Dont understand your question. My point was that this idea that Character proves murder is incorrect. The physical evidence is what proves it. The OJ case failed on the same account, only in that case the evidence existed, but the way it was gathered caused it to be inadmissible. In this case (to my knowledge) no such evidence exists.

there are other criminal charges beside murder

and they dont have to be 'proven', just proven beyond a reasonable doubt

that word 'reasonable' will be totally dependent upon the perception of the jurors,,,,


there is evidence of a PURSUIT by someone with a gun, thats a start

I am really happy you are wrong. If a jury convicts with an absence of physical evidence its the judges job to call a mistrial.

wow, you really never heard of a circumstantial case?
or convictions based upon circumstantial evidence?

oh well,,,

Only in the movies, and as examples of injustice. Often if a person has a good lawyer they then appeal the case and it gets thrown out. Ever wonder why that can happen?

Find me an example, the only way to find an example is when it has been appealed. Because in every other case they just treat circumstantial evidence as primary evidence.

The law has made objective definitions for words like reasonable when they are directly related to things like, fear.

Reasonable fear is not fear of a hang nail, and no amount of psychosis changes that objective legal definition.

Just like there are scientific terms, there are legal terms, and they are often extremely well defined.

well, unless we stop putting away anyone that didnt have an EYEWITNESS to the moment they committed the crime

we are gonna have to rely pretty heavily on how physical evidence available ties into CIRCUMSTANTIAL evidence and reasonability,,,

Half the time I just do not even know how to respond to you, becuase you just dont make sense.

not reasonable fear

reasonable DOUBT


is it unreasonable to doubt that this boy who had been being pursued by a stranger and ran behind buildings to loose him then TURNED Back around to go confront him?

I dont think thats an unreasonable doubt at all and many other jurors might not

maybe another source will make more 'sense'

Circumstantial evidence is most often employed in criminal trials. Many circumstances can create inferences about an accused's guilt in a criminal matter, including the accused's resistance to arrest; the presence of a motive or opportunity to commit the crime; the accused's presence at the time and place of the crime; any denials, evasions, or contradictions on the part of the accused; and the general conduct of the accused. In addition, much Scientific Evidence is circumstantial, because it requires a jury to make a connection between the circumstance and the fact in issue. For example, with fingerprint evidence, a jury must make a connection between this evidence that the accused handled some object tied to the crime and the commission of the crime itself.

from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Circumstantial+Evidence

There are two types of evidence in a criminal trial: direct evidence and circumstantial evidence.

Both direct and circumstantial evidence carry equal importance in a criminal case. Direct and circumstantial evidence are presented to the court by the defense and the prosecution in an attempt to prove their version of the facts in question.

For a defendant to be convicted of the charges against him/her, the prosecution must present direct and circumstantial evidence to the court proving beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime in question.

Direct Evidence

Direct evidence can include:

•The physical evidence of a crime
•Documentary evidence (recorded evidence of a crime on video, audio, or another reliable source)
•Witness testimony that includes first hand knowledge of the crime in question.
In some criminal cases, the direct evidence in a case will be sufficient to prove that a person is guilty or innocent of the charges against them.

Because most criminals are careful not to generate any direct evidence during the commission of a crime, courts often rely on circumstantial evidence to determine the facts of a case.




Circumstantial evidence is the result of combining seemingly unrelated facts that, when considered together, infer a conclusion that supports a litigant’s version of the facts. The inference provoked from circumstantial evidence must flow logically, reasonably, and naturally from the facts presented.



from http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/circum-evidence.html

A white racist who happens to be hispanic!

Not always. 9 times out of 10 a good defense attorney would get a PBA (Prior Bad Acts) hearing to not have them brought up in the trial. People make mistakes, $hit happens.

GOOD LORD PEOPLE

do you not understand that whites can be hispanic because one is a RACE and one is an ethnicity


and there ARE racist whites, racist blacks, and racist hispanics

so whats so unusual about a racist white hispanic?

and 9 times out of ten the other lawyer would also argue that his (Dead) clients past should likewise not be brought up

that would be a fun trial,,,,,,nothing but witness testimony of the night,, (When witness testimony is statistically not extremely reliable either).....

The cops were in Zimmerman’s corner, protecting him, from the very beginning—and treating Trayvon Martin like he was the criminal:

● The police didn’t charge Zimmerman with anything, accepting his claim that he acted in self-defense... even though Zimmerman had a gun and Trayvon Martin was “armed” with Skittles and an iced-tea; even though Zimmerman weighs 250 pounds and Trayvon Martin weighed 140 pounds.

● The police told Trayvon’s father one reason Zimmerman wasn’t arrested was because they respected his education background in criminal justice and he had a “squeaky clean” record...

● The police corrected a witness who said she heard a very young voice cry for help, telling her to say she heard Zimmerman call for help... even though three witnesses said they heard the “desperate wail of a child, a gunshot, and then silence.” (Miami Herald)

● The police did a background check on Trayvon Martin as he lay dead, but not on Zimmerman, the murderer. They tested Trayvon Martin’s blood for alcohol and drugs but not Zimmerman’s.

● The police didn’t even talk to Trayvon Martin’s girlfriend, who had been on the phone with him before and during part of the attack.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=29987

Im not sure which 'news' reports to take seriously because few of them have to actually VALIDATE their information before they print it and many just regurgitate what other news sources are reporting

as to the investigation into the cell phone laying beside the dead boy,,,,,,im sure they were gonna get around to it,,,,,

The police were and are in Zimmers corner because of the facts.

Fact one Martin was a juvenile deliquent who was currently on suspension from school for drug and other offenses.

Fact two Zimmerman backed off when told by the dispatcher. Witness accounts show that Martin approached Zimmer after he backed off and asked hi if he had a problem and when Zimmer stated no Martin stated you do now and priceeded to attack Zimmer.

Fact three an eye witness who is not related to and did not know Zimmerman stated that Zimmerman was on the ground screaming for help as Martin was on top of him beating the daylights our of him.

I can keep going if you want.

This is why crap shouldn't be tried in the court of public opinion and in the court of law.

all thats not proven are the details

there is evidence that (at some point) Zimmerman was following the boy

there is evidence the boy was shot dead with a gun

there is evidence the gun was Zimmermans

there is evidence of a fight


...plenty of physical evidence available, the case doesnt HAVE to be proven only on the physical evidence if other circumstantial evidence can paint the picture of motive,,,,,

Fact two is not a fact at all, it is a claim,, there is nothing physical to confirm or deny it,,,,

I also would like to be pointed to OFFICIAL document stating from a witness that they saw martin approach zimmer after he backed off...or the other you do now ,,,,,and Im not speaking about JUST news accounts or blogs,,,,

I also would like to see the evidence of a report taken AT THE TIME by police that someone saw zimmerman on the ground and the accompanying 911 call that would have certainly followed to validate the 'witness' claim


the only FACT there is that Martin had been suspended for having a marijuana baggie,,,

the rest are unverified CLAIMS,,,,,being reported by media and repeated by their competitors

The Orlando Sentinel reported that Zimmerman told police he lost Martin in the neighborhood he regularly patrolled and was walking back to his vehicle last month when the youth approached him from behind.

The two exchanged words, Zimmerman said, and Martin punched him, jumped on top of him and began banging his head on a sidewalk. Zimmerman said he began crying for help; Martin's family thinks it was their son who was crying out. Witness accounts differ, and emergency tapes in which the voices are heard are not clear.

A statement from Sanford, Florida police said the newspaper story was "consistent" with evidence turned over to prosecutors.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/27/police-zimmerman-story-is-consistent-with-evidence-in-trayvon-martin-shooting/#ixzz1qOe8F2eo

Police are confirming the evidence backs up Zimmermans timeline of events.

Oh yea, good and honest hard working kids dont get suspended from school.