Florida boy killed by Neighborhood Watch (2 Viewers)

[Jojo the circus boy]

Not following the story as close as others. Is she really the prosections "star" witness as I see her being labeled on some news outlets?

Yes, and once she gets impeached there's a chance the Defense won't even have to present a defense due to lack of evidence.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Not following the story as close as others. Is she really the prosections "star" witness as I see her being labeled on some news outlets?

I think the fact that treyvon was on the phone right up to the moment of the altercation is the telling part....who walks up to someone with a phone in one hand talking and punches someone in the face with the other hand (according to zimm trey jumped him)

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

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?

 

[jon_mx]

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.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Not following the story as close as others. Is she really the prosections "star" witness as I see her being labeled on some news outlets?

I think the fact that treyvon was on the phone right up to the moment of the altercation is the telling part....who walks up to someone with a phone in one hand talking and punches someone in the face with the other hand (according to zimm trey jumped him)

Nice bit of deductive reasoning BK. Right or wrong.

* Now i must go look at some of those statements,

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Not following the story as close as others. Is she really the prosections "star" witness as I see her being labeled on some news outlets?

I think the fact that treyvon was on the phone right up to the moment of the altercation is the telling part....who walks up to someone with a phone in one hand talking and punches someone in the face with the other hand (according to zimm trey jumped him)

It's already been established that not only was Martin using headphones with an attached mic so he wouldn't need to have it in his hand, but there's a good chance he clasped his phone to make his hand bigger (similar effect as brass knuckles) in order to punch Zimmerman which may have been why Zimmerman thought he had something in his hand.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Today's drinking game:

Every time DiDi says, "Yous Got To Understand", drink.

Every time they ask her to repeat herself, drink.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

They cant track Trayvons/Zimmers movements like they did Aaron Hernandez, because of the difference of quality of cell phone?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

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.

 

[jon_mx]

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.

When things are thrown into a jury's hands it is very unpredictable. Instead of basing their decision on the totality of the evidence, juries often focus on a simple concept and base their decision on it (the glove don't fit). It really comes down to what the jury decides in their collective reasoning on which aspect they are really going to focus on to base their decision. If I was on the jury, my attention would be on who I thought was on top when the trigger was pulled. All this other junk is in the noise.

ETA: The eye-witness accounts are contradicted by all the physical evidence. Zimmerman's beat up face. Grass stains. Injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Another question.....

It is my understanding that when this incident first ocurred there was a police investigation and based on that investigation it was determined there

was insufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman. If that is indeed the case, can the defense bring that up during the trial and call the people who investigated as witnesses to testify as to the lack of evidence they originally found?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

When things are thrown into a jury's hands it is very unpredictable. Instead of basing their decision on the totality of the evidence, juries often focus on a simple concept and base their decision on it (the glove don't fit). It really comes down to what the jury decides in their collective reasoning on which aspect they are really going to focus on to base their decision. If I was on the jury, my attention would be on who I thought was on top when the trigger was pulled. All this other junk is in the noise.

ETA: The eye-witness accounts are contradicted by all the physical evidence. Zimmerman's beat up face. Grass stains. Injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head.

But how can you be on the "knock-knock" jury and know already what to be looking for?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

omg she cannot read her own friggin hand writing?!?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Another question.....

It is my understanding that when this incident first ocurred there was a police investigation and based on that investigation it was determined there

was insufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman. If that is indeed the case, can the defense bring that up during the trial and call the people who investigated as witnesses to testify as to the lack of evidence they originally found?

I thought that the "police investigation" concluded that Zimmerman was a liar? And that they were upset that the prosecution failed to press charges?

(I may very well be remembering this wrong or misrepresenting and I don't have a link, but I think this is a correct memory.)

 

[jon_mx]

Another question.....

It is my understanding that when this incident first ocurred there was a police investigation and based on that investigation it was determined there

was insufficient evidence to charge Zimmerman. If that is indeed the case, can the defense bring that up during the trial and call the people who investigated as witnesses to testify as to the lack of evidence they originally found?

I thought that the "police investigation" concluded that Zimmerman was a liar? And that they were upset that the prosecution failed to press charges?

(I may very well be remembering this wrong or misrepresenting and I don't have a link, but I think this is a correct memory.)

Pretty much true. But this is often the case, where police feel they know they are right, but the proscutor expects evidence to back up those feelings.

 

[Gawain]

Whole lot of creepy ### crackas in here.

 

[Run It Up]

This questioning is getting pretty exhausting.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

They cant track Trayvons/Zimmers movements like they did Aaron Hernandez, because of the difference of quality of cell phone?

I think that has to do with the function of the phone and whether or not you have the GPS function activated.. Also, a cell phone GPS wont give you pin point accuracy. In AHern case they just needed to know AHern was in the same area. In this case they already know the 2 were in the same area.

 

[Slapdash]

Today's drinking game:Every time DiDi says, "Yous Got To Understand", drink.Every time they ask her to repeat herself, drink.

Here's hoping you and the rest of Hannity's forums end up with alcohol poisoning.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This questioning is getting pretty exhausting.

I need to turn on subtitles, her speaking is grating

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Today's drinking game:Every time DiDi says, "Yous Got To Understand", drink.Every time they ask her to repeat herself, drink.

Here's hoping you and the rest of Hannity's forums end up with alcohol poisoning.

yes......SIR

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

BALD HEADED DUDE

SORRY I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME DUDE

 

[The Commish]

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.

When things are thrown into a jury's hands it is very unpredictable. Instead of basing their decision on the totality of the evidence, juries often focus on a simple concept and base their decision on it (the glove don't fit). It really comes down to what the jury decides in their collective reasoning on which aspect they are really going to focus on to base their decision. If I was on the jury, my attention would be on who I thought was on top when the trigger was pulled. All this other junk is in the noise.

ETA: The eye-witness accounts are contradicted by all the physical evidence. Zimmerman's beat up face. Grass stains. Injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head.

I thought "who was the one yelling 'help' " and everything else was noise....which is it?

 

[avoiding injuries]

BALD HEADED DUDE

SORRY I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME DUDE

"This guy?" Pointing down at the prosecuter.

 

[The Commish]

Today's drinking game:Every time DiDi says, "Yous Got To Understand", drink.Every time they ask her to repeat herself, drink.

Here's hoping you and the rest of Hannity's forums end up with alcohol poisoning.

 

[jamny]

BALD HEADED DUDE

SORRY I DON'T KNOW YOUR NAME DUDE

Lawyer should have said "this dude?" instead of "this guy?"

 

[Run It Up]

This questioning is getting pretty exhausting.

I need to turn on subtitles, her speaking is grating

Shes clearly not very educated, the questioning is just as annoying to me.

 

[Joe McGee]

Defense has already discredited this witness. Time to let her go and move on. These questions are going nowhere and everyone is tired of it.

Judge seems to be annoyed with defense tactics. Seems like the majority of objections go to the prosecutor.

She got coached to say sir. WHY CAN'T THEY GET HER TO SPEAK UP?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

This questioning is getting pretty exhausting.

I need to turn on subtitles, her speaking is grating

Shes clearly not very educated, the questioning is just as annoying to me.

It's important he repeats every word she says for the jury to hear it, nobody can clearly understand what she is saying.

 

[Joe McGee]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

 

[jon_mx]

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.

When things are thrown into a jury's hands it is very unpredictable. Instead of basing their decision on the totality of the evidence, juries often focus on a simple concept and base their decision on it (the glove don't fit). It really comes down to what the jury decides in their collective reasoning on which aspect they are really going to focus on to base their decision. If I was on the jury, my attention would be on who I thought was on top when the trigger was pulled. All this other junk is in the noise.

ETA: The eye-witness accounts are contradicted by all the physical evidence. Zimmerman's beat up face. Grass stains. Injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head.

I thought "who was the one yelling 'help' " and everything else was noise....which is it?

I am assuming they are one in the same person.

 

[jamny]

No

 

[Gawain]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

He is establishing a pattern of lying to fit her words in with what the people want to hear. West will likely ask at some point how we can be sure she isn't lying now to make her story fit, just like she has done several other times. He's got a pretty clear line going here imo.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Right there, he should have said "Is it fair to say, Trayvon's mother being present during your interview with the prosecutor effected your testimony?"

 

[Joe McGee]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

He is establishing a pattern of lying to fit her words in with what the people want to hear. West will likely ask at some point how we can be sure she isn't lying now to make her story fit, just like she has done several other times. He's got a pretty clear line going here imo.

Sure. It's just painful to watch.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

To show Trayvon's mom being there effected her testimony

 

[Gawain]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

He is establishing a pattern of lying to fit her words in with what the people want to hear. West will likely ask at some point how we can be sure she isn't lying now to make her story fit, just like she has done several other times. He's got a pretty clear line going here imo.

Sure. It's just painful to watch.

This witness doesn't evoke much sympathy to us, but imagine what she must be going through. She's a soon to be 20 year old still in high school. She cannot read her own writing. I doubt she's had too many situations where she just couldn't leave if she didn't want to be there.

 

[The Commish]

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.

When things are thrown into a jury's hands it is very unpredictable. Instead of basing their decision on the totality of the evidence, juries often focus on a simple concept and base their decision on it (the glove don't fit). It really comes down to what the jury decides in their collective reasoning on which aspect they are really going to focus on to base their decision. If I was on the jury, my attention would be on who I thought was on top when the trigger was pulled. All this other junk is in the noise.

ETA: The eye-witness accounts are contradicted by all the physical evidence. Zimmerman's beat up face. Grass stains. Injuries on the back of Zimmerman's head.

I thought "who was the one yelling 'help' " and everything else was noise....which is it?

I am assuming they are one in the same person.

Who? The person on top is screaming or the person on bottom?? You're all over the place here.

 

[Lutherman2112]

Damn, West is getting pissed.

 

[HERBERT THE HIPPO]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

I'm guessing this has been covered but.....

Are Trayvon's parents on the witness list? If so, why are they allowed in the courtroom?

 

[Witz]

OK, so we're back to the question of Zimmerman testifying.

The girlfriend says that she heard Trayvon saying, "Get off me, get off me." Obviously the defense is going to try and contradict this. But how can they contradict this without Zimmerman offering contradictory testimony?

First they are going ask her IF it was POSSIBLE that the sound she heard was Martin punching Zimmerman in the face with his cellphone in his hand.

Then they are going to ask her IF it was possible that the person saying "get off me, get off me" was Zimmerman? Defense would be smart to ask her if she was following the case at all, she will say no. Then they may bring up social media posts etc...at some point they may bring up the physical evidence. Since this is a cross, I'm not sure how much latitude they have in their questions. They may have to call her separately if/when they need to present a defense.

I think they will spend most of the cross trying to discredit her which should not be too difficult.

Again, if they rip her to pieces, the jury may not like that. Whatever you think of this girl, she evokes some sympathy.

Whats probably the most important part of this dialogue is the response that she heard Martin say 'Get off me, get off me'. This was one of the big changes in her story. When she made her initial statement to Crump, she stated again there was the exchange between Martin and Zimmerman (why are you following me - what are you doing here), but than just said the phone cut off. She made no mention of the 'get off me, get off me'. It wasn't until she met with the state prosecutor over 2 weeks later that she added the 'get off me, get off me'.

I wouldn't be surprised to see the defense point to that and her credibility (as that is a huge piece of information that was added to her statement after there started to be the outcry about Zimmerman).

He's really going into her about this difference. This is a huge item in this case.

 

[spreagle]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

He is establishing a pattern of lying to fit her words in with what the people want to hear. West will likely ask at some point how we can be sure she isn't lying now to make her story fit, just like she has done several other times. He's got a pretty clear line going here imo.

Sure. It's just painful to watch.

This witness doesn't evoke much sympathy to us, but imagine what she must be going through. She's a soon to be 20 year old still in high school. She cannot read her own writing. I doubt she's had too many situations where she just couldn't leave if she didn't want to be there.

She can't read her own writing? Clearly, it wasn't her writing. Caught in a big fat lie.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

He is establishing a pattern of lying to fit her words in with what the people want to hear. West will likely ask at some point how we can be sure she isn't lying now to make her story fit, just like she has done several other times. He's got a pretty clear line going here imo.

Sure. It's just painful to watch.

This witness doesn't evoke much sympathy to us, but imagine what she must be going through. She's a soon to be 20 year old still in high school. She cannot read her own writing. I doubt she's had too many situations where she just couldn't leave if she didn't want to be there.

She can't read her own writing? Clearly, it wasn't her writing. Caught in a big fat lie.

She said it wasn't her writing

 

[Gawain]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

I'm guessing this has been covered but.....

Are Trayvon's parents on the witness list? If so, why are they allowed in the courtroom?

There is an exception to the witness exclusion rule for relatives of a decedent.

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

He is establishing a pattern of lying to fit her words in with what the people want to hear. West will likely ask at some point how we can be sure she isn't lying now to make her story fit, just like she has done several other times. He's got a pretty clear line going here imo.

Sure. It's just painful to watch.

This witness doesn't evoke much sympathy to us, but imagine what she must be going through. She's a soon to be 20 year old still in high school. She cannot read her own writing. I doubt she's had too many situations where she just couldn't leave if she didn't want to be there.

She can't read her own writing? Clearly, it wasn't her writing. Caught in a big fat lie.

She can't read cursive, any cursive.

 

[Gawain]

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.

 

[jamny]

Also going after the difference between the recurring phone disconnection and the "thump" phone disconnect at the end.

Is there a difference?

 

[avoiding injuries]

Trayvon's mom was crying. Who would have guessed? Why is this being asked?

He is establishing a pattern of lying to fit her words in with what the people want to hear. West will likely ask at some point how we can be sure she isn't lying now to make her story fit, just like she has done several other times. He's got a pretty clear line going here imo.

Sure. It's just painful to watch.

This witness doesn't evoke much sympathy to us, but imagine what she must be going through. She's a soon to be 20 year old still in high school. She cannot read her own writing. I doubt she's had too many situations where she just couldn't leave if she didn't want to be there.

She can't read her own writing? Clearly, it wasn't her writing. Caught in a big fat lie.

She can't read cursive, any cursive.

In her defense, who uses cursive anymore?Rizzuto Buzz

 

[Slapdash]

Cursive sucks, it shouldn't be used.