You don't have to be able to see DNA for it to be there. If I swab your cheek to test your DNA, you wouldn't be able to see the actual cheek cells I'm looking at. It's just pretty amazing that they were in this crazy fight where lots of skin cells and hair follicles and all sorts of stuff was presumably flying around, and there was *nothing*, not even tiny skin cells under his nails or anything. If Trayvon Martin were the one on trial for assualting GZ first and they didn't have DNA, didn't have fingerprints on the gun, and he had been found (let's say unconscious instead of dead) laying quite a bit away from the sidewalk, and had a witness testifying that she heard him yelling "get off of me" do you think that would be enough reasonable doubt for him to walk? I do.
Not only that but if TM had been the one on trial his past would have been admitted. There are multiple videos on the internet of TM in fights and boxing. TM was on his third school suspension, so he wasn't in school. He was suspended for truancy, writing W.T.F. on school property, a bag full of unaccounted for jewelry in his back pack and drugs and paraphenelia at school.
That is besides the texts about fighting and getting a gun that were on his cell phone that the prosecutor tried to hide from the defense and actually fired one of their lawyers for telling them the info existed.
Last edited by GloriaInTX; 07-16-2013 at 03:47 PM.
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson
Also, eye witness testimony is terrible. Not on purpose, it just is. Read up on it some time. I had a psych class in college where 3 men burst into the room totally unexpected, yelled parts of the communist manifesto, and shot the proffessor with water guns in front of a lecture hall of like 100 students in a brightly lit room. Later we got to look at pictures of "suspects", discuss, present our arguments, and then vote on who we thought did it. We ended up "convicting" the professor's brother who lives in AK and the TA who was sitting in the front row the whole time while we were arguing that he "looked familiar." The point of the whole exercise was to show us first hand how bad eye witness testimony is. It really is. I voted for the poor TA.
All of the things you are discussing were admitted into evidence by the state though Alissa. The Jury heard all of that and still decided that at the point of the shooting GZ was in fear for his life. If they didnt admit that evidence then I could see thinking he didnt get a fair trial.
I could actually see people arguing that GZ didnt get a fair trial had he been convicted. I would be more apt to agree with that since the judge refused to allow a lot of the defenses evidence. And the state attorney did not turn over a large amount of information during the discovery phase of the trial
Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson
I really don't want to get into debating the trial itself again, but the question of whether it was a fair trial, given that at least one juror seems obviously tainted from the start, looking to gain from the experience by writing a book about it, and no one did anything to remove her. Has anyone else looked at the video of the juror? Do you think that this juror could be impartial? And if not, doesn't that mean that the trial was tainted?
The number of U.S. states in which a person can marry the person they love regardless of gender: 30 and counting!
I do think that the trial could have been tainted. Unfortunately I don't know that there is anything to be done about it now. It's not like they can call a mistrial in the prosecution's favor.
Molly, Morgan, Mia and Carson