EPTShooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 136
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This is a sensitive and complex issue, please do not make comments without first reading the facts, which are cataloged in the OP. If you make an uninformed post, or one that isn't relevant to the discussion, you will be moderated. If in doubt, don't post. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
| ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 26 2013 23:21 bugser wrote: Checkmate. If what she saw was accurate, the shot would be in the back not the chest. It seems like she is consciously lying the way she gets defensive and plays dumb. I just got up a few minutes ago. Is the witness you're referring to Jayne Surdyka or someone before her ? | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:03 Kaitlin wrote: I just got up a few minutes ago. Is the witness you're referring to Jayne Surdyka or someone before her ? Yes, it was Jayne Surdyka. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
 Fixed in edit. Should have linked to the wiki instead of typing it out. grrr Thanks for that catch lol | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
| ||
|
bugser
61 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:15 Kaitlin wrote: Well, it's a good thing HLN runs so many fucking commercials, they are so far behind, I can hope to catch her testimony lol. I watched HLN a bit after the proceedings yesterday and I was shocked and appalled at how incredibly bad it was. Shouting hosts, apparently 10 minutes of commercials to 1 or 2 minutes of content, massive bias, etc. It reminded me why I don't have television anymore. http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/ This stream here seems good for actually watching the trial. On June 27 2013 00:16 jeremycafe wrote: So wait, this lady is saying that based on the news and their sizes, even though she couldn't tell who was bigger at the time, the bigger man was on top? what the fuck. This judge is being rather unfair to allow that. Yeah pretty surreal. I can't believe this. "I didn't care at the time what their sizes were, or if male or female. Then I saw on the news and now I care and say it is GZ." Unbelievable. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
| ||
|
Yorke
England881 Posts
| ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:16 jeremycafe wrote: So wait, this lady is saying that based on the news and their sizes, even though she couldn't tell who was bigger at the time, the bigger man was on top? what the fuck. This judge is being rather unfair to allow that. As far as i understood it, she saw that the bigger man was on top (and she said so) - and she added that based on the news, she identifies him as Z. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:19 m4inbrain wrote: As far as i understood it, she saw that the bigger man was on top (and she said so) - and she added that based on the news, she identifies him as Z. She started saying that, but then took it back. She said she didn't care what sizes they were and couldn't tell. She could barely see because it was so dark, she said it herself. Very inconsistent from what they "can see" and "can't see". These witnesses are seriously saying what they WANTED to happen or what they were told happened, not what they claimed to have seen. | ||
|
bugser
61 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:19 Kaitlin wrote: If the previous witness is as bad as you guys said, the prosecution's case is WEAK. It's not just weak, they don't have a case at all. Maybe for closing statements they will just play some violin music and a slideshow of Trayvon's baby pictures. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:20 jeremycafe wrote: She started saying that, but then took it back. She said she didn't care what sizes they were and couldn't tell. She could barely see because it was so dark, she said it herself. Very inconsistent from what they "can see" and "can't see". These witnesses are seriously saying what they WANTED to happen or what they were told happened, not what they claimed to have seen. Guess i imagined it then. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:20 xDaunt wrote: I'm still waiting for some evidence from the prosecutor that the killing amounts to something that approaches the requisite mens rea for second degree murder. If I were the DA, I would have led the trial off with that evidence. They claim because he was so responsible in the past that he was fed up with people getting away so he wanted to take matters into his own hands and had intent to kill that night. Its a joke of an argument as there is nothing to prove such a thing, and the 911 tapes only go to show another calm and collective man trying to report. zzzz not sure why I am watching this, i feel like its a bad attempt at filming a law and order knockoff. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
You didn't. That is my point. They go from saying one thing, then saying the complete opposite. After the objection, she said she couldn't care about their sizes. That she really didn't notice. But AFTER seeing the news, she knew the heavier person was on top. But prior to the news, she said she didn't know their sizes. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:23 jeremycafe wrote: They claim because he was so responsible in the past that he was fed up with people getting away so he wanted to take matters into his own hands and had intent to kill that night. Its a joke of an argument as there is nothing to prove such a thing, and the 911 tapes only go to show another calm and collective man trying to report. zzzz not sure why I am watching this, i feel like its a bad attempt at filming a law and order knockoff. That's not remotely close enough. They'll eat a directed verdict on the second degree murder charge if that's all they have. Also, I haven't seen any evidence from the State yet that removes reasonable doubt from the question of whether Zimmerman acted in self-defense. Yeah, they basically have no case right now. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:24 jeremycafe wrote: You didn't. That is my point. They go from saying one thing, then saying the complete opposite. After the objection, she said she couldn't care about their sizes. That she really didn't notice. But AFTER seeing the news, she knew the heavier person was on top. But prior to the news, she said she didn't know their sizes. That's not how i understood it. She was consistent with what she said, she always wanted to say that "after the news" thing - there was a summon to the judge because of that. She actually tried to say it more than once. She also said "the bigger person was on top", clearly. Don't get me wrong, i'm not judging if she's lying or something, i'm not far enough into the materia. I'm saying that you might've misunderstood something. But let's see what the defense will make out of it, since they will clearly "rally" that argument. | ||
| ||
