Posted on 07/12/2013 4:52:55 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, July 12th, is DAY #24 (of 5th week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Yesterday the prosecution provide closing arguments (Summary: http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/07/states-closing-argument-two-hours-of-raising-doubt).
Today the defense attorney, Mark O’Mara will present his closing argument. Then the prosecution rebuttal.
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
MOM ... presumtion ... “don’t let them let you do that.”
Any doodlers today???
Make the state prove to you that he followed after saying okay — because there is none.
Yep, the news of the week would be enough for me to see this to the jury this afternoon and then bolt to South America. That way if the jury acquits, great and if a political prosecution of me worked, I would not be around to become a show prisoner.
At the beginning, some were taking occasional notes. Very attentive.
Glad you pointed that out. The first time i read it (skimmed over it) i only noticed the "shook" and not "yes", so i thought the juror was strongly disagreeing with what she was hearing and consequently i felt disheartened by that.
On a related note i have been optimistic about this jury based on the fact that several stated they have a great disliking and distrust of the media. I have to think that is a good sign for Zimmerman.
Bill Sheaffer:
WestCoast Sr.; I’m actually enjoying reading all of the posts and opinions. I do have several observations of MOM’s approach but most of those are obvious to those who have watched. Different style than BDLR, trying to explain to jurors what they will have to decide and why it’s not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Still, all it takes is one full moonbat.
“...he called her ‘sir’...”
LOL. I heard him say “sir” and laughed!
Then the judge said some something else two other times, to which he replied, “Yes, your honor.”
So, that’s when I thought I must have heard it wrong the first time...even though it really sounded like he called her sir.
I’m glad someone else heard it! lol
For sure, riveting.
BTW, all these exhibits have been introduced as evidence and will adorn the jury room as they reach their decision.
Great.
I’m hopefull the jury will recognize who gave them this, and wonder why the prosecution didn’t provide similar instruction/materials
I love MOM’s comment about the lights: the state never showed the lights were on while presenting. They want you to assume.
Kathi Belich, WFTV@KBelichWFTV
The defense is taking the state’s evidence second by second and pointing out the gaps. #Zimmermanon9
State didn’t ask Lauer if her lights lighting her address were on that night .. Why not???
The judge should be absolutely still.
“Little baby flashlight.” Lol
I was in the middle of writing a post about..what’s the deal about the light and which witness...when MOM came back and said..they didn’t ask anyone.
I should have known all I needed to do was wait and he would put it together.
9:31
Bill Sheaffer:
WestCoast Sr.; I’m actually enjoying reading all of the posts and opinions. I do have several observations of MOM’s approach but most of those are obvious to those who have watched. Different style than BDLR, trying to explain to jurors what they will have to decide and why it’s not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
s the dad Good friends with MOM or just that he knows him as a good attorney,....maybe through the legal system
However he found him, he made a great choice to help his son.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.