[[Whatll the jury hears that the thug Trayvon went to that 7-11 in the rain to get the Skittles and Arizona Watermelon Tea because those were the ingredients he needed to add to the Robitussin to brew up some lean. This should be a fun trial.]]
You cant imply intent- you have to show he itnended to brew it up- aqnd thats impossible to do- Not stickign up for trayvon, just commenting on the comment as I dont think it wil lweven be allowed in court even if those are the ingredients for lean-
The defense does not have to prove a thing. Contrary to what TV lawyers say
Martin’s past drug use...as discovered in his autopsy and internet postings....are enough to get the “lean” probability into trial
[[Martins past drug use...as discovered in his autopsy and internet postings]]
It was his past drug use that was discovered in autopsy? How? Has it been established that the liver was damaged from drug use? and natural causes ruled out? Was there drug i nhis system at the point of death? I haven’t seen anythign to indicate that? Perhaps I’ve missed it- Internet postings aren’t exactly evidence of drug use- many peopel brag abotu doign things they never actually did (although I’m sure martin did infact- but his lawer will simply argue the kid was just braggign
[[are enough to get the lean probability into trial]]
Hmmm I dunno- Now if there was lean in his system at tiem of death- then it could be easily brought to bear o nthe case- and that woudl be muich stronger evidence-
I’m just worried that zimmerman is facing a biased crowd/judge/prosecution etc and his lawyer is goign to need good hard evidences- and not look like he’s desperate and o na fishign escapade tryign to fidn somethign to hang onto regardless of how flimsy- he’ll need solid evidence due to all the bias agaisnt zimmerman- I just really doubt he can get a fair trial- It used to be that most judges took their oaths before God and country seriously, and judged in an unbiased manner- fairly for everyone- however, many activist judges today LIED before God and coutnry when takign their oaths-
They say zimmerman’s lawyer is brilliant- and if so he should see that bringing weak charges will backfire agaisnt the hostile crowd and court and make it look like he’s simplytryign to get his client exhonorated by impuning the character of Martin- with weak evidence- implyign that because martin may or may not have done lean i nthe past, that this must be the reason martin attacked george i nthe first place- I really hope this isn’t the best goerge’s lawyer has- in front of this hostile court, he’ll need to be extra brilliant- I just don’t see how they coukld make the jump from ‘martin used lean i nthe past to ‘martin’s past lean use led to the attack on george? martins lawyer wil lsiomply argue that lots of drug users and alcoholics never attack anyone- (and they’ll no doubt stick to their ‘martin was simply defendign himself agaisnt a manhunter’ argument)
Oh well- you may be right- we;ll see-