Zimmerman Trial Part 4 (document, pay, house)

[JanND]

Originally Posted by SourD

Nope, she said this:
"I asked him where he at, and he told me he at the back of his daddy fiancee house."

Exactly...Near is not "at" That was why I provided the link to Rachel's testimony.

[Dale Cooper]

A friendly neighbor.

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Me007gold

Again, PROVE it happend. Thats what this trail is about, PROOF. If you cant prove it, it didnt happen

All they can do is fabricate imaginary stuff.

[SourD]

Originally Posted by JanND

Exactly...Near is not "at"

WTF are you talking about? Did she or did she not say what I quoted????

[Orlandochuck1]

Originally Posted by Factsplease

Here we go again. Rachel never said he made it home. She said he was near it.

Where this occurred was not "near it".... that's evidence from her that he came back toward GZ who had lost sight of him.

[Fox Terrier]

Originally Posted by SourD

More fabrications from the desperate.

No, it's my theory that absolutely NOTHING happened at the Tee. Porky had to put the action there because he was 'just looking for an address'. LOL

I think TM went past the Tee to the front of the row of houses with Porky chasing after him. When TM got around to the back of the row (dog walk), that's when he tried to get home, but Porky was right behind him. TM was still trying to get away and maybe thought he didn't have time to actually get into the house before Porky caught up to him.

That's why one of the ear witnesses said the commotion was going left to right..toward the Tee. That's why TM ended up 50 feet from the Tee.

[Wayland Woman]

Originally Posted by Me007gold

Again, PROVE it happend. Thats what this trail is about, PROOF. If you cant prove it, it didnt happen

That's bull and you know it. Just because you can't prove something happened for the purposes of a trial doesn't mean it didn't happened.

[SourD]

Originally Posted by Orlandochuck1

Where this occurred was not "near it".... that's evidence from her that he came back toward GZ who had lost sight of him.

Don't listen to these people, they are obfuscating on purpose. She said both which makes sense in the timeline. At first she said NEAR, as he got closer she asked AGAIN and he had arrived AT. That's the last I'll say about this, it's all documented and easily proven like I just did with quoting the entire exchange earlier.

[Bhaalspawn]

Originally Posted by JanND

Exactly...Near is not "at" That was why I provided the link to Rachel's testimony.

She was able to start talking to him on the phone. "I asked him where he at, and he told me he at the back of his daddy fiancee house."

[Dale Cooper]

I can see why people get testimony wrong. They're typing about old stuff that happened a week ago instead of watching the trial!