Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree, it's true children|tweens can be unpredictable and impressionable, it could be a risk to either side...there is also the possibility bringing in a 13 year old to testify under duress could create ill will from the jury towards the side that called him...even though they are not supposed to allow emotions|feelings rule, it does happen...
IMO, absolutely risky business, for the reasons you point out.
I agree with this one and I don't blame her one bit. Whether the law will her to allow her to do this and if this refusal could lead to a mistrial are intriguing questions.
His first statement, which is most likely in the original police report, confirms parts of Zimmerman's account.
Not sure about the law concerning this but seems to me if the defense has a witness that can prove its innocence and they can't testify their rights maybe violated and a mistrial declared. Again I'm not sure about this one.
Since you edited your post after I responded, let me address the new posting.
As far as a mistrial regarding the testimony of a 13 year old, that issue will be settled long before a trial. If there is a problem, there will be pre-trial hearings to address this issue. This will not get to the opening day of a trial and then, surprise, surprise, my most crucial witness, a 13 yr old boy, can't testify. It doesn't work that way.
According to the mother, the statement given to the investigators was tainted by them prompting him to say things he didn't remember. That is CLASSIC in why eye witnesses often give inaccurate testimony. And because the boy is 13 years old, his mother's presence during questioning by the investigators is every bit as important as what the investigators "wrote" down in their report. She can rebut the police report. Overall, that kid would, IMO, not be a good witness at all. It would ultimately throw suspicion on the police who investigated the incident.
Since you edited your post after I responded, let me address the new posting.
As far as a mistrial regarding the testimony of a 13 year old, that issue will be settled long before a trial. If there is a problem, there will be pre-trial hearings to address this issue. This will not get to the opening day of a trial and then, surprise, surprise, my most crucial witness, a 13 yr old boy, can't testify. It doesn't work that way.
According to the mother, the statement given to the investigators was tainted by them prompting him to say things he didn't remember. That is CLASSIC in why eye witnesses often give inaccurate testimony. And because the boy is 13 years old, his mother's presence during questioning by the investigators is every bit as important as what the investigators "wrote" down in their report. She can rebut the police report. Overall, that kid would, IMO, not be a good witness at all. It would ultimately throw suspicion on the police who investigated the incident.
I believe the mother is protecting her son. Still we have a more reliable adult witness that confirms Zimmerman's account. This one will be easy for the immunity judge.
I believe the mother is protecting her son. Still we have a more reliable adult witness that confirms Zimmerman's account. This one will be easy for the immunity judge.
The "immunity judge" will be the same judge who is the trial judge on this case at this point.
It will only get to the "immunity judge" if Zimmerman asks for an immunity hearing. You do know that the burden of proof changes in an immunity hearing, don't you? In that case it's a preponderance of the evidence. If the state has more evidence than the defense, then it just may not be as "easy" as you think it will be. And since you don't know the full extent of the State's evidence at this point, don't you think it may be a little presumptuous of you to call it "easy"?
Btw, your belief that the mother is protecting her son really has nothing to do with the case whatsoever. If she is called to the stand, the jury will determine her credibility just as every other witness. Are you saying you think the mother is lying? LOL Oh,great! Get this Mother on the witness stand and accuse her of being a liar. lol lol Edward, if I were you I'd definitely stay in a career in the world of finance.
Last edited by FancyFeast5000; 04-29-2012 at 06:01 PM..
Reason: adding another thought
We don't know who attacked who. Apparently Zimmerman won because the kid is dead.
I would say in an altercation if you are the only one left alive you won.
There will be no conviction. Anyone with an ounce of common sense will understand that Zimmerman's head wounds could only be caused if he was sucker punched from behind or if he was thrown to the ground. It don't take a lot of legal expertise to figure that out.
"Not only did he check him for a gun but he turned the body over from his back to.his stomach which is how his arms came to rest under him. If GZ was under TM when he shot him there is NO WAY his body comes to rest on his stomach with his arms underneath him. A person falls.that.way if they are on their knees when they are shot but not if they are shot while on top of someone. If shot while on top, and with a 9mm, they fall back. I’m sure 10,000 simulated tests will prove Martin’s body couldn’t possibly have ended up like that if GZ’s explanation was true. Further, Zimmerman never says he threw a punch. So his only defense mechanism during this fight, per his own words, was to pull out his gun."
"Not only did he check him for a gun but he turned the body over from his back to.his stomach which is how his arms came to rest under him. If GZ was under TM when he shot him there is NO WAY his body comes to rest on his stomach with his arms underneath him. A person falls.that.way if they are on their knees when they are shot but not if they are shot while on top of someone. If shot while on top, and with a 9mm, they fall back. I’m sure 10,000 simulated tests will prove Martin’s body couldn’t possibly have ended up like that if GZ’s explanation was true. Further, Zimmerman never says he threw a punch. So his only defense mechanism during this fight, per his own words, was to pull out his gun."
What are anonymous's credentials?
Another analysis from a drunk I met in a bar, "Ya HAVE TO BE AN IDIOT TO THINK ZIMMERMAN IS GUILTY."
Please, that is total BS. You can be stoned and quite capable of fighting.
The fact is this case only is going to trial because Trayvon was initially portrayed as a 13 year old schoolboy being attacked by a man much larger and a purposely edited tape that made Zimmerman appear possibly racist.
I was giving Traynor the benefit of the doubt when I declared he was possibly stoned. I would hope that his irrational act of violence was not just part of his nature.
You mean Zimmerman!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That one is really funny. 
