Today in the Zimmerman trial…
…powerful testimony that the screamer on the tapes was Zimmerman:
A pleasant older man, Donnelly was introduced to the jurors as a physician’s assistant. It also soon emerged, however that he was a close personal friend of Zimmerman’s, and indeed admired the younger man considerably.
The kicker, though, was when it was disclosed that John Donnelly had served as a combat medic during the Vietnam war. The importance of this historical piece of information was revealed as O’Mara progressed through his direct. Here, for the first time, was someone who could genuinely be said to possess personal expertise in being able to correlate a person’s normal speaking voice and their screams in extremis. And George Donnelly, firmly and without the slightest hesitation, identified George Zimmerman as the screamer…
That was a theme throughout all of the morning’s witnesses. Each of them at a minimum identified the screamer in the Jenna Lauer 911 call as being George Zimmerman. They also accomplished something more subtle, as well. They associated their own quiet, modest, respectful and hard-working demeanor with George Zimmerman, creating a visceral impression of him that would have been impossible without him taking the stand (and which might not have survived what would certainly have been a vicious cross-examination).
Please read the whole thing.
This sounds like quite a moment, too:
BDLR’s [prosecutor De La Rionda’s] typically sarcastic and petulant tone invariably emerged soon into his questioning of each witness. In the case of Sondra Osterman [friend of Zimmerman’s, called by the defense] it was when he asked her, “Are you saying that George Zimmerman referring to “these assholes” means he wants to invite them out to dinner?” Sondra stood her ground, saying she didn’t believe Zimmerman sounded angry. That brought in this rather humiliating exchange for BDLR:
BDLR: “You don’t think he was angry? But you weren’t there that night, right? You’re just speculating.”
SO: [laughs] “I guess we both are.”
I don’t listen for long, but passing through my reaction was that the Defense should object to the badgering tone of the Prosecution questioning. Then I thought, well let him get on with it. The jury cannot fail to notice.
One thing that I would do is counsel Defense witnesses not to answer questions so quickly. Take a few seconds, and slow the Jerk down. Instead of letting him try to get them off balance by firing questions so rapidly, they should play with his head by making him proceed at their pace.
Maybe I have watched too many TV trials, but I am surprised that BDLR is allowed to ask the same question repeatedly, and suggest answers to nearly every question. Matlock would advise the Judge that the Prosecutor was “leading”.
Actually, I thought the Defense might well not put up a case at all. I am sure the Jury would appreciate being set free, and the message would be that the Prosecution had proven nothing. Obviously, I never was a Lawyer. (The cynical me wonders if billable hours come into play; but, I admire the Defense team too much to seriously harbor such thoughts.)
respectful, dignified witnesses for the defense in stark contrast to the star witness for the prosecution.
That was extremely powerful testimony from a man it would be difficult not to like and respect.
Absent some damning evidence to impeach this witness, the prosecution would have been better served to avoid cross and let this witness go unchallenged.
To serve as a combat medic, especially during the Tet Offensive, demands my highest respect.
And if the jury, after convicting Zimmerman, told the public that they thought the screamer was Martin, folks would be saying, “How could they have failed put on Zimmerman’s friends to identify his voice?”
IF GZ is acquitted BDLR should get the same treatment as Mike Nifong, the prosecutor in the Duke Lacrosse case.
When there are no negative consequences to evil, it is pointless being good.
I read an article Saturday that said the States Attorney that pushed the case to trial is now indicted for witholding evidence. Political motivation was cited.
“BDLR: “You don’t think he was angry? But you weren’t there that night, right? You’re just speculating.”
SO: [laughs] “I guess we both are.””
Devastating response…