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.
Why would he take the flashlight if it isn't working? It would have been easy enough to check before you take it. Maybe the batteries wore out after he was using it.
Why would he take the flashlight if it isn't working? It would have been easy enough to check before you take it. Maybe the batteries wore out after he was using it.
He took the flashlight because he wasn't following Trayvon...oops.
Actually she added the left to right movement in her testimony when the prosecution questioned her initially. On cross, that was one element the defense asked her about - the how many people thing. Then, they questioned her on why this was the first time she mentioned this. Then on cross to the redirect, the defense brought up the change.org petition.
Did the prosecution ask her any questions on redirect about the facebook page??? If so, that was stunningly stupid. I also think that the prosecution has to stick to the subjects they addressed in direct and were addressed in cross, and are not allowed to bring up new subjects. There are rules about what kinds of questions can be asked by each side during direct, cross, redirect, and re-cross, etc. The Defense on cross examination, or re-cross, cannot bring up subjects where were not brought up initially in direct examination.
Can you find a link to that re-cross where the Defense talked about the Facebook petition?
I'll tell you precisely what the evidence will show: Zimmerman, frustrated at "these a-holes always getting away", chased down Trayvon after locating him with his flashlight, confronted him, and attempted to detain him. Trayvon, in defense, tried to fight Zimmerman off, during which time Zimmerman sustained a few cuts to the head and bloodied (not broken) nose. Eventually, Zimmerman managed to pin Trayvon down on his back using his weight advantage and the incapacitating moves he learned as a bouncer and while training in Mai Tai. He draws his weapon and aims it at Trayvon whose arms are pinned down. Zimmerman's DNA was found on the bottom left of Trayvon's hoodie which indicates that Zimmerman stretched the hoodie with his left hand just enough to get a clear shot with his right (he shoots with his right hand). That also explains the misalignment between the bullet holes in the hoodie and Trayvon's chest. Trayvon, realizing his impending fate, screams in mortal terror. Zimmerman knew that police and neighbors were on their way, and, knowing that Trayvon was unarmed, knew that he risked being arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In a spur of the moment decision, Zimmerman shoots Trayvon and immediately begins to concoct his story about his victim being the aggressor. He turns Trayvon's body over and searches him again, not finding anything. And of course the racist SPD ate it all up and let him go home with his gun the same night after questioning. .
Man, if the State is going to prove anything even close to this fabrication they are falling behind.
Interesting. I think there was a mention of someone with a flashlight flickering (not sure of details). There was blood on the flashlight, I do remember that.
But the flashlight was found near TMs body, that might knock out the claim of the attack at the T.
Very interesting.
It's going to see when that comes up in the trial, and whose blood it was.
I'll tell you precisely what the evidence will show: Zimmerman, frustrated at "these a-holes always getting away", chased down Trayvon after locating him with his flashlight, confronted him, and attempted to detain him. Trayvon, in defense, tried to fight Zimmerman off, during which time Zimmerman sustained a few cuts to the head and bloodied (not broken) nose. Eventually, Zimmerman managed to pin Trayvon down on his back using his weight advantage and the incapacitating moves he learned as a bouncer and while training in Mai Tai. He draws his weapon and aims it at Trayvon whose arms are pinned down. Zimmerman's DNA was found on the bottom left of Trayvon's hoodie which indicates that Zimmerman stretched the hoodie with his left hand just enough to get a clear shot with his right (he shoots with his right hand). That also explains the misalignment between the bullet holes in the hoodie and Trayvon's chest. Trayvon, realizing his impending fate, screams in mortal terror. Zimmerman knew that police and neighbors were on their way, and, knowing that Trayvon was unarmed, knew that he risked being arrested and charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. In a spur of the moment decision, Zimmerman shoots Trayvon and immediately begins to concoct his story about his victim being the aggressor. He turns Trayvon's body over and searches him again, not finding anything. And of course the racist SPD ate it all up and let him go home with his gun the same night after questioning.
Wasn't the first witness the little 12 year old boy...Trayvon's to be stepMother's son? Or, was it the retired special ed teacher?
You know, I don't remember. I just remember that the blonde woman who had been a teacher in the past for about ten years was the first witness I saw one day. Maybe I didn't see the very first witness of the trial.
Do you remember if any witness testified as to signing a petition on Facebook?
Do you remember who was the very first witness the prosecution called? I remember that this woman was the first witness called on one day.
She testified for a considerable length of time, and the only thing which she had not mentioned previously was the movement from left to right. For me, that one addition, considering the length of her testimony was certainly not a major issue. If she had said something completely opposite of a previous statement made under oath, that would certainly have given me cause for pause.
How did they make her ENTIRE testimony seem untrue in their cross examination? Did they address any issues other than the one little addition, which she could have easily just remembered while testifying, or easily have forgotten when making previous statements or in previous interviews? Just wondering what was so convincing to you that this woman's testimony was not credible.
It is perfectly normal and usual for various witnesses to contradict each other, especially "eye witnesses" such as these folks.
No, she wasn't. It was the son of the fiance. He didn't have much to say. Very short time on the stand. The next witness was the cashier from the convenience store. Then the 911 operator that took Zimmerman's first call that night (we got to hear Zimmerman's 911 call at this time). Then, it was the 911 call center records keeper (remember they argued about whether to allow previous calls in or not and she had to come back later).
The next day, it was the 911 call center records keeper again. Followed by the Neighborhood Watch training person. Then HOA president. After this, it was the police officer who was second on the scene. This was followed by the very long testimony of the officer who marked all of the evidence on scene.
Finally, it was the neighbor in question. Her testimony was part way through the second day.
As to her credibility - I must admit adding the change.org along with the addition of the left to right movement gave me the takeaway impression of less than credible. So, perhaps it was the two together.
Was her signing of the Facebook page brought up during her testimony? I ask because on cross the defense is NOT allowed to ask questions outside the scope of what was asked on direct. Did the prosecution ask her any questions about that?? If they did, that was an amazingly stupid thing to do because they opened the door for the Defense. Otherwise I don't believe the Defense would have been able to talk about her Facebook stuff during their cross.
Ack the posting moves faster than I can get back to these questions.
The Facebook thing was brought out on cross to the re-direct. I think it was allowed because the prosecution said something like 'you have no reason to lie' or something to that effect.
Here's a link to her testimony that day. If you start at around 2:03:00, that's when the redirect about 'the prosecution saying she doesn't want to lie, etc' and then following is the cross on that about the change.org thing.
It's going to see when that comes up in the trial, and whose blood it was.
If its GZs it splattered on the flashlight from the blood on the tip of his nose. If TMs when he was shot.
In any event the place where it was found knocks out the T claim (video reenactment does also).
And TM could have taken it from GZ and hit him with it .
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.
