Question: If I'm the judge, I'm thinking to myself, "OK, reasonable doubt has clearly been established here." Can the judge stop the trial at this point?
Or am I overreacting here? I've been trying to watch this as objectively as possible (despite my own strongly subjective bias) and it seems to me as if this witness has provided a reasonable doubt that will be impossible for the prosecution to eliminate. Does anyone disagree with this? If so, please explain.
You are the most fickle easily convinced person I have ever seen here.
Facts change my mind. Good arguments change my mind. If that makes me fickle, so be it.
We have learned substantially nothing new from this trial.
You don't believe YOU have, because you accepted John as a reliable witness from day 1. I didn't. The fact that George Zimmerman was charged with murder caused me to believe that (1) either John was not a reliable witness or (2) that the prosecution had other evidence that would either contradict John or make his testimony less relevant. That was my supposition, and I considered it reasonable, and still do.
But I was wrong on both counts. And never in my wildest dreams did I think that the prosecution would call John themselves, and eviscerate their own case. I know that there have been some speculative reasons given here, but I still can't fathom it.