Bill Richard’s unimaginable horror and a jury’s choice

We do not expect our children to die before we do.

Yesterday afternoon, Bill Richard took the stand in the Boston Marathon bombing trial. He told the members of the jury what happened to him, his wife and their two children, Martin and Jane. “We were running late,” he said. The winners had already finished and they had to walk back along the race course to find a place where they could see the runners pass on their way to the finish line. After watching for awhile, the kids got bored so the family took a break and got some ice cream at a nearby Baskin & Robbins. Then they tried to find a spot closer to the finish line. They found an opening in the crowd in front of the Forum Restaurant where the kids could stand behind the metal rail barricade next to the street and see the runners.

When he heard the first “thunderous explosion” near the finish line about a block away, he thought it was a sewer explosion. Concerned, he decided that they should leave the area. He hopped over the fence and turned to help his family into the street. A few seconds later, the second bomb exploded tearing his pants apart and knocking him to the ground. He gathered up his son and carried him across the street and gently placed him on the ground.

Chris Caesar and Hilary Sargent of Boston.com pick up the story,

“When I saw Martin’s condition, I knew that he wasn’t gonna make it,” he said. “I told [Denise, his wife who lost an eye] I was gonna go be with Jane [his daughter whose leg was blown off]…she agreed.”

“It was at that time I saw my son alive, basically for the last time,” he added. “I knew we needed to move quickly, or we’d lose Jane, too.”

Richard accompanied both Henry [Martin] and Jane to Boston Children’s Hospital, describing the environment “like a scene from the movies.” There, Denise called Richard to tell him Martin had died.

“I said, ‘I know,’” he told the jury.

Jane later had 20 pieces of shrapnel removed from her body. Richard—unwilling to abandon his injured daughter—was also treated at Children’s Hospital for hearing loss, burns, and shrapnel wounds.

“But I can still hear the beautiful voices of my family,” he said.

No one ever expects to be in a situation like this. Unimaginable physical pain and unimaginable never ending emotional pain.

Incomprehensible.

What should we do with the man who visited this horror on this innocent family and more than 260 other innocent people, including two other people who died?

What should we do?

Should we kill him?

What good would that do?

Does he even understand what he did?

I have been here before. I was a death penalty lawyer and I have witnessed awful things.

I have learned that even the worst of the worst have that spark of light that binds us all to each other and can be nurtured into a mighty flame.

That is my cause, my purpose, my life’s work.

I believe in forgiveness, mercy, redemption and resurrection, no matter what a person may have done.

I would never deny that to anyone.

49 Responses to Bill Richard’s unimaginable horror and a jury’s choice

  1. Malisha says:

    OK, this is OT but I just have to put it down, because this is the ultimate piece of news for me, and you all are my peeps, and I need to discuss this.

    http://www.carbonated.tv/news/china-accuses-dalai-lama-of-betraying-tibetan-buddhism-for-reincarnation-remarks

    The Dalai Lama is apparently choosing NOT to reincarnate. And it is making the Chinese who occupy Tibet very upset!

    Let me digress for a minute. Back in about 2008, 2009, I was in an acrylics workshop, getting a desk protector cover made, and I saw a wonderful sign:

    WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENIUS AND STUPIDITY?

    GENIUS HAS ITS LIMITS. STUPIDITY IS LIMITLESS.

    Wow!

    OK, Dalai Lama says that his reason for choosing not to reincarnate is that a new dalai lama may be STUPID!

    He does not want to leave fate to stupidity!

    It is remarkable that the Chinese are fussing about this. It’s the reverse of what happened between the Romans and Jesus, in a way. Jesus was killed and would not stay dead. Thus the Romans were deprived of their biggest weapon (killing) because there was no way to kill a man already dead. Now, dalai lama is saying to the Chinese: I refuse to return to life.

    How are they going to coerce him to do that? And are they not even embarrassed to say: “WE INSIST that you give us a chance to control eternal stupidity in your name!”

    So…if he defies them, after he is dead, what they gonna do about it? Rebirth him?

    • gblock says:

      Are they looking to name the next Dalai Lama themselves, as they did with the Panchen Lama? (Recall, or notice from the article, that each Dalai Lama is considered to be a reincarnation of the previous one, not a new “soul”.) How would they get the Tibetans to recognize the person that they choose?

    • gblock says:

      To elaborate:

      If you remember the beginning of the movie “Kundun”: a new reincarnation of the Dalai Lama is considered to be “found” or “discovered” rather than appointed. Remember in the movie that when the current Dalai Lama was only 3 or 4, some monks came to his village and gave him some tests to verify that he was
      “the one”, and that he was the new reincarnation of the Dalai Lama who had died. This is a very old process. And the Dalai Lama used to be both a spiritual and a political leader.

      What seems likely is that the Chinese hope to seize control of the process, and claim that the person that they select is “the one”, and they would like to thereby increase their hold on the Tibetan Buddhists. And the current Dalai Lama sounds like he is trying to give the monks working under him an “out” to prevent this by declaring that the Dalai Lama has not been reincarnated. (Notice that his statement was somewhat vague.)

  2. Is there another link or site with more trial coverage? I am not hearing very much…..Thanks.

  3. Fred, Good Morning. Im wondering if you have any update/reflections on the progress of the trial. For whatever reason,
    I have missed out on very much of the coverage….how do you think it is going? Thanks.

  4. Malisha says:

    I was just wondering about all this. Tsarnaev says such shallow, pat, kinda dumb things. He really buys this crap, you can tell. What struck me was this question: How did he know that the bomb wouldn’t kill a god-fearing, righteous, blessed religious brother who just happened to be either running in or watching the race, or even just walking BY at the time of the explosion? How did he know he wasn’t going to accidentally kill the one person who might have fulfilled the Prophet’s — whatever.

  5. owl says:

    gblock says:
    March 10, 2015 at 12:46 pm

    owl: Some of the hatred expressed for Zimmerman among the commenters to this blog may be displaced from those who glorified his criminal action, by taking his story as gospel despite its contradictions, by making up details to try to make his actions the night of the shooting seem more excusable, and worse, by falsely maligning his victim by inventing stories to make Trayvon appear to be a dangerous thug who deserved to be killed.
    ********
    thank you for further clarifying, gblock.
    of course, i agree that Trayvon was made to appear to be at fault and a thug, and i believe him to be a victim. i believe Zimmerman visited that violence / death upon him, with little or no provocation.

    in contrast, here we have Tsarnaev, also acting to sentence his innocent victims to physical and emotional violence and death, but commenters are extending all manner of fair-mindedness and supporting ideologies to move away from the option of the most extreme punishment.

    if not for Judy Clarke, and naming mitigating factors, the death penalty might be successfully argued and warranted.
    and so we rely on the legal system.

    • Are you objecting to “fair-mindedness”? I just saw the earlier note that you are well-programed….not sure I agree, but you clearly seem to have an opinion on everything.

      • owl says:

        Beverly Lawson:
        i have annoyed / upset you, although my “opinion on everything” wasn’t a personal attack toward you, and this is a public blog with moderation where i thought opinions could be freely expressed.
        so, assuredly, this will be my last post, as i don’t like gutter fights.
        since i am a person of integrity, i give you, and Fred Leatherman, my word that i am clearing this space of any of my further “opinions” to make room for others.
        in parting, know that i am absolutely passionate about victims. victims of crimes, with psychological and / or physical trauma, and of assault and murder. i am less passionate about debating racial and cultural biases, as a victim is a victim is a victim. murder is murder. those issues are not made better or worse by color, gender, sexual orientation or political affiliation.
        that said, i shall remind you that i am the granddaughter of an amputee, with a lifetime of observing and participating in the physical and all attending social and psychological limitations, well prior to handicap access and high tech prosthetic limbs. a person of courage. not a hero, because that term is overused. a survivor.
        my sympathies and my concern are first and foremost for victims of crime, not perpetrators.
        owl

    • gblock says:

      Keep in mind: the death penalty was never presented as an option for George Zimmerman or Darren Wilson. You can’t use them to argue that it is the only appropriate punishment for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

  6. owl says:

    What should we do?

    well, since he walks on his own power with two legs, and reaches with two arms on this side of the grass, and most of his victims do not, it makes sense to limit his freedom…permanently remove him from society.

    Should we kill him?

    we are a civilized and benevolent society, affording all manner of rights and appeals to the criminal!
    that said, prison would still seem too good for him, and his maintenance, with time and space for us to nurture the realization of the error of his ways, too costly.
    i’d strongly put forth an option, an alternative.

    What good would that do?

    someone intending similar harm to innocents might briefly pause to consider the consequences of inciting terror, mayhem and mass, human destruction.
    nah, that wouldn’t work.
    radical thought and actions in a free society should have full expression.

    Does he even understand what he did?

    if he didn’t / doesn’t, Rolling Stone must have sparked some wonderment as to his newly achieved acclaim.

    • owl says:

      nah, that wouldn’t work.
      radical thought and actions in a free society should have full expression.

    • gblock says:

      “someone intending similar harm to innocents might briefly pause to consider the consequences of inciting terror, mayhem and mass, human destruction.
      nah, that wouldn’t work.
      radical thought and actions in a free society should have full expression.”

      Where is that coming from? Nobody on this blog is saying that what he did is excusable, or that he shouldn’t be punished.

      And, I have to admit that it may take him some time to understand what he did, and I’m not sure he does at this time.

  7. Greg Beasley says:

    Chris Kyle’s death may be connected to the Boston Marathon event. As you may already know, Kyle formed the “mercenary” security company Craft International whose goons were spotted in the crowd and photos captured one of them leaving a backpack.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/02/16/neo-the-strange-death-of-an-american-sniper/

  8. owl says:

    are these brothers, one now deceased, to be considered terrorists, at least by broad definition?
    after all, the motivation is presumed to be political, and the result was carnage, not unlike explosives detonated on a plane.
    if not, then why not, please?

  9. owl says:

    today: “slouched in his chair”, “looking indifferent” and “avoiding eye contact”.
    following the blasts, he bought a gallon of milk at a convenience store before exchanging it, thereafter. shallow deceit.
    my ideology does not mitigate the unforgivable, or subtract from the equation the terror, mayhem and violence visited upon a city and its people. my heart breaks for the victims, and for savagery committed against innocents.

    • Malisha says:

      I can’t figure out what you mean by “before exchanging it thereafter. shallow deceit.”

      He exchanged the gallon of milk for something else?

      • owl says:

        yes, this report was accompanied by video last evening. it was not reported exactly for what he exchanged the gallon of milk (poor reporting).
        further, he is shown by video getting into a small car with an unidentified driver (unidentified in this report), before returning to campus at UMASS Dartmouth, and conducting himself rather normally…going to the gym for an hour was mentioned.
        Tsarnaev also made reference to the bombings in text(s) to advise others to ‘be careful out there’…words to that effect.
        none of this seems particularly well thought out…just attempts to appear ‘casual’ and uninvolved.
        that Jeff Bauman was able to reflect in hospital on whom might be perpetrators was to his credit, and, no doubt, strengthened him slightly in his loss and recovery.

    • Who are you to deem the “unforgivable”? That statement does not even make sense to me…..Were you a victim? Did someone sin against you? Just don’t get it.

      • owl says:

        if “forgivable”, then there is no justice and no deterrent to crime. i am a human being whose trespasses do not include creating mayhem, wounding and disabling 250+ and killing 3.

      • Malisha says:

        Oh we all judge and we all decide who is forgivable. That way we can function as a society. We may be dead wrong but we do it and it is valid that we do.

  10. owl says:

    a victim’s view; a reliable, first-hand account looking back and forward. it might be interesting to compile / know if his conclusion about being violated and then expressing a measure of forgiveness is universal to humankind, or case-specific. he has not met the offender, yet, in real life.
    Tsarnaev is victim deep at 250+ plus 3.

    http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2015/03/brother_of_pamela_smarts_victim_killer_did_his_time

  11. gblock says:

    As Malisha pointed out earlier, Zimmerman and Wilson are being rewarded, not chastised or punished, for their behavior. And, I am rather uninclined to be forgiving towards Zimmerman, because I am tired of observing this for so long.

  12. A critical distinction here is between “accountability” — the idea that Jahar’s age is not a defense to the charges, and that he should receive a sentence of life without parole — and the concept of “mitigation” in relationship to the death penalty, which says that his life should be spared, with youth as one main mitigating factor.

    The case of Christopher Simmons in Missouri, as decided by SCOTUS in Roper v. Simmons (2005), makes exactly this distinction. Simmons, at the age of 17, had masterminded and organized the kidnapping and murder of a woman, recruiting other teenage boys as his partners in crime, and had been sentenced to death. Justice Kennedy, writing for the Court as he often does in cases where he is the swing vote, observed that defendants below the age of 18 simply lack the maturity that would permit one to say that they are irredemable to the point of being appropriately sentenced to death. And he noted that, should there arguably be rare exceptions to this rule, the risks that a jury might focus on the enormities of a given capital crime and fail adequately to consider the mitigating force of youth outweighed any possible argument for letting the fate of those below the age of 18 be decided on a case-by-case basis.

    As Justice Kennedy also noted, one’s 18th birthday does not mark a sudden quantum leap in one’s level of maturity, but rather is simply a pragmatic line to draw for categorical ineligibility for the death penalty.

    In the case of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the prosecution’s opening statement itself presented another relevant mitigating — and not excusing! — factor: the defendant’s totally spuriously and yet subjectively sincere beliefs that he was killing in a just cause. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which were planned for maximum civilian casualties (“shock and awe,” in later parlance), show how young warriors can enthusiastically take part in the slaughter of innocent civilians with a sincere belief that they are doing right, not wrong.

    The opening witnesses have testified to the horrible human realities of this crime, whether it be viewed as a kind of “war crime” (looking at the situation from Jahar’s own perspective at the time, but taking note of the Geneva Conventions and other international law barring attacks on civilians) or simply as an act of “terrorism.”

    Obviously, we cannot permit private citizens to enlist in their own “wars” and use lethal force accordingly — even if they were to target military installations, say, rather than marathon athletes and onlookers. Jahar must be punished, and as with some other notable clients of Judy Clarke, life without parole is the likely punishment.

    But youth, a subjective sense of “just war” (however perverse from a more sober perspective, duly involved by the witness of the survivors to this atrocity), and also an absence of other serious criminal activity all are mitigating factors against the specific penalty of death — as opposed to life imprisonment!

    If the federal death penalty had been abolished, or put aside in this case, then we might hear the witnesses with a sense of solemn respect and solidarity, and without the distractions of a gladiatorial legal contest for the life of a guilty young man. It is added tragedy when the lessons of compassion and courage that the survivors and first responders have to teach us are in danger of being overshadowed by an official quest for lethal revenge in the name of the law.

    • owl says:

      Obviously, we cannot permit private citizens to enlist in their own “wars” and use lethal force accordingly — even if they were to target military installations, say, rather than marathon athletes and onlookers. Jahar must be punished, and as with some other notable clients of Judy Clarke, life without parole is the likely punishment.
      ****
      with certainty, and by her history, Judy Clarke will prevail; how fortunate for those she has defended against the death penalty, and whose lives she values over their innocent victims.
      ********
      It is added tragedy when the lessons of compassion and courage that the survivors and first responders have to teach us are in danger of being overshadowed by an official quest for lethal revenge in the name of the law.
      ****
      survivors and first responders need not teach sane human beings, already imbued with compassion and courage, that following the impulses of an evil heart, and a disturbed mind that is afflicted by radicalism and doctrine toward the calculated end of mass destruction is unconscionable.
      tragic are those counted in the hundreds whose limbs cannot be reattached, mended or restored, and whose lives are broken…and the 3 lives taken.
      Tsarnaev didn’t behead, but he amputated, blinded, deafened and bled out useful, innocent human beings. his actions are defended for the sake of idealism, not to spare a human being of value.

    • gblock says:

      It sounds like Dzhokhar’s subjective sense of engaging in a “just war” is more likely to be used against him, by arguing that he had the mindset of a terrorist, rather than as a mitigating factor, as you suggest that it should be.

  13. owl says:

    I have learned that even the worst of the worst have that spark of light that binds us all to each other and can be nurtured into a mighty flame.

    That is my cause, my purpose, my life’s work.

    I believe in forgiveness, mercy, redemption and resurrection, no matter what a person may have done.

    I would never deny that to anyone.
    ********
    whom, ever, could deny the selfless, soul-shaking purpose of these statements?
    this set of beliefs, framed by real-time experiences, captures the holy spirit…briefly, but firmly clutched in one’s hand, but heart-on imprinted.
    i have hardened away from your position, the one of my youth, my once do-good social work mindset.
    your statements are beautiful. they are God-speak and religion in its purest form. the words of someone highly evolved; a place i can only hope to arrive in my time in this life.
    you will please forgive this earnest question, but do you feel equally as forgiving toward Zimmerman and Wilson?

    • you will please forgive this earnest question, but do you feel equally as forgiving toward Zimmerman and Wilson?

      Yes. I criticized them for what they did and called them out on their false statements. As long as they live, they will have the opportunity to face the truth about themselves and commit to change. However, I haven’t seen any sign that they are making a serious good faith effort to emerge from the fog of their self-delusion.

      • owl says:

        thank you for your reply; i hope you’ll have continued patience to consider my thoughts. from time to time, i may cross into a more mindset in which all lives have hope for restoration and redemption, but more often i am motivated to respond by what violates my (puritanical) ideology. you once said i am “well programmed”….likely so.
        it does seem Zimmerman has been enabled to play out behaviors that continue to negatively affect others, and that he has been subsequently excused, an inordinate number of times, since the Trayvon killing, for poor conduct that has drawn the attention of authorities. it’s the not color of his victim, in my most humble opinion, as much the crime….murder. unpunished. unfortunately, he may offend again. i am not hopeful for his being restored to any level of enlightened cognition.
        nor will the terrorists that behead, or the brother Tsnarnaev, who so callously maimed and killed innocents. blew them out of their lives. emergency personnel slid in the blood of their victims. horrific.

  14. Two sides to a story says:

    Horrible, horrible experience for so many. I do think that someone only 19 would definitely have an abstract idea of the carnage that would result after planting bombs, but at that age, I don’t think reality hits home entirely until you actually see what you’ve done or until the victims describe in detail what has happened to them. Even Fogen at age 28 really couldn’t see past his own limited concerns.

    We all wear blinders to some degree, limited by our opinions, experiences, and ideologies. There really aren’t any winners at all in this situation or in many other sitatuations, whether cops overusing force or neighborhood watchmen overstepping their bounds, or would-be junior terrorists trying to make some misplaced ideological point. : /

    May all beings be free of suffering.

    • Malisha says:

      Even Fogen at age 28 really couldn’t see past his own limited concerns.

      It was not age that kept Fogen from understanding that a separate person has a right to his own life, and has an interest in his own personhood. Fogen will be as miserable an excuse for a human being at age 60 (if he lives that long) as he was when he murdered Trayvon Martin, unless our society stops rewarding him for his psychopathic behavior and starts really trying to rehabilitate him, by first finding that in him that is redeemable.

      Why can we no NOW hope for such a thing for Fogen, as we can hope for it for Tsarnaev? Because the prosecutor, the society, and the court system is actually fulfilling the societal role of the “people/superego” for Tsarnaev (and it may actually kill him rather than redeem him) whereas none of these things were in place for Fogen. Fogen had a racist collusive police force, a lying scheming treasonous prosecutor, a pimping judge and a whorish jury and he had a cheering section of thugs, each and every one of which was just as guilty as he was, so where would there be a redemption? Nobody could redeem Fogen because he was rewarded for murder.

      Redemption can only come through pain, if you have murdered the innocent. If it can come at all, it must come through pain. This is not to say that sadism is acceptable for “redemption purposes” but it IS to say that if someone can look upon the wrong he has done and not feel pain, if he can lie about his crimes and be jollied and lovie-dovied and worshipped and titillated by goons like the Outhousers, he will never have the slightest chance at what we think of as redemption.

      Not that I personally think Fogen would have reached that, anyway. Tsarnaev, who knows? His lawyer has, fortunately, managed to keep him quiet so we know very little about him. The single quote I heard from his mother was not very encouraging. (Remember Fogen’s disgusting Magistrate father writing his book calling the NBA “racist”?)

      But there is reason to think that perhaps Tsarnaev’s case will be different. He is young. His brother is dead. He does not have broad support for his appalling behavior. We have not heard a great outcry about how he is being victimized. Frank Taaffe is home drinking or out preaching. Hannity is not likely to feature a Muslim bomber any time soon. So another kind of result could occur.

      • owl says:

        yes, we are Boston, so it will be different…better in that there will likely be order and dignity to the formal legal process.
        informally, however, rage is expressed toward Tsarnaev in most public media commentary.
        forget not that he was featured on the cover of Rolling Stone, an appalling visual to many, regardless of the article’s content.
        one is an adult at 19…and in instances where 15 year olds commit murder, or horrific crimes, age is less a mitigating factor than a generation or two ago.
        horrific, senseless murder with intent.

        • gblock says:

          “…age is less a mitigating factor than a generation or two ago.”

          Why is that? I agree that this is the way that the criminal justice system in this country has gone in recent years, but I do not believe that this is the way that the criminal justice system *should* go, especially in the light of what is now known about the development of the judgment centers of the brain, which are not fully developed until well past age 20.

          • owl says:

            i agree that the trend to hold juveniles accountable as adults is in contrast to studies supporting the brain is not fully developed before age 30.
            clearly, 19 year olds are held accountable for their actions as adults in MA.
            interestingly, i had some moments of sympathy for Tsarnaev when he was hunted down in Watertown and discovered in the boat. a co-worker, a former long time teacher, a kind man and thoughtful, compassionate individual, shared that same emotion with me. shortly thereafter, we both came to balance the magnanimity of Tsarnaev’s presence / participation in this heinous crime as lacking the mitigation of his youth.
            after all, a new or young driver is held accountable and punished for his / her actions behind the wheel that may cause disability or death to others.
            i think it will be hard to separate his choice from the defense of his being under the influence of his older brother or his being 19 years old. of legal age, and old enough to know right from wrong.

  15. gblock says:

    Listening to the coverage of some of yesterday’s testimony on the news last night, I wondered if maybe Dzhokhar was starting to have some understanding, for the first time, of the damage that he had done to the lives of the people involved. Could it be, or is this mostly wishful thinking on my part?

    • girlp says:

      I hope he does

    • Was there something that really made you think he was “getting it”? Other than online, I had not heard any other coverage. Hard to believe he would not have had some earlier comrehension, but also do not know what he has been hearing.

      • gblock says:

        I suppose that I have no specific reason to think so. I know that he had heard some of the news coverage about the bombing, but since he is sitting there listening to the testimony, he is probably hearing specifics about the effects on the victims in far more detail than he ever has before. I am hoping that this would have some effect on him.

        Dzhokhar was quite young at the time of the bombing (and still is very young). Although he was legally an adult, current science says that the parts of our frontal lobes that govern until close to the mid-twenties. For this reason, juvenile justice used to have an emphasis on rehabilitation rather than punishment. We seem to have gotten away from that, but I hope that we can return to it. I don’t know if Dzhokhar felt intimidated by his older brother, but it definitely seems unlikely that he would have become involved in something like the Boston Marathon Bombing if it has not been for Tamerlan’s influence. Maybe I am mostly just being sentimental, but I would hope that remorse and some type of redemption are eventually possible for him.

    • If the courtroom is set up the way most courtrooms are, the media sits behind the bar, which is the railing that separates the lawyers and the defendant from the public. By sitting behind the prosecution table, they might occasionally get a side view of Dzhokhar’s face. If they are in the overflow room, the might occasionally get a view of him on the courtroom video which is triggered by a voice speaking. For example, the picture might switch to one of the defense lawyers speaking and he might be visible briefly to the side.

      I don’t think there is anyway that they could see him often enough to form an accurate opinion of how he is visibly reacting or not reacting to critical testimony.

      One thing is for sure, however, the jurors will be checking him out to see how he reacts and they will be able to see him clearly. To have a chance for an LWOP sentence, he needs to exhibit remorse and concern or he will likely get the death penalty. Indifference and boredom will kill him.

      • gblock says:

        The one thing that I heard about his reaction is that he was not looking at the witnesses. This certainly seems understandable, but could go against him, since it might be interpreted as being uncaring or bored, even if that isn’t actually how he feels about it.

      • Diamonique says:

        Listening to a news report/discussion about this last Friday. It may be difficult to read Dzhokhar’s face for reactions because — of his face is partially paralyzed due to a gunshot wound.

        • gblock says:

          This could also increase the problem for him of appearing to be uncaring or bored, if the jury is not aware of the paralysis.

          • Diamonique says:

            True. That’s exactly what the reporters were saying when I heard this. They mentioned that they’ve seen articles stating that he has no reactions or seems uncaring, and this could be the impression because of the paralysis. I’m guessing his lawyer will find a way to bring this up during the trial. But if that’s possible, he’d better hurry up. You don’t want to leave that kind of impression in the jurors’ minds for too long if you can help it.

          • owl says:

            i do hope the details of why and how he was injured will be further detailed.
            apparently, he chose to be taken alive than to die.
            the eyes hold emotion and expression; perhaps more so than the mouth, if only he were to make eye contact with his victims.
            such visceral hatred for Zimmerman who killed one; such lenience extended to the perpetrator of unspeakable violence to so many.

          • gblock says:

            Diamonique: If it wasn’t mentioned during opening statements, then since the prosecution gets to make their main case first, his lawyer may have limited ability for some time to create opportunities to bring this up.

          • gblock says:

            owl: Some of the hatred expressed for Zimmerman among the commenters to this blog may be displaced from those who glorified his criminal action, by taking his story as gospel despite its contradictions, by making up details to try to make his actions the night of the shooting seem more excusable, and worse, by falsely maligning his victim by inventing stories to make Trayvon appear to be a dangerous thug who deserved to be killed.

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: