avoiding injuries
Footballguy
You know you probably didn't speak well during your testimony when some of the last questions are whether English is your 3rd language and do you admit to understanding the English language.
What reason did she give for not playing the tape with the jury present?You need to stop suggesting the judge may dismiss this case without hearing the defense. No way that happens.whatever happened to playing the recording, was that swept under the proverbially rug by the judge too?
What kind of odds are you giving?You need to stop suggesting the judge may dismiss this case without hearing the defense. No way that happens.whatever happened to playing the recording, was that swept under the proverbially rug by the judge too?
She didn't really have one. She tried twice and was corrected both times and just shrugged. No judge has the guts to be the sole decider on this one.What reason did she give for not playing the tape with the jury present?You need to stop suggesting the judge may dismiss this case without hearing the defense. No way that happens.whatever happened to playing the recording, was that swept under the proverbially rug by the judge too?
Funny, I found her likable but not credible. There is no way that you, Tim, impartially can convict GZ of murder 2 based on her testimony.Thanks for the compliment. It's undeserved but I appreciate anyhow. For the record, while I do find her credible I don't find her like able.CNN = TimCNN is making my head explode. Commentators are saying Rachel is credible and likeable. The disconnect between her and West was a generational thing. West didn't understand that teenagers speak slow and soft.
Followed by another commentator who was in the courtroom and said that some jurors would not even look at Rachel.
He looks like he has been eating like a king since he got his hands on that money donated by fans.Zimmerman looks like a blimp. He's probably taken 20 years off his life even if he isn't convicted.
You don't need to be rich to get fatHe looks like he has been eating like a king since he got his hands on that money donated by fans.Zimmerman looks like a blimp. He's probably taken 20 years off his life even if he isn't convicted.
She is now saying the argument started near the T and worked its way to the back of her townhouse. That is not a great distance and works against any chase argument. Or, it was the shortest chase in history. Works against the prosecution.Current witness has stated that she heard running.
More time will come off with the civil trial.Zimmerman looks like a blimp. He's probably taken 20 years off his life even if he isn't convicted.
State's most damaging witness up there
Heh.I am not sure how a prolonged series of yells for help, bold well for the prosecution. She identifies it as one voice the whole time. If Zimmerman planned on killing Martin, he would just pull out the gun and fire. Martin would only get off a view yells for help before he is shot dead. I am having a hard time figuring out why anyone believes this could have been Martin screaming for so long. It almost had to be Zimmerman on the ground getting his ### kicked. The yelps to helps even verifies the story of his mouth being covered. Seems like a slam dunk witness who helps the defense.
You being facetious or are you referring to the fact that her testimony seems most believable?State's most damaging witness up there
Most damaging to the State, their own witness.You being facetious or are you referring to the fact that her testimony seems most believable?State's most damaging witness up there
gotchaMost damaging to the State, their own witness.You being facetious or are you referring to the fact that her testimony seems most believable?State's most damaging witness up there
Think she was excused at 2:15pm, but defense reserved the right to recall her.How long was Jeantel on the stand this morning?
And she was thinking she'd get to go home last night.Think she was excused at 2:15pm, but defense reserved the right to recall her.How long was Jeantel on the stand this morning?
Painfully long.How long was Jeantel on the stand this morning?
She said that if the girl's testimony today didn't match the testimony on tape, they could introduce the tape as evidence that she did say what the defense was suggesting. I didn't see a problem with it personallyShe didn't really have one. She tried twice and was corrected both times and just shrugged. No judge has the guts to be the sole decider on this one.What reason did she give for not playing the tape with the jury present?You need to stop suggesting the judge may dismiss this case without hearing the defense. No way that happens.whatever happened to playing the recording, was that swept under the proverbially rug by the judge too?
Explain in what universe, Martin who is inflicting most of the physical damage, is the one screaming for a prolonged period. I really don't get this part.So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
State's most damaging witness up thereHeh.I am not sure how a prolonged series of yells for help, bold well for the prosecution. She identifies it as one voice the whole time. If Zimmerman planned on killing Martin, he would just pull out the gun and fire. Martin would only get off a view yells for help before he is shot dead. I am having a hard time figuring out why anyone believes this could have been Martin screaming for so long. It almost had to be Zimmerman on the ground getting his ### kicked. The yelps to helps even verifies the story of his mouth being covered. Seems like a slam dunk witness who helps the defense.
There appears to be a mix up in the talking points memo that was sent out today.On "grass and concrete"So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
You heard how long "prolonged" was on the 911 tape. It's not that long.Explain in what universe, Martin who is inflicting most of the physical damage, is the one screaming for a prolonged period. I really don't get this part.So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
Explain in what universe, Martin who is inflicting most of the physical damage, is the one screaming for a prolonged period. I really don't get this part.So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
She destroys the timeline of any possible way it could have been Martin scream. She says there person screaming was desparate (I would have asked as if they were scared for their life)State's most damaging witness up thereHeh.I am not sure how a prolonged series of yells for help, bold well for the prosecution. She identifies it as one voice the whole time. If Zimmerman planned on killing Martin, he would just pull out the gun and fire. Martin would only get off a view yells for help before he is shot dead. I am having a hard time figuring out why anyone believes this could have been Martin screaming for so long. It almost had to be Zimmerman on the ground getting his ### kicked. The yelps to helps even verifies the story of his mouth being covered. Seems like a slam dunk witness who helps the defense.There appears to be a mix up in the talking points memo that was sent out today.
You don't think 40 seconds on the call +5-30 seconds prior is not prolonged?You heard how long "prolonged" was on the 911 tape. It's not that long.Explain in what universe, Martin who is inflicting most of the physical damage, is the one screaming for a prolonged period. I really don't get this part.So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
add to it the screams before she called, and it is a hell of a lot longer than you would expect if someone pulled out a gun and fired it. Plus the muffled yelps make no sense in the Martin screaming universe. There is no case.You heard how long "prolonged" was on the 911 tape. It's not that long.Explain in what universe, Martin who is inflicting most of the physical damage, is the one screaming for a prolonged period. I really don't get this part.So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
She said it was longer than what you hear on 911..You heard how long "prolonged" was on the 911 tape. It's not that long.Explain in what universe, Martin who is inflicting most of the physical damage, is the one screaming for a prolonged period. I really don't get this part.So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
She was asked if it sounded like someone that feared for their life and she responded yes.She destroys the timeline of any possible way it could have been Martin scream. She says there person screaming was desparate (I would have asked as if they were scared for their life)State's most damaging witness up thereHeh.I am not sure how a prolonged series of yells for help, bold well for the prosecution. She identifies it as one voice the whole time. If Zimmerman planned on killing Martin, he would just pull out the gun and fire. Martin would only get off a view yells for help before he is shot dead. I am having a hard time figuring out why anyone believes this could have been Martin screaming for so long. It almost had to be Zimmerman on the ground getting his ### kicked. The yelps to helps even verifies the story of his mouth being covered. Seems like a slam dunk witness who helps the defense.There appears to be a mix up in the talking points memo that was sent out today.
You don't see a problem with what? Not allowing the tape or allowing it? It seems like an important tidbit for the jury to hear, imo. Tone of voice is interesting, to me suggesting it was indeed rehearsed. The jury should be able to HEAR that, imo.She said that if the girl's testimony today didn't match the testimony on tape, they could introduce the tape as evidence that she did say what the defense was suggesting. I didn't see a problem with it personallyShe didn't really have one. She tried twice and was corrected both times and just shrugged. No judge has the guts to be the sole decider on this one.What reason did she give for not playing the tape with the jury present?You need to stop suggesting the judge may dismiss this case without hearing the defense. No way that happens.whatever happened to playing the recording, was that swept under the proverbially rug by the judge too?![]()
wut?State's most damaging witness up thereHeh.I am not sure how a prolonged series of yells for help, bold well for the prosecution. She identifies it as one voice the whole time. If Zimmerman planned on killing Martin, he would just pull out the gun and fire. Martin would only get off a view yells for help before he is shot dead. I am having a hard time figuring out why anyone believes this could have been Martin screaming for so long. It almost had to be Zimmerman on the ground getting his ### kicked. The yelps to helps even verifies the story of his mouth being covered. Seems like a slam dunk witness who helps the defense.There appears to be a mix up in the talking points memo that was sent out today.
The "yelps" not the "helps" is how I understood it. What I think matters though is Rachel and this woman's testimony lining up at least at the beginning where you have a confrontation (one understands what's said and the other doesn't) and both hear the same scuffle start, but Rachel hears an impact on the cell headset mic and Trayvon saying "get off" which implies Zimm started the physical confrontation.She said it was longer than what you hear on 911..You heard how long "prolonged" was on the 911 tape. It's not that long.Explain in what universe, Martin who is inflicting most of the physical damage, is the one screaming for a prolonged period. I really don't get this part.So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
He must have quoted that before reading further and seeing your explanation. Still no dog in the fight...lolwut?State's most damaging witness up thereHeh.I am not sure how a prolonged series of yells for help, bold well for the prosecution. She identifies it as one voice the whole time. If Zimmerman planned on killing Martin, he would just pull out the gun and fire. Martin would only get off a view yells for help before he is shot dead. I am having a hard time figuring out why anyone believes this could have been Martin screaming for so long. It almost had to be Zimmerman on the ground getting his ### kicked. The yelps to helps even verifies the story of his mouth being covered. Seems like a slam dunk witness who helps the defense.There appears to be a mix up in the talking points memo that was sent out today.
She "could have" heard "a little" get off get off... Until today obviously when her testimony changed..The "yelps" not the "helps" is how I understood it. What I think matters though is Rachel and this woman's testimony lining up at least at the beginning where you have a confrontation (one understands what's said and the other doesn't) and both hear the same scuffle start, but Rachel hears an impact on the cell headset mic and Trayvon saying "get off" which implies Zimm started the physical confrontation.She said it was longer than what you hear on 911..You heard how long "prolonged" was on the 911 tape. It's not that long.Explain in what universe, Martin who is inflicting most of the physical damage, is the one screaming for a prolonged period. I really don't get this part.So this witness is corroborating what Rachel said; heard voice 1, voice 2, voice 1 (but didn't hear what was said -- Rachel heard the exchange) and then scuffling on wet grass.
But judge refused to let jurors hear the tape.She said that if the girl's testimony today didn't match the testimony on tape, they could introduce the tape as evidence that she did say what the defense was suggesting. I didn't see a problem with it personallyShe didn't really have one. She tried twice and was corrected both times and just shrugged. No judge has the guts to be the sole decider on this one.What reason did she give for not playing the tape with the jury present?You need to stop suggesting the judge may dismiss this case without hearing the defense. No way that happens.whatever happened to playing the recording, was that swept under the proverbially rug by the judge too?![]()