Because if the witness doesn't know, these type of questions are called "leading the witness."
In court or in a police station. Otherwise, it's just a good interview technique with a guest who is not very clear.
Zimmerman's brother (on Piers) said GZ didn't understand why no one came out to help him... but two witnesses (the 2 female roommates) came out & asked him twice what was going on & he didn't tell them to call 911 until the third time they asked. They've said this in several interviews as I recall.
I think if GZ believed he was not guilty he'd help investigators with anything he could to get the truth out. jmo. He wouldn't need people coming out to speak for him, backing up what we now see are lies (injuries from the fight didn't happen per police station video jmo). jmo.
First thing that popped in my head: The Anthonys.
The hearsay rule doesn't apply here for some reason?
I think Scott Peterson's media interviews were admitted into the trial. They actually helped get him to the Guilty Verdict.
It is all hearsay so far. But when they put them on the stand in a court and they ask them what Zimmerman told them and they state Zimmerman told me ABC it will be testimony that can be refuted by Zimmerman so it will be allowed.
Any statement made out of court not under oath is hearsay. The only time hearsay is not allowed in court is if the person who made the statement is not able to take the stand and swear to it one way or the other.
If I say well Joe Blow told me he killed Billy and Jimmy helped that would be allowed.
If Joe Blow was dead and could not refute or affirm it then the judge would not allow it, usually.
I want to clear up hearsay. Hearsay is admissible if it is used to impeach a witness. And the statement's of a party to a case, i.e., a defendant, are not hearsay because they are considered admissions by the party.
So here's how it would work:
Q: Sir, what did your brother tell you happened?
A: He said he was standing there and this kid came out of nowhere and jumped him.
Q: I want to show you a video that has been marked for i.d. purposes as Exhibit 333. Please watch.
Q: Now sir, that's not what you stated previously, correct? Isn't it true that you stated your brother ran after the victim?
In the above scenario (which isn't precisely how impeachment evidence would be utilized, but I've condensed it for space), the hearsay statements of the brother on the video come in as impeachment of the brother. The statement within his statement, what Zimmerman told him, is NOT hearsay because it is an admission by a party.
IMHO...All these friends and relatives coming forward to defend GZ are nothing but enablers...WHY can't he speak for himself? JMHO
Anything he says can be used against him in a court of law so if I was his attorney, I would tell him to keep his mouth firmly shut.
Also, the girlfriend did not find out right away that he had been killed. From what I understand, once she did, she was overcome and had to be hospitalized. I would too realizing I heard the last moments of my boyfriend before he was murdered.