| 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. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:26 xDaunt wrote: That's not remotely close enough. They'll eat a directed verdict on the second degree murder charge if that's all they have. You think from this Judge ? | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
If you can rewatch it, do it. I wish I had the exact statement she made. But she straight out said she didn't pay ANY attention to their weights or size at that time. Because of that, she has no position to say whether or not the bigger man was on top, which isn't even the case! So it just goes to show even more that she doesn't know what happened. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
From any judge. | ||
|
m4inbrain
1505 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:31 jeremycafe wrote: It was inconsistent. Before the objection she claimed the bigger person was on top. But after when he re-asked it, with her annoyed voice she made a statement along the lines of "I couldn't really tell their sizes, I didn't care about their sizes or male or female. But after seeing the news, I can say the bigger person was on top". If you can rewatch it, do it. I wish I had the exact statement she made. But she straight out said she didn't pay ANY attention to their weights or size at that time. Because of that, she has no position to say whether or not the bigger man was on top, which isn't even the case! So it just goes to show even more that she doesn't know what happened. Wouldn't know how to rewatch it, don't know if they have a VOD or something (even though on the stream it says "977:24:23" as a time). It's also not important enough, i think the defense will catch up on it, that should clarify. If they don't (what i don't believe), i can still search for a VOD or transcript. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
I don't know. This judge seems to favor the state a bit. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
 | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:35 jeremycafe wrote: Did I just hear the are motioning to impeach her? This shall be very interesting Well, you don't "move" to impeach. You just do it, which is what they are doing now by having her review her prior statements. | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:37 xDaunt wrote: Well, you don't "move" to impeach. You just do it, which is what they are doing now by having her review her prior statements. I am doing very bad at typing today. I just meant to say are they making a move to impeach her. Not a legal sense of the word "motioning". | ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
"Just like on the news" "I didn't see his face" "Just the side of his face" Well What the fuck was it. Like I said, she goes back and forth on what she actually saw. This is a joke. | ||
|
bugser
61 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:44 jeremycafe wrote: "I saw his face" "Just like on the news" "I didn't see his face" "Just the side of his face" Well What the fuck was it. Like I said, she goes back and forth on what she actually saw. This is a joke. Yeah, this is really outrageous. It's actually frightening to see the number of people who are willing to get up on the stand with an axe to grind and make up things they never saw. | ||
|
Yorke
England881 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:44 jeremycafe wrote: "I saw his face" "Just like on the news" "I didn't see his face" "Just the side of his face" Well What the fuck was it. Like I said, she goes back and forth on what she actually saw. This is a joke. Fresh meat for the glorious instigator of justice, O'Mara. | ||
|
docvoc
United States5491 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:46 bugser wrote: Yeah, this is really outrageous. It's actually frightening to see the number of people who are willing to get up on the stand with an axe to grind and make up things they never saw. In general eye-witness memory is unreliable, and there is a looming question of whether or not courts should allow it. Modern psychology, especially Loftus and Palmer have taught us that memory is not accurate at all in most cases, and is a restructuring of schematic details rather than actual events. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
edit: Testimony becomes "maybe I was wrong". edit2: Now I completely understand why MSNBC was showing those baby pictures. It was to help this witness remember who was bigger and who was on top. It all makes sense to me now. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:52 docvoc wrote: In general eye-witness memory is unreliable, and there is a looming question of whether or not courts should allow it. Modern psychology, especially Loftus and Palmer have taught us that memory is not accurate at all in most cases, and is a restructuring of schematic details rather than actual events. They will never get rid of eyewitness testimony. There's no replacement for it absent an omniscient surveillance system. It is considered to be reliable enough because cross examination exists as a check. What is going on right now is the system working as it is meant to. | ||
|
Yorke
England881 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:55 Kaitlin wrote: Judging Trayvon's size based on a picture of his face in a hoodie on the news. Priceless eye-witness testimony. So O'Mara's completely shown that she used media images to compare the size of the two. Including the one taken when Trayvon was 13 years old. Ha. | ||
|
bugser
61 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:52 docvoc wrote: In general eye-witness memory is unreliable, and there is a looming question of whether or not courts should allow it. Modern psychology, especially Loftus and Palmer have taught us that memory is not accurate at all in most cases, and is a restructuring of schematic details rather than actual events. This isn't bad memory. She's maliciously lying. Notice how she knows what the defense is getting at and is trying to dodge the fact that she saw Trayvon's child photos? There's no way she only saw the hoodie face photo. And now she admits seeing the football photo but still won't admit seeing the hollister photo. She's deliberately lying. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
jeremycafe
United States354 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:58 Yorke wrote: So O'Mara's completely shown that she used media images to compare the size of the two. Including the one taken when Trayvon was 13 years old. Ha. Funny stuff. She is being picked apart just like the last witness. I just don't understand why these people were willing to make stories up to fill in gaps they KNOW they didn't see or have knowledge of. | ||
|
Yorke
England881 Posts
On June 27 2013 01:01 Kaitlin wrote: The sad fact is that tonight there will be talking heads (who support Justice for Trayvon) insisting that this witness was a credible witness. They did the same thing yesterday with the witness that got completely demolished, two of them thought that her testimony went just fine. Hilarious. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
IPSL
Dragon vs Hawk
WardiTV Invitational
RSL Revival
Classic vs Trap
herO vs SHIN
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
IPSL
Bonyth vs Ret
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
OSC
PiGosaur Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
