Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[Run It Up]

She can't read cursive, any cursive.

I bet that's a lot less rare now than it was 20 years ago. I'm not sure schools still teach cursive.

I'm 26 in August, they taught cursive in 3rd grade. I'm going to college now and in my entire education, I have never been required to write in cursive, the result being, I can read in cursive just fine and can write only my name in cursive.

 

[avoiding injuries]

Since she obviously got coached last night to use sir after every answer, isn't it reasonable to assume she spoke about this trial and her testimony with someone even though the court instructed her not to?

 

[Joe McGee]

Since she obviously got coached last night to use sir after every answer, isn't it reasonable to assume she spoke about this trial and her testimony with someone even though the court instructed her not to?

Yes, but good luck proving that.

 

[Da Guru]

The good thing is that whatever the verdict..Not guilty or guilty. it will be peacefully accepted by the community knowing that the system ran its course and worked.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Since she obviously got coached last night to use sir after every answer, isn't it reasonable to assume she spoke about this trial and her testimony with someone even though the court instructed her not to?

Crump obviously

 

[Lutherman2112]

Since she obviously got coached last night to use sir after every answer, isn't it reasonable to assume she spoke about this trial and her testimony with someone even though the court instructed her not to?

She has her own lawyer. She was definitely coached to be more respectful of the court.

 

[The Commish]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

How can she not be considered a liar? She has admitted to it.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She gave 3 different statements as to what Zimmerman said to Martin.

I believe (I could be wrong) she only mentioned that Martin said "Get off, Get off" between the hit and the phone disconnect once, all of the other times she stated when the punch was thrown or when the hit was made by whomever, THAT is when the phone went dead.

Additionally she claims she left out the part where Martin called Zimmerman a creepy *** ****er to spare his mother's feelings since she felt her mother would be offended by it, but her herself did not find the statement racist, even after admitting that she thought this was a racially motivated crime based on Martin's description of Zimmerman (aka creepy *** ****er)

If she is this inconsistent, I don't think the jury will give her testimony any relevance to the case.

 

[jamny]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

I don't think she puts much thought into what she says and winds up not remembering exactly what she said.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Since she obviously got coached last night to use sir after every answer, isn't it reasonable to assume she spoke about this trial and her testimony with someone even though the court instructed her not to?

West picked up on that immediately, "You seem to be acting differently today, did you speak with someone after the trial yesterday?"

DiDi: "No I went to sleep"

Just full of lies...

 

[VA703]

typical

 

[jamny]

Is her lawyer allowed to tell her to speak up and be more respectful?

It's not actually talking about the trial itself.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Is her lawyer allowed to tell her to speak up and be more respectful?

It's not actually talking about the trial itself.

I believe since it was an overnight recess she is not supposed to be in contact with any lawyers. If they allow a lawyer to advise her to be more respectful, who's to say they won't talk to her about the trial?

 

[timschochet]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle.

"John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

 

[Slapdash]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

I don't think she really understood this whole process.

 

[StrikeS2k]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

I don't think she really understood this whole process.

What does that have to do with whether she's being truthful or not? Do you think she didn't understand when they asked her if she swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? You don't think her lawyer told her she had to tell the truth on the stand?

 

[StrikeS2k]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

I believe her when it fits my narrative of this case. You know, cause she only lies on trivial stuff. She would never lie to get revenge for her good friend TM.

 

[jamny]

Now it's "Yes, Mr. West"

 

[Joe McGee]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle.

"John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

You're weird.

 

[Todem]

This is painful.

Very painful to watch.

 

[Witz]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle.

"John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

 

[timschochet]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

 

[Joe McGee]

He finally raised his voice and eviscerated her - you don't know that do you? She changed her mind and said no.

 

[Witz]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

What? If you're on the jury, her earlier statements are being presented in this case and are being discussed right now during the trial. This is a very important piece of information.

And actually right now, it looks like they are reading a transcript her statements where she mentions get off me and it reads as it coulda been but they are asking the court to play the actual recorded statement (as I was typing they were going to play but than read the transcript).

You are grasping at the thinest of straws if you are saying this difference doesn't carry the same weight. It lends itself to the fact that her story changed or was embelished.

 

[Slapdash]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

I don't think she really understood this whole process.

What does that have to do with whether she's being truthful or not? Do you think she didn't understand when they asked her if she swore to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth? You don't think her lawyer told her she had to tell the truth on the stand?

I don't think she realized the seriousness of things like her letter and earlier coversations with lawyers are on par with the trial.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

You can understand why a biased individual such as DiDi could add more facts to her story the more times she tells it to support showing Zimmerman as a murderer as more time goes on to help her parent's case though right? And if you were on the jury you would give more weight to the initial and previous statements she made both in recorded statements with lawyers, news broadcasts, and written descriptions omitting such damaging statements, right?

 

[Slapdash]

He finally raised his voice and eviscerated her - you don't know that do you? She changed her mind and said no.

There are only two people that know that. One is dead and the other killed him.

 

[timschochet]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

You can understand why a biased individual such as DiDi could add more facts to her story the more times she tells it to support showing Zimmerman as a murderer as more time goes on to help her parent's case though right? And if you were on the jury you would give more weight to the initial and previous statements she made both in recorded statements with lawyers, news broadcasts, and written descriptions omitting such damaging statements, right?

Yes. But what I am trying to point out is that the witness has presented a narrative here which makes Zimmerman seem guilty of the charge. Simply pointing out a discrepancy in her statements and suggesting reasons for that discrepancy is not enough, IMO, to discount that narrative. The defense needs to provide an alternative narrative.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

The original audio is damaging to her testimony.. I'm sure the prosecution will want to block that from being played in front of the jury.

 

[The Commish]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

 

[timschochet]

Are there any witnesses that are going to contradict any prosecutorial testimony with their own eye/ear witness accounts, or is the defense all discrediting these witnesses and possibly Zimmerman testifying?

Their initial accounts all contract their current accounts. They all seem to remember more as time goes on. And none of their accounts are definitive. They are all full of doubt and even speculation. Identifying screams from people they don't know through building walls, and the same person who can't tell the difference between one shot and three shots. Identifying people by who appeared bigger in the dark, but misindentifying who was wearing the darker clothes. One person say they were running north, the other saying south. There is not one solid account of the events.

Is this really all that uncommon for criminal case eye witnesses? And enough to convict - rightly or wrongly in run of the bill cases every day?

In my own experience, most witnesses "improve" their accounts and leave themselves open for some impeachment, but doing post-conviction work, I've seen a lot of guys convicted on the testimony of unreliable witnesses. Of course, those defendants likely had worse lawyers than Zimmerman.

My own impression is that few of these witnesses matter all that much. As a matter of law, it is true that the State must prove every element of the crime, including the lack of a self defense defense, beyond a reasonable doubt. But I just don't think it works that way in practice (and in fact, it couldn't). Because so much of this case is undisputed (i.e., that Zimmerman did shoot Martin and that Martin was unarmed), I just think that the Defense's evidence is going to mean a lot more than the State's evidence.

That doesn't mean that the defense will need to put Zimmerman on the stand (although I'd say that it's rare not to do so in a self defense defense), but they'll have to present expert testimony that looks at forensic evidence and reconstructs the crime scene and timeline and that makes more sense than the State's presentation. Again, this arguably is against what the law says because theoretically Zimmerman shouldn't have to carry the burden of proof. But my own impression of that is that only really matters to the extent that a trial judge gives an improper jury instruction on that element.

Thanks for this. Very thoughtful analysis.

 

[jon_mx]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

You work hard to rationalize her lies and believe her. On Zimmerman, you trip over yourself to try to find lies and discredit everything he says. At least attempt to show some impartiality and consistant thinking in your arguements.

 

[jamny]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

Why not? It's not like it's a racist comment or anything.

 

[Witz]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

You can understand why a biased individual such as DiDi could add more facts to her story the more times she tells it to support showing Zimmerman as a murderer as more time goes on to help her parent's case though right? And if you were on the jury you would give more weight to the initial and previous statements she made both in recorded statements with lawyers, news broadcasts, and written descriptions omitting such damaging statements, right?

Yes. But what I am trying to point out is that the witness has presented a narrative here which makes Zimmerman seem guilty of the charge. Simply pointing out a discrepancy in her statements and suggesting reasons for that discrepancy is not enough, IMO, to discount that narrative. The defense needs to provide an alternative narrative.

and her earlier narratives mentioned nothing of that nature.

So you're saying only her statements now are valid in your eyes? So if earlier she made statements that Martin was the instigator but now in court she says, it was actually Zimmerman, that we should just go with what she is saying now? So basically any statements made prior to statements in court are immaterial to you. Is that what you're saying Tim?

 

[The Commish]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

Why not? It's not like it's a racist comment or anything.

Because she's a liar??

Not to derail the thread any further but is "cracker" still racist? Last time I really heard it used was during the "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons" days. Do people still use it?

 

[The Commish]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

You can understand why a biased individual such as DiDi could add more facts to her story the more times she tells it to support showing Zimmerman as a murderer as more time goes on to help her parent's case though right? And if you were on the jury you would give more weight to the initial and previous statements she made both in recorded statements with lawyers, news broadcasts, and written descriptions omitting such damaging statements, right?

Yes. But what I am trying to point out is that the witness has presented a narrative here which makes Zimmerman seem guilty of the charge. Simply pointing out a discrepancy in her statements and suggesting reasons for that discrepancy is not enough, IMO, to discount that narrative. The defense needs to provide an alternative narrative.

and her earlier narratives mentioned nothing of that nature.

So you're saying only her statements now are valid in your eyes? So if earlier she made statements that Martin was the instigator but now in court she says, it was actually Zimmerman, that we should just go with what she is saying now? So basically any statements made prior to statements in court are immaterial to you. Is that what you're saying Tim?

Dumb question....are all the earlier statements part of the official record for the trial and does the jury know about them, get to read them?

 

[jon_mx]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

Why not? It's not like it's a racist comment or anything.

Because she's a liar??

Not to derail the thread any further but is "cracker" still racist? Last time I really heard it used was during the "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons" days. Do people still use it?

It depends if it is a reference to a Ritz or a refernece to a Saltine cracker.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

she's lying through her teeth here

she clearly said "I couldn't hear Trayvon"

 

[jamny]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

Why not? It's not like it's a racist comment or anything.

Because she's a liar??

Not to derail the thread any further but is "cracker" still racist? Last time I really heard it used was during the "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons" days. Do people still use it?

But the cracker comment doesn't help her story. Why would she make that part up?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

I think she's been coached to tailor her story to help the prosecution..

 

[Witz]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

You can understand why a biased individual such as DiDi could add more facts to her story the more times she tells it to support showing Zimmerman as a murderer as more time goes on to help her parent's case though right? And if you were on the jury you would give more weight to the initial and previous statements she made both in recorded statements with lawyers, news broadcasts, and written descriptions omitting such damaging statements, right?

Yes. But what I am trying to point out is that the witness has presented a narrative here which makes Zimmerman seem guilty of the charge. Simply pointing out a discrepancy in her statements and suggesting reasons for that discrepancy is not enough, IMO, to discount that narrative. The defense needs to provide an alternative narrative.

and her earlier narratives mentioned nothing of that nature.

So you're saying only her statements now are valid in your eyes? So if earlier she made statements that Martin was the instigator but now in court she says, it was actually Zimmerman, that we should just go with what she is saying now? So basically any statements made prior to statements in court are immaterial to you. Is that what you're saying Tim?

Dumb question....are all the earlier statements part of the official record for the trial and does the jury know about them, get to read them?

Without seeing the evidence inventory, I couldn't say but the fact that those statements are being brought up and discussed indicates it's in the record and part of the discussion.

 

[The Commish]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

Why not? It's not like it's a racist comment or anything.

Because she's a liar??

Not to derail the thread any further but is "cracker" still racist? Last time I really heard it used was during the "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons" days. Do people still use it?

But the cracker comment doesn't help her story. Why would she make that part up?

Because she's a liar?? Because she's a bat#### crazy female?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

she's lying through her teeth here

she clearly said "I couldn't hear Trayvon"

 

[The Commish]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

You can understand why a biased individual such as DiDi could add more facts to her story the more times she tells it to support showing Zimmerman as a murderer as more time goes on to help her parent's case though right? And if you were on the jury you would give more weight to the initial and previous statements she made both in recorded statements with lawyers, news broadcasts, and written descriptions omitting such damaging statements, right?

Yes. But what I am trying to point out is that the witness has presented a narrative here which makes Zimmerman seem guilty of the charge. Simply pointing out a discrepancy in her statements and suggesting reasons for that discrepancy is not enough, IMO, to discount that narrative. The defense needs to provide an alternative narrative.

and her earlier narratives mentioned nothing of that nature.

So you're saying only her statements now are valid in your eyes? So if earlier she made statements that Martin was the instigator but now in court she says, it was actually Zimmerman, that we should just go with what she is saying now? So basically any statements made prior to statements in court are immaterial to you. Is that what you're saying Tim?

Dumb question....are all the earlier statements part of the official record for the trial and does the jury know about them, get to read them?

Without seeing the evidence inventory, I couldn't say but the fact that those statements are being brought up and discussed indicates it's in the record and part of the discussion.

Ok...was just wondering. My follow up question if the answer was "no" was going to be to ask if that's why they were doing this line of questioning ("earlier in statements you said....") Was wondering if that was their way of getting all this on record.

 

[jamny]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

Why not? It's not like it's a racist comment or anything.

Because she's a liar??

Not to derail the thread any further but is "cracker" still racist? Last time I really heard it used was during the "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons" days. Do people still use it?

But the cracker comment doesn't help her story. Why would she make that part up?

Because she's a liar?? Because she's a bat#### crazy female?

Oh. Well, I don't see her as that.

 

[The Commish]

So, am I to believe her "cracker" comment or not? Seems like most think she's a full blown liar and the only thing I've seen from her is "Yes sir" and "Yes Mr West Sir" so I'm not sure.

Why not? It's not like it's a racist comment or anything.

Because she's a liar??

Not to derail the thread any further but is "cracker" still racist? Last time I really heard it used was during the "All in the Family" and "The Jeffersons" days. Do people still use it?

But the cracker comment doesn't help her story. Why would she make that part up?

Because she's a liar?? Because she's a bat#### crazy female?

Oh. Well, I don't see her as that.

Well, that's what I'm asking....I haven't gotten to watch much of her. Was looking for opinions. You don't think she's a liar...a lot of others do. I'm trying to get a sense of her through you guys.

 

[timschochet]

So, what's the consensus on the girl on the stand now? Liar or no? I didn't get to watch any yesterday and just did a little bit this AM.

She's stupid. She lies- mostly about irrelevant things. But when it comes to the important stuff in the case, I think she's believable. If I'm on the jury, I need to see evidence that contradicts her statement that Martin yelled "get off me, get off me." Contrary to jon mx, I don't think the photos of Zimmerman's injuries will be enough, because nobody is disputing that there was a struggle."John"'s testimony may be enough to discredit Didi. Maybe- it depends how strong that is. But absent that, I think Zimmerman needs to testify to contradict Didi. That's my opinion, but the jury may be thinking otherwise.

In all of her earlier statements, she never mentioned get off me, get off me. It was only after the fact that she added that part. Explain that discrepancy.

If I'm on the jury, I'm not aware of her earlier statements. And even when I am, they don't provide the same weight of her testimony on the stand, unless the discrepancy involves a direct contradiction. That is not the case here. Therefore, I don't believe this discrepancy will affect the jury all by itself- unless buttressed by other contradictory testimony- such as John or Zimmerman.

You can understand why a biased individual such as DiDi could add more facts to her story the more times she tells it to support showing Zimmerman as a murderer as more time goes on to help her parent's case though right? And if you were on the jury you would give more weight to the initial and previous statements she made both in recorded statements with lawyers, news broadcasts, and written descriptions omitting such damaging statements, right?

Yes. But what I am trying to point out is that the witness has presented a narrative here which makes Zimmerman seem guilty of the charge. Simply pointing out a discrepancy in her statements and suggesting reasons for that discrepancy is not enough, IMO, to discount that narrative. The defense needs to provide an alternative narrative.

and her earlier narratives mentioned nothing of that nature.

So you're saying only her statements now are valid in your eyes? So if earlier she made statements that Martin was the instigator but now in court she says, it was actually Zimmerman, that we should just go with what she is saying now? So basically any statements made prior to statements in court are immaterial to you. Is that what you're saying Tim?

No that's not what I'm saying. If she clearly contradicted herself, then the jury can discount it. But I'm not convinced she did. The fact that she added something that is not a direct contradiction can be explained in a manner other than "she is clearly lying."

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

she's lying through her teeth here

she clearly said "I couldn't hear Trayvon"

listen to it carefully, how many syllables in could vs. couldn't?

 

[timschochet]

she's lying through her teeth here

she clearly said "I couldn't hear Trayvon"