Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
- The News showed a picture of Zimmerman after he was punched in the face.
- Why didn't the News show a picture of the kid's face after zimmerman murdered him?
The news showed 10 year old pictures of Martin as a sweet little school kid when recent photos of him posing aggressively and dressed in stereotypical gangbanger garb were readily available. Why is that?
Says who or what law? She can testify based on what she heard, first hand. Her testimony won't be rendered meaningless. It only matters what her testimony, along with other evidence, means to the jury.
It's hearsay. I actually saw something like this come up in court. A neighbor said they heard soemone screaming next door where someone turned up dead. When they were asked if they SAW anything, they said no and the evidence was thrown out. Secondly, I doubt that a recording of the call even exists. Who records their conversations? I bet you any amount of money this is something the defense cooked up with a fake recording, that's why they won't release it.
It's hearsay. I actually saw something like this come up in court. A neighbor said they heard soemone screaming next door where someone turned up dead. When they were asked if they SAW anything, they said no and the evidence was thrown out. Secondly, I doubt that a recording of the call even exists. Who records their conversations? I bet you any amount of money this is something the defense cooked up with a fake recording, that's why they won't release it.
Wow! You're really off track. There is no recording of the phone conversation. The recording they're talking about is a recording supposedly made by the attorney for the Martin's of his questions to the witness, the girl on the phone with Martin just before he was killed.
Also, the defense does not have the recording of the conversation with the witness. A private attorney has that recording and the Defense has filed a Motion to Compel to GET IT from him.
It's hearsay. I actually saw something like this come up in court. A neighbor said they heard soemone screaming next door where someone turned up dead. When they were asked if they SAW anything, they said no and the evidence was thrown out. Secondly, I doubt that a recording of the call even exists. Who records their conversations? I bet you any amount of money this is something the defense cooked up with a fake recording, that's why they won't release it.
I believe Crump recorded the interview with DD. If he hasn't 'lost' it, I'd be shocked if the tape isn't full of stops, starts, and inaudibles.
Wow! You're really off track. There is no recording of the phone conversation. The recording they're talking about is a recording supposedly made by the attorney for the Martin's of his questions to the witness, the girl on the phone with Martin just before he was killed.
Also, the defense does not have the recording of the conversation with the witness. A private attorney has that recording and the Defense has filed a Motion to Compel to GET IT from him.
No recording of the phone conversation? Then it is definitely hearsay. It won't be useful at all. It won't even be considered valuable evidence since it can't be verified.
It's hearsay. I actually saw something like this come up in court. A neighbor said they heard soemone screaming next door where someone turned up dead. When they were asked if they SAW anything, they said no and the evidence was thrown out. Secondly, I doubt that a recording of the call even exists. Who records their conversations? I bet you any amount of money this is something the defense cooked up with a fake recording, that's why they won't release it.
But aren't people asked to testify if, say, they hear gunshots? They are called as 'ear' witnesses. They testify about how many shots they may have heard or what time it was, etc.
They can be witnesses even if they didn't SEE anything.
No recording of the phone conversation? Then it is definitely hearsay. It won't be useful at all. It won't even be considered valuable evidence since it can't be verified.
You need to learn what is and what is not hearsay.
If it were "hearsay" both the State and Defense would know that and they wouldn't be fighting over the recording and this person would not be on the witness list of people who may be called to testify. You think attorneys don't know what is hearsay? Obviously the State and Defense think there is value to this evidence.
The news showed 10 year old pictures of Martin as a sweet little school kid when recent photos of him posing aggressively and dressed in stereotypical gangbanger garb were readily available. Why is that?
- So he was a kid that dressed like a tough ganger, with no weapons.
Breaking no law.
But was persued by a man with a gun. Who murdered him.
I believe Crump recorded the interview with DD. If he hasn't 'lost' it, I'd be shocked if the tape isn't full of stops, starts, and inaudibles.
The one sent to the defense is exactly as you describe. It's also missing 1/2 of the interview. The defense has been asking Crump & the prosecution for a clear recording for months, but they have refused to cooperate. Here is the motion to compel filed by O'Mara last week. You should read it, it documents all of the trouble they have had getting discovery from the prosecution.
It took them months and a court order just to get to the color picture released this week.
Quote:
It took months and the judge's intervention for lawyers to get a vivid color copy of Zimmerman's bloody injuries. The defense didn't find out about witnesses who had helpful information until recently, and attorneys learned of a police officer's full role in the case by word of mouth.
Papers filed in Seminole County Court in Sanford accuse prosecutors of withholding exculpatory information by delaying reports and a key audio tape.
Crump won't even confirm that this witness is not a minor. He lied about that, and O'Mara found she was an adult. But he has to have confirmation before scheduling the disposition due to the different rules about minors vs. adults. And the prosecution edited out her age in the first statement they released to the defense. Why are they hiding basic things like a witness's age? The defense shouldn't have to fight for basic details like that.
But aren't people asked to testify if, say, they hear gunshots? They are called as 'ear' witnesses. They testify about how many shots they may have heard or what time it was, etc.
They can be witnesses even if they didn't SEE anything.
It won't prove a thing as to who started what. I will bet any amount of money DD is a liar and she won't be put on the stand so she doesn't commit purgery.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
