George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin General discussion #3

[popsicle]

Typically a witness not related to the parties does not have a bias to either side. I would bet that the prosecution would have cautioned this witness not to do those things if they thought it was something she might do. jmo

I would add...couple that with the change in her testimony and it gives reason to throw all her testimony out.

 

[cityslick]

IMO, there has been little discussion about actual real time stuff because there really hasn't been much "meat" in the actual testimony. There really hasn't been much true evidence presented. Not really even much backstory.

Some say yesterday was a "bombshell" or whatever. I thought it was pretty meaningless.

If someone gives their witness account after the incident...and then only after it becomes "a thing", they do something to pick a side...so what? They have already given their story.

If she didn't say "from left to right" at the time, that's not something that I would think about saying at the time either. If no one asked me, not my fault. However, in refreshing my memory, or in thinking more about things, it comes to mind, should I NOT say it?

I don't know. Yesterday just didn't seem like a big deal to me at all.

It's a big deal because the state seems to want to highlight the 'left to right' statement. They obviously feels that's an important fact because it puts placement to GZ's story. You would think this kind of information would be fairly important, especially in the early days of the investigation and I'm sure she was asked about specifically what she heard back then. But she's only now getting to the detail of which direction she heard sound and that's suspect. The fact that she admitted to liking the 'justice for trayvon' page doesn't do her (or the state) any favors either.

 

[cityslick]

I agree, it didn't seem that big to me either. Most witnesses have a side. I was a witness in a murder trial and I absolutely wanted the defendant convicted and believed 100% in his guilt. It didn't change my testimony at all.

This is a state witness though and showing your are biased against the defendant does nothing to help the state. The jury would probably dismiss your testimony of being biased, especially if you just now remembered a detail that just happens to be somewhat important.

 

[Schuby]

Typically a witness not related to the parties does not have a bias to either side. I would bet that the prosecution would have cautioned this witness not to do those things if they thought it was something she might do. jmo

I wasn't related to either party but I certainly had an opinion about the case I testified in. In fact, much like this witness yesterday, I was a neighbor called for some eye witness testimony.

 

[popsicle]

per hln... hernandez taken away in handcuffs

 

[popsicle]

I wasn't related to either party but I certainly had an opinion about the case I testified in. In fact, much like this witness yesterday, I was a neighbor called for some eye witness testimony.

But did you show bias and change your statement?

 

[corundogs]

per hln... hernandez taken away in handcuffs

Who is hernandez?

 

[corundogs]

I swear to God, I love this judge!!!

 

[popsicle]

Who is hernandez?

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=212613"]MA - Boston police question New England Patriots player in homicide investigation - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

NFL player

 

[corundogs]

LOVE IT! 911 tapes will be in!

 

[popsicle]

We lost a juror, she said alternate, right?

 

[raine1212]

Good Morning Everyone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Having my morning coffee.... YEAH

 

[Archaea]

Judge ruled on the tapes- they are allowed in. Good or bad? Who knows?

 

[tpatte021]

Great win for the prosecution in getting those 911 tapes admitted

 

[Schuby]

But did you show bias and change your statement?

No, but there were things I had said in original interviews that I had forgotten about by the time the trial came around (2 years later) and the prosecutor had to do that "well read this and see if it refreshes your memory" thing (lol-makes you feel really dumb!). But, still, that is different from suddenly remembering something new. I agree that it weakens her testimony, I just don't think it's a big slam dunk for the defense.

 

[corundogs]

We lost a juror, she said alternate, right?

I didn't hear the alternate part...but since the only 2 men on the jury of 10 are alternates...yes, it was an alternate.

Before I saw popsicle's posting - I was like WOW! A jury member led away in handcuffs! That's a pretty big deal!

LMAO!!!

 

[Schuby]

Judge ruled on the tapes- they are allowed in. Good or bad? Who knows?

Well I'm glad just for selfish reasons--I'm just interested to hear them.

 

[popsicle]

Judge ruled on the tapes- they are allowed in. Good or bad? Who knows?

I really don't think it is either. jmo

 

[Truthy]

So far, this trial is really boring--especially compared to the Jodi Arias trial. No wonder George looks so bored.

George looked bored when they were showing pics and playing phone call.
I think he seems drugged, he did have quite the documented habit. IIRC, he went into a panic immediately about not having his meds in jail.

 

[popsicle]

No, but there were things I had said in original interviews that I had forgotten about by the time the trial came around (2 years later) and the prosecutor had to do that "well read this and see if it refreshes your memory" thing (lol-makes you feel really dumb!). But, still, that is different from suddenly remembering something new. I agree that it weakens her testimony, I just don't think it's a big slam dunk for the defense.

I agree. I totally understand having to refresh someones memory.