I also wouldn't be surprised if he does go to jail, that he files for a retrial based on a incompetent defense. And most likely gets it.
I mean come on, a fucking knock-knock joke? Really?
George Zimmerman (killer of unarmed Florida teen Trayvon Martin) found not guilty
- Thread starter Dude Abides
- Start date
- Status
I also wouldn't be surprised if he does go to jail, that he files for a retrial based on a incompetent defense. And most likely gets it.
I mean come on, a fucking knock-knock joke? Really?
It makes sense to me. I remember having fights with the ex and she'd accuse me of saying something, and I knew I didn't say that, only because it's something that never came out of my mouth in my life - but I couldn't remember what I said.
Killing_Joke
Member
He's asking her the same questions over and over a million different ways trying to confuse her. Just because she seems a little illiterate doesn't mean she's lying. Plus her lack of proper english isn't helping anyone.
But her answers are clear. TM ran and Zimmerman followed closely. TM said "why you following me" and then something happened. Something that caused the headset to "cut off". Cut off meaning not in his ear anymore. Hears the headset in the grass while hearing TM yelling "get off". Then call went off. So it contradicts george's story.
OrangeYouGlad
Banned
Didn't she say she didn't remember and then ask what he was talking about?
faceless007
Member
I'm not watching, but it sounds like the defense is basically doing the same thing as a police interrogation tactic--hound the witness over and over again, taking advantage of your authority role in the room, to get them to eventually doubt their own memory and question their entire perception of what happened. It's the same thing that leads to false confessions, especially if the witness is highly impressionable.
OrangeYouGlad
Banned
Lied about her age
Lied about where she was during wake
Lied about what was said by Tryvon during depositions or left out as she put it
The third isn't a lie - she just said she didn't give every detail. Would be crazy to say it was a lie. She said she didn't take it seriously enough to know that she would have to recount everything said in full detail. Basically, only one of those lies was a lie under oath - if you want every lie she's ever made to count against her, then the lie count would be much higher.
methane47
Member
If someone asks you to Repeat VERBATIM what you said in a stressfilled situation 4 months ago. And then DRILLING you with questions for HOURS over one syllable at a time of what was said.
If that person then asks you about what was said, i would find it difficult to express with confidence as well
But then when that person claims I said something Which i clearly know i did not, i would call objection to that.
For example, the lawyer was drilling her about her saying that she "could not" tell if it was Trayvon, Its easy to know if you recognized a person. That is something easy to remember.
But when the lawyer says, did you say it was wet grass or damp? was it a hit? or a push? or a nudge? or a shove?
You can't expect someone to remember EXACTLY what adjective they used to describe an event that occured months ago.
its alittle ridiculous to expect otherwise.
No, couldn't be.
1:45
Huh? I'm not watching and I definitely got the sense that she's awful reading the last few pages.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...l-live-video-chat-20130612,0,7210676.htmlpage
I find interesting that the defense is trying to make her account consistent with the idea that Trayvon attacked George.
BloodMoney
Banned
its on CNN.
she was an awful witness.
she was an awful witness.
If they don't plan on have George testify then they have to fit it in somewhere.
Doesn't matter if they are under oath or not or if you want to try and argue not telling the whole truth just part of it is a lie. It just further's the defense case that she isn't a credible witness. They are still trying to impeach her at this point the judge even mentioned it while looking for a transcript.
It absolutely matters if a lie is under oath or not. If you want to impeach someone, lies they make under oath are infinitely more important than lies they make elsewhere. At least as far as I know. And I'd like to think the context of the lie is important as well. If you're caught in a lie that is directly relevant to the case (e.g. if the girl lied about when it was that she stopped talking to Trayvon) vs a lie that isn't, or at least doesn't seem t obe (e.g. About where she was when the wake was happening).
Zoe
Member
It's not just about impeaching her though. Whether she gets impeached or not, the jury is getting influenced.
Yeah I absolutely get that, in general the defense has been pretty good about slipping in a few things here or there, like mentioning over and over again and emphasizing that she lied earlier, or restating things like what Trayvon called Zimmerman (creepy cracker or whatever), the defense is focusing more on character assassinations.
I hear what your saying under oath is more serious maybe they don't have enough to impeach but her credibility has been diminished as far as I can tell. How can you not take your friend getting killed seriously? So much so that you say that deposition didn't mean anything I didn't think Krump was important enough to tell that to etc.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
It's also common for people to just start agreeing with everything just to make it stop..
Exactly, this tactic is what leads to in innocents sent to jail.
Kacho
Member
That would be amazing.
She has pretty much blown the case for the Prosecution. Literally the worst star witness I have ever seen in my entire life.
She didn't even want to fucking be there, and it's a trial over the murder of a friend.
This is hilarious.
"The only one who used racist language during the entire event, was actually Martin" - guest on HLN.
That is going to stick in the mind of the jury.
She didn't even want to fucking be there, and it's a trial over the murder of a friend.
This is hilarious.
"The only one who used racist language during the entire event, was actually Martin" - guest on HLN.
That is going to stick in the mind of the jury.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
And this is why an all white jury is so awful. Especially if its older white people who don't understand the difference between slang terms and racist name calling.
I disagree completely. I think she's been a great witness for the prosecution. She has pretty much made it clear and put into the minds of the jury that Zimmerman was the agressor, and was the one who pursued Martin. And in all honesty just because he used the word cracker doesn't mean he deserved to die.
Remember the jury can't see what some guest on HLN is saying about the case.
Cracker is pretty racist.
CNN and HLN were dumping out of the word. Which was also pointed out by KOS, since they didn't dump out when everyone thought Zimmerman said "coon".
If there is a riot over this trial. I blame the media 100 percent. The defense is blowing it, and nobody who isn't watching the trial knows. The media is skewing the events, and the papers a burying anything positive for the prosecution. PG 19 and 22 on the NYC papers for her testimony. Yet page 1 for a knock knock joke.
This entire trial is just a damn shame on both sides.
No. She got caught lying three times. She pointed out Martin used racist language. She wasn't clear, and she didn't come off as credible at all. She also didn't want to be there, and continued to say she wasn't coming back, and was done.
I agree Cracker doesn't mean you die. Nobody said it does. However they have been using the race angle for the entire trial. The media has been painting Zimmerman as some horrible racist. Yet Martin was the only one who used racist language. This puts lots of doubt into the Jury's mind.
She has been terrible.
BloodMoney
Banned
wut.
so "cracker" is not a racist term, its slang?.. so long as you are not white and young?
The only thing she has made clear is that she isn't credible at all.
But you have to think why was she lying about those 3 things though... And I think she did come very credible as a real person being herself, she seems very authentic as a person. By her saying that she didn't want to be there and seemed aggrivated made her seem more relatable if you understand what I'm trying to say.
so you think the word cracker is as offensive as the n word? I disagree.
empty vessel
Member
Cracker doesn't offend me. It's kind of hard to use race to offend a reasonable white person. Impossible, even.
Vicetrailia
Banned
No its slang/insulting for sure that he'd only use on a white person. He's not Paula Deen's brother racist though in this context.
Why does it have to be AS offensive? No it's not as offensive but it's still offensive and a racist term.
OrangeYouGlad
Banned
Why is it racist? Serious question. I've never understood why "Cracker" should be offensive to me.
Cracker is as racist to me as the word Coon. Which is the word the media was going after Zimmerman over "supposedly" using. Calling him a racist, over and over, for weeks.
Turned out, Zimmerman didn't say that at all. Now the media isn't bringing it up.
Cracker is a racist word, stop skewing things.
Both sides of this case are trying to spin shit, it's pathetic.
Pollux
Member
Are you kidding me? Cracker isnt racist? Cool, so that means that I can start calling black people "nigga" b/c, hey guess what? It's slang. Good to know.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
I never understood why cracker is looked at as a bad thing.
Is there some underlined meaning to it? I just always thought most crackers you buy in a store are white and that is where it came from.
Being called food isn't terrible.
Is there some underlined meaning to it? I just always thought most crackers you buy in a store are white and that is where it came from.
Being called food isn't terrible.
DataStream
Member
This judge doesn't take shit from anybody.
hahah cracker elevated to racist level. I guess I live long enough, we'll see a man on the moon too.
- Status