Dunn verdict watch and a discussion of circumstantial evidence

Wednesday, October 1, 2014

Good morning:

Judge Healey has completed reading the jury instructions to the jury in the Michael Dunn retrial and the jury deliberations are underway in the jury room.

As we wait for them to reach a verdict, I recommend readers watch John Guy’s excellent rebuttal argument. For example, he absolutely destroys Michael Knox, the defense forensic expert and dismisses him stating, “That’s what you get for $350 per hour.

While you are listening to him, notice that he uses circumstantial evidence to construct a powerful argument that Dunn lied. For comparison purposes, recall that Judge Masipa in the Pistorius case regarded circumstantial evidence as not very reliable or persuasive.

I think it’s appropriate to instruct juries that evidence may be either direct or circumstantial. One is not necessarily more accurate or reliable than the other and it’s up to the jury to decide how much weight to assign to the evidence admitted in the case.

The instructions direct the jurors to consider first degree murder first and not to consider lesser included offenses like second degree murder or manslaughter unless they cannot unanimously agree on a verdict to first degree murder.

First degree requires proof of premeditation. Premeditation requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to kill Jordan Davis; that he reflected on his decision to kill; and that decided to go ahead and do it.

Premeditation (i.e., specific intent to kill, reflection and affirmation) does not require anything more than a moment in time.

What do you think of John Guy’s rebuttal argument?

Do you believe circumstantial evidence is inherently less accurate and reliable than direct evidence?

Do you believe Michael Dunn acted with premeditation?

Do you believe he acted in self-defense?

What did you think of Michael Knox?

132 Responses to Dunn verdict watch and a discussion of circumstantial evidence

  1. ay2z says:

    Sentencing date announced today. So says Florida Times Union.

    “The sentencing date was set for 10 a.m. Oct. 17 by Circuit Judge Russell Healey on Tuesday morning.”

  2. The Raven says:

    Speaking as a sometime scientific researcher, I would say that evidence that does not involve eyewitnesses is more reliable than evidence that does. Non-eyewitness evidence can have its own problems (consider that the work of crime labs has sometimes proven questionable) but at least it does not have unreliable attention, a malleable memory, and biases.

    • SearchingMind says:

      The stuff you discuss is not as black & white as you put it, Raven, because every evidence has its own strong- and weak point(s). In fact I put it to you that eyewitness evidence is the best evidence; and by eyewitness evidence I mean eyewitness evidence in the abstract, i.e. one that is isolated from-/devoid of all the weak points you mentioned (such as bias, bad eyesight, etc.). Eyewitness evidence, while standing entirely on its own, tells you “whodunit”. Physical/forensic evidence requires specific context, circumstance and (a chain of) other facts to tell “whodunit” (in almost all cases). Physical/forensic evidence, for example, will tell you that A’s DNA is on the knife that killed B, but it won’t tell you who killed B. Eyewitness evidence will answer that question and is the best evidence in almost all cases.

      • IIRC, mistaken eyewitness testimony was a factor in nearly 80% of the wrongful convictions of innocent people.

        Independent testing of eyewitnesses has repeatedly shown that they correctly identify the perpetrator at a rate that does not exceed chance.

      • The Raven says:

        Thank you, Mr. Leatherman.

        Eyewitness evidence “that is isolated from-/devoid of all the weak points you mentioned (such as bias, bad eyesight, etc” is hard to gather; eyewitness evidence is one of the most fragile pieces of crime scene evidence. As it is, it seems to me that most eyewitness evidence is not gathered in the best ways and the possibility of error is not allowed, and therefore many errors are possible.

        A majority of people can’t remember a stranger’s face on one seeing, so when a crime involves a stranger, eyewitness identification is unlikely to be reliable. Human attention is unreliable; people often do not notice the gorilla in the room. When the people involved are known to the witnesses, biases come into play. When there is uncertainty, witnesses can easily be influenced by authority figures like police or prosecutors. And so on, and on.

        To get the best use of eyewitness evidence, it has to be treated like any other fragile piece of crime scene evidence, gathered by the best methods without bias and recorded as quickly as possible. That, unfortunately, is not common practice.

        More on this, if you’d like to do some reading:
        The Ronald Cotton case was a famous and well-documented case of conviction by mistaken identity.
        Prof. Gary Wells home page hosts a collection of information about eyewitness evidence: http://public.psych.iastate.edu/glwells
        Here’s a summary of a 2009 paper on variations in facial memory: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519172204.htm. Short-short summary—some people never forget a face and some people never remember one, most people are somewhere in between.

        These cites really only scratch the surface of the matter. It is nice to think that we will someday make the research effort to learn how to make the best of use of fallible human perception and memory in law.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Professor and Raven, the fact of the matter is that I agree with the substance of both of your posts AND at the same time maintain that eyewitness evidence is – in most cases – the best evidence. The valid points you raised do not negate that basic fact. While it is true that studies show that eyewitness evidence is A factor (among several factors) in 80% of wrongful convictions, that statistic would be meaningless if not considered in (the right) context. And that context is that only about 0..5% (conservative estimate) to 4% (liberal estimate in death penalty cases) of all convictions are wrongful conviction. Accordingly, the 80% the Professor talked about means nothing other than 80% of at most 4.1.%. You both do the math :).

        See e.g. C. Ronald Huff and Martin Killas: Wrongful Conviction: International Perspectives on Miscarriages of Justice, Philadelphia, Pa. : Temple University Press ; Chesham : Combined Academic [distributor], 2010, p 59 – 67.

        See also http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/04/28/how-many-people-are-wrongly-convicted-researchers-do-the-math/ (this source deals only with studies on death penalty cases).

        We all still recognize our significant other (wife/husband/gf/bf) when we see them (without second-guessing ourselves and fearing that they might be (dangerous) strangers); we all still recognize our brothers and sisters when we see them. We can tell the difference between colors and trust the info our eyes are relaying to us; we can recognize a car from a distance, accurately estimate how fast it is moving and decide to cross the street without fearing that we will be run over in a second, etc. As long as these basic truths remain unchanged, eyewitness evidence will remain the best evidence – in most cases. Reduce the evidentiary value of eyewitness evidence and you will get mayhem: more than 100% rise in crimes, less than 5% conviction rate (and Michael Dunn and Darren Wilson will walk 🙂

        • masonblue says:

          Crane-Station here.

          eyewitness evidence is – in most cases – the best evidence.

          Food for thought:

        • The Raven says:

          Masoninblue, I love that video.

          Searchingmind—the 4.1% you refer to is for wrongful convictions in death penalty cases—it says nothing about other cases. Death penalty cases are often fought to the bitter end. In other cases, less hard-fought, there may be more invalid convictions.

          “We all still recognize…”

          Here we have a difference between courtroom argumentation and scientific analysis. I think that series of statements would persuade most jurors. However, unless further qualifications are made every single one of those sentences is false-to-fact. Roughly 2% of the population is face-blind, and cannot reliably recognize even family, or does so only by memorizing faces as abstract patterns. 8% of men are red-green colorblind. Some people (I don’t have a number here) cannot reliably make judgements of motion.

          This is the difference between “usually” and “common knowledge” and “a small percentage, but still a large number.”

          There is an important special case: in the USA, African-Americans are at much higher risk of wrong conviction than whites and problems of selection bias and eyewitness evidence are factors in this. Off the top of my head—experts in this field likely would be able to say more—I can think of three main factors: first, the police tend to be more suspicious of blacks than whites, so blacks are accused more often than whites and there is more opportunity for wrong conviction, second, many people have trouble recognizing a face they have only seen once, and third, people tend to be better at recognizing people who look like the people they grew up with—whites have more difficulty recognizing blacks, so that errors of recognition are more likely when black people are accused and white witnesses are questioned.

          I can see no way that the error rate for convictions of African-Americans is likely to be less than 10%—it could be much higher. This ought to be great cause for concern!

          • masonblue says:

            Crane-Station here- If you are referring to the “21 changes” awareness safety video, I love it too, and I was astonished that I missed them all. I may have vaguely noticed the flowers, but it is amazing what you can miss, even taking your time, staring at a screen, trying to notice things. And yes, eyewitness testimony is one of the seven leading causes of wrongful convictions.

          • SearchingMind says:

            “I can see no way that the error rate for convictions of African-Americans is likely to be less than 10%—it could be much higher.”

            In my heart I believe you, Raven, but here is the problem: evidence. There is no (statistical) evidence to support (or deny) your claim.

            The 4.1% refers to wrongful convictions in death penalty cases (as we both pointed out). But with regard to wrongful conviction in general, the rate is 0.5% (studies show. See the first source I provided). Regardless, i think the rate is still too high, because we are talking about 0.5% of about 15-million convictions.

            IMO, when an eyewitness incorrectly identifies the proverbial big bad black guy as the suspect, it most often than not is because the “eyewitness” is bigoted and chose to see what (s)he did not see and/or the cops “worked” on him/her and maneuvered him/her into seeing what (s)he did not see. Bad eyesight and bad memory are in- and of themselves really insignificant in the equation). Cross-examination is one of the most powerful instruments used in weeding out the ‘impostor-eyewitnesses”, but its effectiveness depends on the defense attorney. Without diminishing the significance of the valid points you made, there is definitely a lot of blame that goes around, but the only one that gets little to no blame at all is ‘the eye’.The eye sees what it sees, but we humans tell the eye: ‘no, you did not see that, you saw this’, and the eye can’t protest.

          • The eye sees what it sees, but we humans tell the eye: ‘no, you did not see that, you saw this’, and the eye can’t protest.

            I disagree. You are drawing a distinction that does not exist.

            The eye is a sensory device. It detects varying wavelengths of light within what we call the visible spectrum. A brain is required to assemble what it detects into an image.

            The image we “see” is a construct in our brain that may or may not bear a resemblance to external reality, assuming there is an external reality.

            You cannot separate the eyes from the brain because they are two sides of the same coin.

            Your argument fails because it is based on a faulty premise.

          • SearchingMind says:

            But you see, Professor, if A sees a cell phone in his enemy B’s hand and shoots B to death claiming he saw a gun, it is not because A’s eyes saw a gun, but because A told his eye: “no, you did not see a cell phone, you saw a gun and that’s how its gonna be. End of story”. Only A knows what his eyes did or did not see. A’s eyes cannot protest if A chooses to misrepresent the data they provided him.

            Z is found lying on the street with a gunshot wound to the head. Z is dead. If X tells the cops: “I think I saw Y shoot Z, but I am not sure, it was dark, windy and rainy, it could have been anybody”, but the cops “work” on ‘X’ and maneuvers him into saying that he in fact did see Y shoot Z, it is not X’s eyes that are at fault, but they who chose to misrepresent what ‘X’s eyes actually saw. This is what I am saying.

            The struggle is thus not between the eye and the brain, but between the eye and the human. Both the eyes and the brain cannot decide what the individual ultimately does with the data they provide him/her. Such decisions are willful by nature and they manifest themselves outwardly in words and/or actions which may or may not be in conflict with the data provided by the eye and the brain. Thus: ‘the eye sees what it sees, but we humans can- and in some cases in fact do tell the eye: ‘no, you did not see that, you saw this’, and the eye can’t protest the deceitful decisions made by humans’.

            Accordingly, you agree with me, do you not, Professor, that my conclusion and the premise thereof still stand.

  3. Pdeadder says:

    Thank you jury.I was near giving up on the justice system not just in the U.S.
    I must say after watching the Pistorius trial to me the US justice system seems so much more professional.
    I don’t understand what made Dunn snap.I think he planned to start a confrontation the minute after he said to Rhonda “I hate that thug music” and she just said “I know” in a way he wasn’t happy with.
    He must have seen her at the cash paying and knew she would be right out.
    Sorry I just don’t get it.My goodness he only had to listen for 2 minutes at the most.
    I just don’t understand why he thought Rhonda,Mr Escolet were going to lie for him.
    Thank you Shawn Atkins you certainly made things easier to get him.
    Asshole thought he got away.
    Hope all is well for you and your wife Professor.

  4. J4TMinATL says:

    Wanted to say fauxy’s comments today were badass and glad to be surrounded with other message board folks that give a damn. We are one passionate group. Love you guys!!!

  5. Good. May the Davis family find some solace and may the guilty find his way to the peace that only the truth offers.

    • SearchingMind says:

      Dunn’s parents were in shock, devastated and looked really physically ill after the verdict. Dunn vanquished his own parents emotionally and mentally. There is probably nothing left for them to live for. I hope these poor folks get as much emotional support they need to retain/regain their will to live, live-out their last years as happily as possible and prevent the stupidity of their son from cutting their lives short (his dad looked very feeble). Sorrow, anguish and grief can and does kill – especially the aged. Oh dear..

      The deep hole dug by Dunn in the hearts of Jordan’s parents, relatives and friends will never completely stop bleeding. But at the very least Jordans parents can start moving on now – positively. When they came out yesterday to speak, the first thing that struck me was the huge triumphant smile on Jordan’s mother’s face. IMO, that smile is the most important achievement of the whole trial, because it is a reflection of where that lady currently is emotional and mentally; how she improved from 0-degree to near 100-degree – in a second!

      As for Dunn himself, I hope that start water-boarding him every morning before breakfast and before he goes to bed :).

      • SearchingMind says:

        “… that they start water-boarding him .. ” (was meant).

      • Sophia33 says:

        I feel for his parents. However, I do need to ask where Dunn learned such extreme racism?

        • Trained Observer says:

          I was surprised to learn Dunn’s parents, Philip and Sandra, are both 67 — they look much, much older, just as the Dunnster himself looks older than 47. Maybe white supremacy racism is bad for one’s health.

          The aero club circle of theirs can fly somewhere for breakfast this weekend and chew on the verdict …

  6. Sophia33 says:

    I don’t believe in the death penalty. However, can someone explain why this is not on the table for him.

    • Malisha says:

      Explanation (IMHO): They actually wanted to convict this time so they took death penalty off the table knowing that NO middle aged white man was going to death row for killing a teen-aged African American who “mouthed off” at him.

  7. Sophia33 says:

    I am so glad he was found guilty. I don’t like it took two trials. I have to wonder if this verdict would have happened if it weren’t for the protests in Ferguson?

  8. ay2z says:

    About sentencing for Michael Dunn, today’s hearing.

  9. PhillyBoyRoy says:

    As one murderer is convicted, another may not even be indicted:

    http://latest.com/2014/10/ferguson-grand-jury-investigated-misconduct/

    What a joke

  10. ay2z says:

    Missed this earlier

    • ay2z says:

      Note, this begins of couse, with Jordan’s parents. This is a no miss.

      The state will come afterwards.

      • ay2z says:

        Jordan’s parents spoke wonderfully, following a brief word by their lawyer, their while male lawyer, who began by saying he had a baby last night, and he looked at him and promised him that…..

        • Two sides to a story says:

          Everyone seemed tired and sad but relieved. I’m relieved for Jordan’s family. They are strong and beautiful like Trayvon’s people.

    • Malisha says:

      Well he should have just looked at the four “thugs” in the Durango, and he wouldn’t have had these problems. See, he thought looks couldn’t kill so he used a gun instead.

  11. ay2z says:

    The Verdict

    • ay2z says:

      this isn’t opening agan, maybe busy, or copy the link and paste in youtube. It should work independent of any ‘playlist’

  12. SearchingMind says:

    “What do you think of John Guy’s rebuttal argument?”

    I hope that in the future they let Guy do ONLY opening statements and closing arguments; he is good with emotions and courtroom theatrics and to an extent neatly connecting the dots. I admire him immensely for that. But his cross-examination of Dunn (which was a near verbatim repetition of what the cops already did!) and Knox were just below standard, because Guy is very impatient, not cunning and not shrewd; he is always gasping for air as if he is either exhausted or frustrated or both; he is not very attentive and as such did not realize when defense (expert) witnesses (Dunn and Knox) said a couple of stuff that (potentially) destroyed the defense case (or maybe he does realize, but arrogantly think that Jurors will connect the dots and figure it out on their own); he can’t improvise very quickly and rephrase when he doesn’t get the answer he expected on a big point (he just moves on); he can’t smell a defense witness in distress and at the point of breakdown and as such he lets off the pressure all too soon, all too easy. There were numerous occasions in which Guy could have dealt Knox a knock-out death blow right there on the stand and make a nasty public mess of him, but either Guy is too good a guy or he is a weak link. You guys might like him (and I do as well), but I was furious after his cross-examination of Knox, Knox needed no ambulance to walk off the stand and I blame Guy for that.

    I like to see Richard Matei back. He is just masterful in his presentations. Ms. Wolfson is smart and has a killer instinct and spirit. This is not likely the last we hear from her.

    Question: do they have AA Prosecutors down there in Florida? Maybe Corey should consider making Team-Corey look more like the US of A instead of Sweden.

    • Trained Observer says:

      I disagree with your assessment. His skills on cross were superb, both with Dunn and Knox. Proof’s in the pudding. He got the job done on M1, not a lesser charge. That’s not to suggest his rebuttal wasn’t also a slam out of the park.

      • SearchingMind says:

        Why are ladies always mesmerized by Guy? I think I will take you serious ONLY if a guy (not another lady) joins you in your disagreement. If I am going to war against Guy, the last person I want behind me would be a lady because I am sure she get hypnotized by Guy :). Anyways, TO, the outcome of any case in the US is not the standard to measure the professional performance of any prosecutors/lawyers. Jury trials are not legal exams and Jury verdict say wholly naught re the legal élan of any specific lawyer/prosecutor. That’s the major flaw in your thought-process. If the Jurors had decided differently, you would be singing a different tune, no?

        • Trained Observer says:

          Wrong … I had praised Guy’s rebuttal here long before the verdict, and (I believe) before Fred weighed in. My evaluation of his performance was not based on outcome, but rather on the quality performance he rendered, point after point. .

          Wolfson did an excellent job as well, and clearly she’s a pet protegee of Corey’s. In future years, I think she’ll become more polished in delivery of facts she clearly knows how to organize..

          As for your assumption that women swoon in the aisles for Guy because he’s a guy, I find that quite condescending.

          In short, I would not be singing a different song had the jury hung again or come back with a not guilty. That would have been a leading indicator of poor jury selection, not a criticism of Guy’s slam dunk opening, closing and rebutall.

          Try to avoid sounding so misogynistic. That’s a little like suggesting white jurors can’t find in favor of a black victim. …Precisely what Ron Davis was discussing post verdict.

          • Trained Observer says:

            And by the way, one of Broward County Florida’s top prosecutors recently retired to become a professor at Nova Southeastern University. He’s an Afro-American, as are others in the state.

          • SearchingMind says:

            “Wrong … I had praised Guy’s rebuttal here long before the verdict, and (I believe) before Fred weighed in.”

            At issue is your original post above. The there is a huge disconnect between the premise and the conclusion you drew from said premise in that specific post. That’s what I pointed out nothing more. Nothing less. My critique of Guy is dealt entirely with his cross-examination – not his “rebuttal”.

            “My evaluation of his performance was not based on outcome, but rather on the quality performance he rendered, point after point. “

            Read your own post and say that again. In said post you clearly based your perception of the performance on the outcome! Said post is the object of discussion, not something you may have posted in the past.

            “As for your assumption that women swoon in the aisles for Guy because he’s a guy, I find that quite condescending.”

            Apparently you have no appreciation for humor even when stated in black&white. Regardless, my “assumption” is benched on facts (comments made on this blog at the very least). The fact that Guy is a guy is not the point, but that he is perceived as “hot” (some honesty will be helpful here. After all Healey is also a guy).

            “Try to avoid sounding so misogynistic. That’s a little like suggesting white jurors can’t find in favor of a black victim. …Precisely what Ron Davis was discussing post verdict.”

            What is the basis of this garbage? And of what relevance is it to the discussion?

          • SearchingMind says:

            “And by the way, one of Broward County Florida’s top prosecutors recently retired to become a professor at Nova Southeastern University. He’s an Afro-American, as are others in the state.”

            So? What has what you just said got to do with me suggesting that I would like to see AA prosecutors on Corey’s team? What is the relevance of what you said to the discussion? I will admit that none of my close friends is AA (not intentional; just the result of several factors over the years that have nothing to do with race). But I want an America that is representative of her citizens and reflects the ethnic/racial make-up of her citizenry. What is wrong with that?. For whatever reason you STILL sound angry and that anger is affecting your judgment – but I am certain that I won’t have the time for that here.

          • Trained Observer says:

            Searchingmind: “Question: do they have AA Prosecutors down there in Florida? Maybe Corey should consider making Team-Corey look more like the US of A instead of Sweden.”

            You asked, and I told you. And now you change your tune to claim you were asking about Duval, not Florida at large.

          • SearchingMind says:

            I wrote:

            “(..). Maybe Corey should consider making Team-Corey look more like the US of A instead of Sweden.”

            It is obvious that I was talking about a little diversity in “Team-Corey”. I am not changing my tune (I am not the type that do that because when I make mistakes, I own up and thank the person who provided the correct info). I castigate you no more, for I understand now that you misunderstood (assuming you agree that you misunderstood what should have been obvious, something that happens to everybody as well).

  13. Malisha says:

    I am predicting a bunch of totally psycho, incredibly racist, unbelievable, over-the-top, insane stuff to start emanating (after sentence is passed) from Dunn and a crowd of lunatics supporting him. I am unable to even imagine what they will be like but I am predicting them. Headlines that the ONION could not make up, both about Dunn’s pronouncements, other people’s “revelations,” and fabricated bullsh*t about prosecution witnesses, Davis, and others.

    You heard it here first.

    • ay2z says:

      They should be given the attention they deserve if that’s the case. Nothing.

    • Trained Observer says:

      This 6’4″ , 270 lb. piece of toast will be easy to spot within walls of the state slammer. He better keep his cheeks clenched and get used to what he perceives as thug music. Doubt he’ll be getting any love notes from Rhonda the way he hung her out to dry.

      • ay2z says:

        I hope she can heal and get the support she needs to recover from whatever has been going on. Then she can, if she chooses, find a real man, a good one.

  14. Justice at last!

    Ma’at is pleased.

  15. ay2z says:

    Later, for the Q’s, except one.

    Knox, knox.

    Who’s there?

    Will cost you $350 to find out.

    • Malisha says:

      And:

      Knox Knox.
      Who’s there?
      Expert Witness.
      Expert Witness Who?
      Expert Witness who won’t be playing the game much longer.

    • ay2z says:

      But to be fair to Knox, he had no impact on the case outcome whatsoever, he didn’t come close to tipping the scale in favour of the truth for all of the victims.

      Now Shawn, he is one real hero for his role in justice being served, a stranger with a lot to lose, stood up, did what was right. Well deserved comment by the state from the podium this afternoon, as well as in Guy’s ‘contrast’ study in rebuttal.

      • Trained Observer says:

        I was pleased to hear Ron Davis heap praise on him (and Tommy Stornes, plus the other two boys) at the post verdict press conference.

        • ay2z says:

          Yes, finally, time long overdue for what they have been put through from the loss of their friend, to being labelled thugs, liars, would-be killers (Dunn repeatedly said ‘they’ would shoot back at him).

  16. ay2z says:

    IThis is wonderful news!!!

  17. SearchingMind says:

    My heart rejoice at the sight of the huge solemn smile on the face of Jordan Davis’ mother. It is good to see that devastated spirit of hers rejuvenated and lifted up again. No more senseless sorrows. This is the stuff that forms the best moments for any prosecutor/attorney: that smile on your client’s face. That smile! It’s like a priceless gold. Congratulations Team Corey! Well done!

  18. J4TMinATL says:

    #J4JD

    When one looks at the bio’s of these jurors,….yeah today is a good day. 4.5 hours only.

    Suck it Dunnster and anyone who thinks you’re the hero.

    *Turned up my radio, windows down at the QT*

    • fauxmccoy says:

      as i told another group — i felt so damn good, i ordered a pizza, poured a couple of bourbon and cokes and went to give someone else’s dog for a walk!

      note — two drinks is about 1/3 of my annual allotment and the dog i walked was my ailing/elderly mothers … but still! 😀

  19. Trained Observer says:

    One alternate juror said Dunn leaving scene was a factor for her, but more telling was Dr. Simon’s testimony on trajectory of the bullets.

  20. Breaking News: GUILTY IN THE 1ST DEGREE MURDER. Finally Florida got one right. I am so glad for Jordan’ s family.

  21. Trained Observer says:

    I hope Healey sticks it to Dunn seven different ways to Sunday at sentencing. Have a feeling he will … but not so much that there’s be more grounds for a successful appeal.

    • SearchingMind says:

      You know what I admire most re Judge Healey? His calm, quiet but commanding decorum. That guy is just as composed as an ice cube, well mannered and has a formidable knowledge of theory and practice.

  22. Malisha says:

    The extra-good thing about this conviction is that it will make the other conviction (of 4 counts but not murder) almost impossible to appeal.

  23. J4TMinATL says:

    #J4JD

    *tears*

  24. bettykath says:

    Really have to give the ME a lot of credit. She went the extra mile with her analysis. It was work she didn’t have to do. She settled the question of whether or not Jordan got out of the car or if the car door was open. Her analysis totally removed any doubt about a physical threat, gave greater credence to “you’re not going to talk to me like that”, and solidified Dunn’s statements and motives to be lies.

    • Malisha says:

      One has to wonder, if the prosecution gave the ME enough room to work in the Fogen trial, how much difference that would have made.

      • MKX says:

        A lot, IMO.

        LLMPapa did for us what the prosecution should have done in the Zimmerman trial.

        I mean bullet trajectories and forearms are straight lines unless they strike something hard which would break something.

        For example, a deflection of an angled shot that deflected off of a bone would leave the bone damaged.

        Or the “brave” Zimmerman fighting off MMA blows could have broken his forearm such that he could bend it 90 degrees to make the death shot – this is called the Knox Principle.

        And, of course, the forearm fracture healed right up just like the broken nose – this is called the Racists will invent any excuse principle.

        And those are my snarks for the day 🙂

      • Bill Taylor says:

        it would have made a huge difference……they all mocked the guy when he said he was using his “notes” what he was saying is i am NOT telling you things based on me MEMORY, he was saying i took NOTES at the time of the examination and am using THEM again NOT memory……..the simple reality that Martins knuckles showed he could NOT have punched anyone that night was enough……NOT having any dna from fogen was enough…….

        • MKX says:

          I totally agree. I ran the streets in my youth with some guys who were the “real deal” street fighters. Every one of them had knuckles that were scarred up. Bloody and swollen after some scrap they were bragging about. Bruises on the forearms from blocks were also common and expected from one who was in a “real” struggle.

          There were actually some “faux” tough guys who claimed to be “fighters” posting on Daily Kos claiming that it was reasonable that:

          A) Trayvon had no hand damage

          B) George had no real face damage

          One nitwit claimed that he was able to swell some other persons eye with a blow that did not damage his hand because his brother “taught” him how to punch.

          Well, I have better anecdotal evidence.

          Mike Tyson is/was an expert at punching, correct?

          Fist meets Mitch Greens head:

          1988 Streetfight[edit]

          Though the two fighters would never again face each other in a boxing ring, Tyson and Green were involved in a high profile street fight two years later, by which time Tyson was the Undisputed Heavyweight Champion. On August 28, 1988, Green confronted Tyson at Dapper Dan’s in Harlem, claiming that Tyson’s promoter Don King owed him money. The argument then escalated into a physical confrontation during which Tyson landed a straight right hand across Green’s face, completely shutting Green’s left eye and opening a cut across his nose that required five stitches. Tyson, however, would not walk away unscathed, as his right hand was fractured during the melee, causing his scheduled October fight against Frank Bruno to be pushed back.[4]

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Tyson_vs._Mitch_Green

    • Trained Observer says:

      ME should get a raise for her over and above. Knox ought to call it a day for his ineptitude. No respect for defense that actually hired him. Guy made a fool of him on the stand.

      • Malisha says:

        In truth, she probably did not have much choice. With the data available, WHO would agree to do that job as her expert?

      • fauxmccoy says:

        ME has a new job, one which i hope she finds more satisfaction and that she never has to deal with cory needs a stroll or ms. waffle house.

        john guy is up for a judgeship, which might be a better position for him, certainly a nice career more.

        • Trained Observer says:

          Circuit court judge? He’s running for office? Or likely to be appointed to fill in for someone else?

          • fauxmccoy says:

            by appointment, TO, but i do not have any additional details. a google search might reveal something, but i’ve been too busy/lazy/preoccupied/tired.

          • Trained Observer says:

            Wonder what his ultimate career goal is … something beyond circuit court judge?

  25. bettykath says:

    omg. Not everyone has a free pass to kill Black teens who don’t show “proper” respect! About damn time.

  26. Trained Observer says:

    Just WOWOWOWOW

  27. fauxmccoy says:

    fuckin A
    guilty, 1st degree, suck it dunn

  28. fauxmccoy says:

    VERDICT time

  29. racerrodig says:

    We all need to keep in mind he was drinking. Since he’s a Liar DeLux, we can assume that 1 1/2 drinks could be 23.6 drinks, maybe it’s 13.9 drinks……..we don’t know, but anybody who plays that “I just had (insert low single digit here) drink(s)” then gets specific with fractions is, well, how should I put this politely………a freaking liar.

    Add this to his temper and it’s a recipe for disaster. Would he have pulled his gun if the kids were white ? If Rhonda didn’t get out of the car ? if the Durango was blue ? if the Durango was 3 spaces away ? if they didn’t say a word to Duuhhnn, just looked at each other and thought “…another drunken dork” ?

    Since Duuuhhnnn is exactly that, and really can’t be believed on any point that actually matters, I think the jury will get this one right. If not, this country just took a step back 175 years or so.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Yes on all points. Apart from thinking he might just get away clean and clear, Dunnbo also knew he couldn’t pass a sobriety test to drive and didn’t want to be mingling with cops that night. That might impact his precious pilot’s license. Concern for kids in the Durango was non-existent.

      Also, what kind of a guy sends his girl in to buy booze? … Why didn’t he park where HE could get out his butt out and go buy a bottle or two.

      When he mentioned having brought “fixings” to the hotel for the weekend during testimony, I thought he meant limes, lemons, salted almonds, or olives for martinis. Yet when Guy asked about that, Dunn clarified he meant room. Totally odd. Since when is rum a “fixing”? These two … Dunn and Rhonda … are alcoholics of the first order and they take great pains to cover it up. Gotta keep that pilot’s license.

  30. Tee says:

    I believe that that Dunn’s actions was premeditated, I believe he engage those kids because one, he knew that they were kids and two, that he knew he had his gun. Him getting out of that car and taking the shooters stance show premeditation. Him showing the gun to the kids in the window while he put one in the chamber showed premeditation. As for Knox, I haven’t like him from the Zimmerman trial, to me he lack credibility he state to many ” if this, than that.” He never deals in facts just a whole lot of ” ifs”. Guy had me glue to my seat he left no stone unturned he was methodical and heart feeling all at the same time. Bravo!

    • Malisha says:

      If there was one thing that I would have liked to hear Guy add to the rebuttal argument it would be that Dunn didn’t run into the convenience store AFTER shooting up the “thug car” whereas any normal person terrorized by shotgun-wielding thugs on wheels would have done so to make sure “the love of [his] life” didn’t exit the store and expose herself to deadly danger. In his recitation of common sense issues.

      • Trained Observer says:

        So true, Malisha. And if the music was so annoying, why didn’t he back out and circle the gas station area until Rhonda emerged with her wine so he could pick her up and they could get on their way?

        Also, once the mayhem was over, if it was so important to get home to call cops, why didn’t pack up and do just that?? Pizza, drinks, TV and some sleep??? Beyond stupid. And all the time, Dunn was thinking maybe he could get away with it … that nobody got his tag number or remembered what he looked like or what kind of car he drove.

        Talk about against all odds. Yes, Shawn Atkins’ was hero, getting his tag number. But sooner or later, LE would have nailed him by combing black Jetta registrations. The fact that Rhonda declared “It’s only Michael” … would have made it easier. His chances of getting off the hook were ‘nil except in his white supremecist mind where he was gonn a , maybe, talk it over with his law enforcement pals and forget about it.

    • MKX says:

      That was horrible. The cop Taser shoots her in the back while she is not expecting it. A fall like that where one is put out on their feet can easily kill a person due to the head slamming on the pavement.

  31. Disappointed says:

    I do not think Dunn acted in self defense. You do not bring a knife to a gun fight and you don’t bring a gun to a “mouth” fight. It was an argument. If not convicted does this mean husbands and wives can start killing each other over an argument, legally? It’s stupid he’s stupid arguing with a teen 30 years younger and then shooting because they did not bow to him. Jmo

  32. bettykath says:

    Knox has a piece of technology that he seems to think makes him a reconstruction expert. He used it for determining the trajectories on Trayvon Martin, an approach and results that Lmpapa so effectively destroyed. In this case, his results were very effectively destroyed by Dr. Simons. Knox needs to retire unless he gets a charge out of having his “analysis” destroyed.

    • Malisha says:

      I think Knox gets a charge out of defending racist murderers. He probably is a racist murderer wannabe. And it does pay the bills.

  33. racerrodig says:

    I concur 1st degree is correct. The instant Duuuhhnn turned (thinking he was dissed) and said (witness & defendant stated) “….you’re not gonna talk to me that way” then reached for his pistol, it’s intent.

    The self defense defense is an unmitigated joke. As was pointed out the only one who mentions a gun, sees a gun, thinks there was a gun, is the only one to benefit from that lie.

    “…is it possible you imagined it ( a gun)”
    “ummm, anything is possible”

    I want to rewatch Guy’s rebuttal as I missed most of it, but the few minutes I saw here & there were A+ to me.

    Knox…………pppppfffffffttttt……does the word “Refund” mean anything.

    • Trained Observer says:

      Yes, Racer, but you are thinking clearly. There’s bound to be some bozo on the jury who doesn’t get that — the link to declaring “you’re not gonna” and reaching for his gunbo that made him feel so superior. l.

    • Even though the prosecution has the burden of proving absence of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, I think they met that burden.

      The jury isn’t required to accept Dunn’s claim that he believed he saw a shotgun or a weapon of some sort in Jordan Davis’s hand. They can reject that claim, if the evidence convinces them beyond a reasonable doubt unanimously that he did not see a gun and lied about it to avoid being convicted of murder.

    • Two sides to a story says:

      I can see where Dunn engaged in such a quick decision that it’s unplanned planning. Impulse. I would have been happy with a 2nd degree conviction in his case, but it sends a strong message to other irresponsible FL gunowners that impulse shootings aren’t gonna be covered by SYG and self-defense laws. You can’t just claim you’re feeling in danger of your life if you’re the real danger.

  34. J4TMinATL says:

    I believe 1st degree murder is the correct charge and that the state has proved each element and thus is guilty considering facts in this case.

    I also believe people have a hard time on the premeditation aspect because I think most believe that just a moment of reflection may not equal premeditation.

    • fauxmccoy says:

      my thoughts as well, j4. even though i know what premeditation means, a large portion of our country simply does not accept anything short of a detailed plan of sorts. i think that absent of a dead locked jury due to some self defense fantasy case, that 2nd degree will be the more likely verdict.

      • Trained Observer says:

        Agree faux. If Dunn didn’t post his plan to off a loud music thug or two on Facebook at least a month in advance, he never had premeditation. Sadnotion.

        I, too, think jury will come in with a 2nd degree murder charge. I don’t think first jury understood that it had that option.

  35. Malisha says:

    I’m answering these questions:

    Do you believe circumstantial evidence is inherently less accurate and reliable than direct evidence?

    Inherently, yes. By presumption, only, and that presumption is rebuttable if the circumstantial evidence is (a) reliable; (b) logically and internally consistent; and (c) cumulatively significant.

    Do you believe Michael Dunn acted with premeditation?

    The short answer is YES. His mental process involved in the formation of his intent, however, is a factor, in my mind. That is, I believe he was probably drunk and in a condition of feeling “dissed” by something that occurred at the wedding. He was in an emotionally vulnerable state for a racist asshole. In that impaired mental condition I believe he DID premeditate (to the extent meditation was even possible in his pseudo-mind) killing those “thugs.”

    Do you believe he acted in self-defense?

    SHORT ANSWER: NO.
    LONG ANSWER: HELL NO.

    What did you think of Michael Knox?

    Knox sux.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: