Was the GZ Trial even Real?

This is why no one with half a brain takes you really seriously.

 

I'm not sure exactly what you're referencing. There was an article that referenced a study by Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas. I'm not talking about the article or my interpretation of it. I'm talking about the study. That was based on observation and quantification of scientific data.

No, those two ideas are mutually exclusive. Dianna cannot be assassinated and alive at the same time.

I'm not talking about inter-dimensional entities. I don't know anyone else that is talking about them here.

I did not attack you. Pointing out that you are not in touch with reality is simply repeating what you have said yourself.

You did just attack me.

I don't disdain your thoughts and ideas. I think you are confused, misguided and possibly ill. I'm trying to help you.

Your 10 points are questions or statements that you have made to attempt to support your contention that there is a fault with a presented "reality." They do so using flawed logic, incorrect information, ambiguity, and misinterpreted evidence. They are filled with incorrect statements that contain strange speculation, special pleading, begging the question, and a host of other fallacies. These strained attempts to find flaws in reality are obvious to me because I'm not caught up in your own special fiction. They don't make sense.

 

You're good. But why, for example, were charges not read during the handing down of the alleged verdict? Why did Seminole county have the entire courthouse lit up for MSNBC's backdrop camera shots, set up in anticipation of riots? And yes, your other post had nothing to do with my 10 points, but rather was a pshychologocal analysis of my intentions Behind creating the thread.
I consider that an attack on me. Attack my ideas. Shoot them all down if you can.

 

I'll tell you what the answer isn't.

The answer isn't because inter-dimensional entities are unaware of Florida courtroom procedure. If you think this thing was a hoax, why would they get a detail about courtroom verdict reading incorrect?

 

When I debate creationists this is called "God of the Gaps" so I guess here, it would be "Conspiracy of the Gaps". Basically what you are doing is anywhere you can't find an answer, instead of taking the time to investigate them and find out the answer, you automatically assume it is a conspiracy.

 

The sum of the questions, or the subject matter of said questions, expose the conspiracy.

Sure, its circumstantial, but didn't Scott Peterson get sent away for circumstantial evidence?

 

Since most people won't notice details like I do, they weren't concerned with that detail.

If they don't fake all the little details, they won't have to face the music if someone calls them on the whole hoaxing bluff. Its a legal back door, just in case.

This way its not fraud. Its just a play. And that's legal, albeit extremely immoral.

 

So super advanced inter-dimensional entities (that most people on Earth aren't even aware of) are concerned that they might get caught and thrown in a 3 dimensional prison?

Of course. It all makes sense now.

Except you didn't bother to figure out the answer to any of your questions. Arguments don't work like this:

1. I have questions that I can't be bothered to research the answer to.
2. Ego nothing is real and everything is a play staged by inter-dimensional beings.

The answer to your question 1 is: Juries are instructed to fill out a verdict form. This form follows a standard format. This form is handed to the judge who reviews it, and is read by the foreman of the jury. In this case, the foreman read the form incorrectly and skipped to the verdict. Maybe this is because it was the only area that had a check mark next to it. Maybe it was because the foreman had never been on a jury before. Maybe it was because the foreman was nervous because she knew this was a national case with national attention. Least likely of answers is, maybe it was because an inter-dimensional entity's virtual reality holo-deck had an intentional hiccup.

 

OK. The inter-dimensional thing was taken out of context. No need to drag that out anymore.

You got your multiple burns in on me for that, OK? You Win, Champ.

Moving on....

According to B-37, the jury did Not know anything about the case being a national mega story.

They were sequestered. Deeply sequestered. And had they made it onto the jury by lying, in full knowledge of the magnitude of the story, they would at that point be......Conspirators.

Argue that.

 

Pretentious much.

 

Yes, and Justifiably so, my dearest.

 

Uh huh...lol

 

You were asked what reality was, and responded that reality is a facade created by inter-dimensional beings. What context am I missing here? Beyond that, you've twice now defended their existence. If we can't talk about what you believe, what are we supposed to talk about?

First, you haven't shown anyone was lying. And second, you're wrong about her statement. She said, “isolation shielded me from the depth of pain that exists among the general public over every aspect of this case,”

That didn't mean she was unaware of the national attention on the case. It just means she was unaware of what was going on nationally while she was sequestered.

Also, the other jurors have been quick to note that she doesn't speak for them. They said:

Highly emotional and physically draining are words that describe a condition that might have caused someone to have had a hard time reading a verdict.

 

She was cleared to be on the this jury, knowing the magnitude of this story.

Yet somehow, she knows almost no details about the incident?

That's not logical.

 

Who said she knew no details about the incident? Jury members do not have to be completely ignorant of a case in order to be cleared.

 

Bias infects the human mind almost instantly.

There's no way she didn't form an opinion within seconds of her first time hearing about it.

 

What does this have to do with your point that reality isn't real again?

Is your argument reality isn't real because potential jurors are inclined to biases that might not lead to a completely impartial verdict? Isn't that the point of selecting a jury instead of letting a single judge decide?

 

You pulled me off my topic with your psych warfare tactics.

I was just playing your game at this point.

I still believe it was all staged, and the juror point I made somewhat validates my OP anyway.

 

There's no game. You made an argument. Defend it or reject it.

Even if I believed that there was an improperly selected biased juror, (I don't) how does the existence of a biased juror support your claim that the trial was staged? Are you suggesting that it's impossible for a biased juror to exist in a trial that that has not been staged? That's going to be pretty tough to prove...

 

An interesting (lawyers) perspective on the purpose of jury selection that speaks to the point that I was making:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/07/juror-b29-and-zimmerman-revisionism.php

We select a group of people because the group itself can be greater than the sum of its parts. No one juror decides the outcome of the case. It's a collaborative effort that counters the prejudices and biases that afflict choices made by individuals.

Lawyers want biased juries. The defense wants jurors that are biased to the defense, and the prosecution wants jurors that are biased to the prosecution. It's no surprise that you'll find a juror that may have a sympathy for one side or the other.

 

Agreed.

Definitely C12H17N2O4P

 

|| || | | | || ||| | || | | || || ||| | | || ||| ||| || | | | || ||| | || | | || || ||| | | || ||| |

You have been scanned. Have a nice day.

 

Dude,

Inter dimensional beings are possibly attacking us as we speak by rigging juries to make it look like Hispanic guys that vaguely look like white guys are killing black guys in self defense and all you can do is make jokes?

 

It wasn't a joke. You're now in the database. Good luck with that.

 

If GZ didn't defend himself, Trayvon would be in prison for murder as he was trying to murder Zimmerman.

If GZ just wanted to shoot himself a black boy, why did he wait 'til that black broke his nose instead of shooting him on sight?