| 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. | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: She heard them fall on the grass and Trayvon saying "get off." Defense didn't even have to try to get her to sound stupid so that no one takes her seriously. There, fixed that for you. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
Don West, a defense attorney for murder suspect George Zimmerman, on Thursday used the term “creepy ass cracker” seven times in a span of about three minutes to try to make the point that slain teen Trayvon Martin was the one who had made his own death into a racial incident. In her second day of testimony, West pressed witness Rachel Jeantel about a phone conversation she had with Martin moments before he was shot to death by Zimmerman. “So when you say it’s a racial event, what did he tell you that makes you think it’s a racial event?” West asked. Jeantel said that Martin thought it was “strange” that he was being “stalked” by Zimmerman. “That’s because he described him as a ‘creepy ass cracker’?” West wondered. “So, it was racial, but it was because Trayvon Martin put race in this.” West went on to use the term “creepy ass cracker” six more times, while Jeantel insisted that it was not a racial comment. “Can we move on to another topic?” Judge Debra Nelson finally suggested. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/06/27/zimmerman-lawyer-says-creepy-a-cracker-7-times-to-claim-trayvon-put-race-in-this/ | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:36 xDaunt wrote: I promise that the jury isn't even paying attention right now. They're all looking at their watches. Juries are good for about 6 hours of testimony. After that, information retention is hit or miss. This particular testimony is redundant and not very important. Students lose focus at 2 hours, I don't know how a juror can stand 6. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:36 xDaunt wrote: I promise that the jury isn't even paying attention right now. They're all looking at their watches. Juries are good for about 6 hours of testimony. After that, information retention is hit or miss. This particular testimony is redundant and not very important. Well, it may be useful so he can bring this information at another time I guess. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote: She heard them fall on the grass and Trayvon saying "get off." Defense spent a long time trying to get her to sound stupid so that no one takes her seriously. Let's not forget she had also testified to the Prosecutor that Trayvon said "he got off" to describe the fact that Zimmerman was no longer following him at that time. Puts a different meaning to Trayvon's "get off" during the confrontation, as in "stop following me". | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:33 Esk23 wrote: She is stupid. That is a fact. The defense was getting her to describe what "wet grass" sounds like and she paused for 10 seconds and couldn't describe it. Then she said it sounded like two people rolling about on the ground. She was then asked what that sounded like and she said it sounded like the something touching the headphones, which the defense pointed out that that could be a number of things not specifically rolling on the ground. Her testimony is inconsistent and no one is going to send GZ to prison for the rest of his life over her testimony. You're equating inability to describe a sound with not knowing what the sound is. She knows what wet grass sounds like because its wet grass, everyone's heard it. When you ask someone who hasn't passed the 12th grade at 19 to describe it then you're simply harassing her intellect. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:38 Thieving Magpie wrote: Students lose focus at 2 hours, I don't know how a juror can stand 6. I think it's because they tend to be somewhat responsible adults ? | ||
|
skyrunner
371 Posts
Feels kinda un kosher if you know what i mean, no? | ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:41 Kaitlin wrote: I think it's because they tend to be somewhat responsible adults ? Ehhh, most of the "responsible" adults I know would do anything they can to get out of jury duty, especially for a case of this magnitude. What you are left with is a handful of people who truly believe it is their civic duty and the rest being comprised of people not smart enough to get out of it. Those aren't the people I would expect to be paying attention after 6 straight hours of testimony. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
| ||
|
ZasZ.
United States2911 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:44 skyrunner wrote: Hmm i've noticed that the defense seems to get stuck on specific words and wordings, even though the witness doesn't seem to agree with it at first. Then basically asks the same questions 10 times in different ways just to get the witness to somewhat agree on that word, then as soon as that happens they run with it. And sometimes they don't agree and they still go with it. Feels kinda un kosher if you know what i mean, no? That's how lawyering works. They can object if it's particularly heinous, but this is the reason why you hope for intelligent witnesses and spend a lot of time prepping them, so that they don't fall into those traps. | ||
|
SKC
Brazil18828 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:45 ZasZ. wrote: Ehhh, most of the "responsible" adults I know would do anything they can to get out of jury duty, especially for a case of this magnitude. What you are left with is a handful of people who truly believe it is their civic duty and the rest being comprised of people not smart enough to get out of it. Those aren't the people I would expect to be paying attention after 6 straight hours of testimony. The ones that truly believe it's their civic duty should do a good job. It's probally the minority by a good margin, but maybe a high profile case such as this bring more willing jurors. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:41 Kaitlin wrote: I think it's because they tend to be somewhat responsible adults ? I'm not questioning their discipline, I'm questioning the capacity to maintain that kind of attentive discipline 6 hours straight without loss of information happening. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
skyrunner
371 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:46 ZasZ. wrote: That's how lawyering works. They can object if it's particularly heinous, but this is the reason why you hope for intelligent witnesses and spend a lot of time prepping them, so that they don't fall into those traps. Yeah ok. Pretty much thought so, but I thought it was kind of... I don't know, obvious maybe? I mean as a juror I would go mostly on what the witness communicated not what the lawyer basically made them say. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:45 ZasZ. wrote: Ehhh, most of the "responsible" adults I know would do anything they can to get out of jury duty, especially for a case of this magnitude. What you are left with is a handful of people who truly believe it is their civic duty and the rest being comprised of people not smart enough to get out of it. Those aren't the people I would expect to be paying attention after 6 straight hours of testimony. Well, the first group, the civic duty folk, are very much like George Zimmerman's mindset, so to what extent that type is on the jury, it's good for the defense. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 28 2013 07:00 xDaunt wrote: The vast majority of juries are very attentive and take their role in the trial process very seriously. Yeah, I'm seeing commentary on HLN or maybe it was CNN that one particular juror is taking notes like a madwoman. | ||
|
Kaitlin
United States2958 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:45 ranshaked wrote: Can anyone explain the twitter stuff? Or post a video of it? I can't find a video. The prosecutor showed the witness' twitter account and tried to attribute twitter's list of suggestions for her to follow as people who she actually followed. Trying to discredit her. | ||
|
dotHead
United States233 Posts
On June 28 2013 06:44 skyrunner wrote: Hmm i've noticed that the defense seems to get stuck on specific words and wordings, even though the witness doesn't seem to agree with it at first. Then basically asks the same questions 10 times in different ways just to get the witness to somewhat agree on that word, then as soon as that happens they run with it. And sometimes they don't agree and they still go with it. Feels kinda un kosher if you know what i mean, no? The defense gets stuck on specific words because she can't pronounce them properly. He had to ask her to repeat herself at least a hundred times. She said "Could be Trayvon" "Coulda be Trayvon" "Couldna(sp?) be Trayvon", and "Couldn't be Trayvon", to describe who it was saying "Get off". Of course he had to ask her over and over. He coudn't even read what she said in the transcript because it made no sense, and had to get the tape to play her saying Couldna. | ||
|
ranshaked
United States870 Posts
On June 28 2013 07:05 Kaitlin wrote: The prosecutor showed the witness' twitter account and tried to attribute twitter's list of suggestions for her to follow as people who she actually followed. Trying to discredit her. Wait, like when facebook suggests friends to you? smh. Are they incompetent? | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
GSL
Replay Cast
WardiTV Weekly
PiGosaur Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
