BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

iBoaterer[_2_]

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 1 May 2012 08:53:58 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 22:12:26 -0400, BAR wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 16:44:40 -0400, iBoaterer wrote:

In article ,
says...

I'm sorry, just where does the state say in this diatribe that they have
no evidence on this case?

Can you read?

Just a few from the above transcript

DE LA RIONDA: That is, Mr. Martin didn't turn around and start -- he
was minding his own business and Mr. Zimmerman's the one that
approached Mr. Martin, correct?

O'MARA: Let me object at this point you honor. Though great leeway is
given and I guess this is cross-examination, the concern is that he's
talking now about evidence that is completely not in evidence.

JUDGE KENNETH LESTER, JR., FLORIDA CIRCUIT COURT: What's the
objection?

O'MARA: The objection is he is presenting facts that are not in
evidence to the witness.

LESTER: Sustained.

.......

O'MARA: Do you have any evidence that supports who may have started
the fight?

GILBREATH: No.

O'MARA: That he turned back to his car. We'll start with that one.

GILBREATH: I have nothing to indicate he did not or did not to that.

O'MARA: My question was do you have any evidence to contradict or that
conflicts with his contention given before he knew any of the evidence
that would conflict with the fact that he stated I walked back to my
car?

GILBREATH: No.

DE LA RIONDA: But prior to that confrontation, Mr. Martin was minding
his own business? Is that correct?

O'MARA: Again, your honor, we point to -- and this is not in evidence
and he cannot present it that way to the witness.

LESTER: Sustained.

There are others but you are not interested in facts. Al Sharpton told
you what happened and it is gospel.

The police cannot testify to an event that they did not witness. Nor can
they testify on behalf of a witness who will not testify. It is all part
of the right of the accused to be faced by their accuser in a court of
law.

At least the judge isn't being led by the nose by the prosecutor.

The question was "do you have any evidence" and the answer was "no".

Of a VERY SPECIFIC EVENT!!!! But then you and FOX turn it around to make
it sound like the state has no evidence in the whole case!!!

I am not sure why you keep insisting I got anything from Fox or that I
even watch it. I suppose that is what liberals say when they don't
have anything else to say.
You don't even believe the court transcript so it is clear Ed Shultz,
Chris Matthews and Al Sharptoin seem to be your major sources of
information.

The body of the post is that YOU said that "the state said they have no
evidence" and that is not true.