, IF they even play this video, it's author is the forensics guy. You would have a point if the video was made by GZ and a graphic artist, but thats not the case.

It was made by a forensics expert based on his investigation of the facts of the crime scene.

obviously, since its the defense's witness he probably collaborated with GZ at some point in the making of it, but thats not how it will be presented to the jury.

 

[Kid McNamara]

New meaning to the term heartless. Dude claiming that you can engage in a conversation if you're literally without heart.

 

[Jello Biafra]

Ok breh. You're right. The prosecution doesn't have the right to cross-examine the author of the evidence the present.

The defense has all the right to cross examine the evidence/authors of evidence of the prosecution. But not opposite.

Got cha.

The prosecution introduced Zimmerman's interview with Hannity (which was basically Zimmerman testifying without having to take the stand) as a result the prosceution can't then start to complain about the defense introducing a video re-enactment using Zimmerman's statements (if that is even what was used I don't know how the guy made it) on the grounds you keep claiming that it allows Zimmerman to testify without taking the stand or being open to cross examination when the prosecution opened the door to things like this in the first place.

And where did I say they couldn't cross examine the author of the evidence? The author is the guy who created the simulatiopn and the prosecution could cross examine him till their heads fell off. However they can't cross examine George ZImmerman unless he takes the stand and the state can't force him to do so which is a concept you seem to be having a dikkens of a time coming to grips with.

 

[malbaker86]

New meaning to the term heartless. Dude claiming that you can engage in a conversation if you're literally without heart.

lol I was straight listening to that.

This sh!t is the most ridiculous angle i've seen taken. what are they trying to prove here?

edit: he just said it's psychological if a person can talk or not after being shot in the heart

 

[the artist known az]

New meaning to the term heartless. Dude claiming that you can engage in a conversation if you're literally without heart.

Expert witnesses give their opinion based on who pays them. That goes for both sides

 

[DaChampIsHere]

However they can't cross examine George ZImmerman unless he takes the stand and the state can't force him to do so which is a concept you seem to be having a dikkens of a time coming to grips with.

Not even watching the case today so I don't know why I'm arguing with you nikkas

All I'm saying if dude is a "co-author" ("collaborator", in Shogun's own words), then he indeed has to account for such info.

You can't be a collaborator only when it's convenient. If I "collaborated" on authoring a book and the defense called it into evidence, the prosecution has full right to question the authors since you can't literally talk to a book.

If the defense puts Zimmerman's own "retelling" (you all's words, not mine) into evidence, then it has to be accounted for.

Can't just show a video and not have anyone be able to question it. And y'all are actin' like the forensics guy actually sat there and made the video himself. Which we of course know didn't happen and some little tech intern probably did. Does that mean only the tech person who actually made it should be questioned, not the forensics guy?

 

[Primetime21]

This guy gonna talk the whole court to sleep

 

[blackzeus]

so its proven the gun was against the body of Tray....

His head was getting slammed against the concrete by an overpowering man, but miraculously he was able to get the gun to the inside of the man on top of him, without him noticing, and shoot him dead in the heart. He's not just a victim, he's Tim, Vic-Tim, Vic-Tim 007.

 

[Kid McNamara]

lol I was straight listening to that.

This sh!t is the most ridiculous angle i've seen taken. what are they trying to prove here?

edit: he just said it's psychological if a person can talk or not after being shot in the heart

Not only that, he acted like it was normal behavior. Nigs getting shot all up in the chest, holding full conversations for 15-20 seconds, and then just physically passing out.


Anyone who can't do that is weak as fukk.

This some clown shyt they running on this female jury.

Expert witnesses give their opinion based on who pays them. That goes for both sides

I suppose, but the difference is, the state's professionals are agnostic in regards to the events that lead up to the incident. To counter, the defense sends a number of materials and highly subjective accounts to someone who then, somehow, corroborate every detail of the defendants highly subjective claims.

 

[Numpsay]

The defense witnesses are totally in bed with them. This is where the prosecution failed. They shouldn't have used any witnesses that could potentially hurt their case and instead let the defense call them and flip it into their favor as necessary.

 

[yeahisaidit]

 

[Azul]

So this guy is saying that Georgie was likely "stunned" by head trauma. He wasn't stunned enough not draw a weapon and shoot though.

 

[mamba]

Unless the prosecution can manage to undermine all the forensic pathologist has presented, it's a wrap.

 

[Kid McNamara]

His head was getting slammed against the concrete by an overpowering man, but miraculously he was able to get the gun to the inside of the man on top of him, without him noticing, and shoot him dead in the heart. He's not just a victim, he's Tim, Vic-Tim, Vic-Tim 007.

Hot fire.

 

[Azul]

If Trayvon was on top of him and the shot was inches away, wouldn't Zimmerman have Trayvon's blood on him?