Jul 07 2013

Coming Soon: Prosecution Rests In George Zimmerman Trial

Published by at 5:05 pm under All General Discussions

Sorry for not posting in recent weeks.  Work is crazy busy, summer swim team events are at their highest pace, family issues bubbling up almost daily, and I am working my way through the video of the George Zimmerman trial.  Basically I have not time left in my day to even generate short posts.

But what I hope to do is write a first hand assessment of the trial, verses regurgitating what others distill down and write or report on. I am not going to be able to review all the testimony, but I will have watched many hours of the trial and focused in on key witnesses. So when I do post in a day or so, it will be from watching the trial itself and not second hand.

I am also ignoring the testimony of the families since I know that is almost all pure emotion and very little fact.

So please be patient, I hope to finish up reviewing the prosecution’s case and then recording my impressions and observations.

Update: BTW, this is the kind of jumping to conclusions with half the trial completed that really is silly. I don’t think the state is done shredding the defense on cross.

8 responses so far

8 Responses to “Coming Soon: Prosecution Rests In George Zimmerman Trial”

  1. WWS says:

    You’ve been wrong on this case since Day 1. Give it a rest – this case will stand as the prosecutorial fraud of the century – and you missed it just for the joy of joining up with a lynch mob.

    Anyone who has even the slightest knowledge of law knows that the prosecution’s case collapsed last week – Zimmerman won’t even have to take the stand now, which is a move defense *always* makes when they know that the prosecution has failed in presenting it’s case.

    btw, all those posts in which you theorized that Zimmerman’s story of the how the shot was fired didn’t add up? THe PROSECUTIONS witnesses testified that that was all bullshit, and that the shooting happened pretty much exactly as Zimmerman said it did.

    Before any other posts on this topic, you really need to apologize for everything you have written about it over the last 18 months.

  2. Layman says:


    “I don’t think the state is done shredding the defense on cross.”

    You mean like the Defense shredded the State on cross during its case?

  3. jwb says:


    Real lawyer–real case law. Hard to imagine that the State will be able to “shred” any defense testimony considering that it’s own witnesses did little to bolster any of the claims included in the charges against GZ.

  4. DJStrata says:

    Technically the defense doesn’t have to present a case at all. The entire burden of this trial is on the prosecution and they did not meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. The defense is presenting a case to give Zimmerman’s side so that he gets a full trial. If they didn’t put on a case he could try to claim a mistrial because of his attorney’s not presenting his side of the case.

  5. Federale says:

    Like the witness who said Zimmerman shot Trayvon 3 times in the back. Some witnesses you have there.

  6. raven397 says:

    M. Strata, if you have a minimal shred of common decency and honesty, I hope you will fully digest the lengthy trial videos posted on legal insurrection. I hope you can reply honestly. If you continue in your lynch mob braying about Zimmerman’s guilt after viewing the prosecution witnesses, you are beneath scorn. I hope you will prove me wrong.

  7. mbabbitt says:

    I said a while ago to just wait for the trial and evidence instead of using imagined scenarios. Right now, it looks to be a blatant prosecutorial scandal. Prosecution seems to be asking what if questions (possible, but not necessarily reasonable). Yes, Legal Insurrection blog and also Ace of Spades is a good summary.

  8. loweburgh says:

    “BTW, this is the kind of jumping to conclusions with half the trial completed that really is silly.”

    You suggest that it is silly to jump to conclusions with half the trial completed, and I agree. I find it bizarre that you’d say that since you clearly jumped to your unmovable conclusions prior to the trial’s start.