Because she wanted to write a letter in nice handwriting, which she couldn’t do.
My handwriting is atrocious. When things are handwritten I ask my wife to write it for me all the time.
It was still her letter. She still sent it. Was still her words; just someone else with nicer handwriting wrote it out for her. The witness may or may not have credibility, but not because of anything to do with the letter.
THISis your idea of nice handwriting? Wow. My hand writing sucks and it’s better than that.
The reliability of her testimony is now in question due to these issues. Instead of being a reliable witness for the prosecution she will benefit the defense. She has introduced doubt and changed her story at several points. Perhaps all with good intentions. But it is a changed story never the less.
The issue to be addressed by the jury is what happened that night, and was it or not, self defense. They are just going to have to toss out her testimony. Even if she is sincere and attempting to be truthful.
idk what you’re saying here.
The point being that the sign is at the corner, as is the case in the overwhelming majority of all street signs I have ever encountered, not the middle of the block.
Saying that the reason he exited the vehicle was to look for a street sign where there is none is an ad hoc prevarication.
in re GZ
The reliability of his testimony is now in question due to these issues. Instead of being a reliable witness for the defense he will benefit the prosecution. He has introduced doubt and changed his story at several points. Perhaps all with good intentions. But it is a changed story never the less.
The issue to be addressed by the jury is what happened that night, and was it or not, self defense. They are just going to have to toss out his testimony. Even if he is sincere are attempting to be truthful.
Compared to my handwriting? Yes, that’s friggen’ calligraphy.
What? When did he testify? I must have missed him being questioned, and having the chance to change his story or stick to it.
If it helps you, feel free to change the word testimony to w/e word you find more appropriate.
You’re the one suggesting he changed his story, perhaps you could at least hint at when it happened.
Prosecution witness Lauer - the neighbor. So far:
That’s a prosecution witness? They should probably give up now.
The hand writing is just fine, I agree. There were a few words I had a bit of difficulty deciphering but I find that’s normal when reading someone’s handwriting for the first time. But then I have plenty of experience transcribing old written documents so maybe that helped.
All that is left of that horse is jello.
If you haven’t noticed the changes in the past year of participating in these threads, I doubt that another iteration will make a difference.
The handwaving around GZ’s changes to and inconsistencies of GZ’s accounts is not being applied even-handedly to RJ account, imho.
Amazing how people hear exactly what they want to hear.
When asked if her house numbers are plainly visible from the street, she said yes, with the caveat that it depends exactly where you’re standing on the street. Defense just said, “So the house number is obstructed?” and she said “No, it’s just not always visible depending on where you’re standing,” or something to that affect. In any case, the jury saw a picture of the plainly visible house number.
The prosecutor asked her something about Twin Trees (?) road where it comes into the front gate. She said she didn’t know if the tiny little bit of street (15-20 feet) in between the main road and the first intersection was technically Twin Trees or Retreat View, but she was very clear and direct in being able to name every relevant road in the subdivision.
Yes, she thought it was unusual for two people to be arguing out in the rain, so she muted her TV. Big whoop.
Pinpoints exactly where the confrontation started, yes. The prosecution didn’t use DD’s testimony to pinpoint the location of the confrontation, because DD would have no idea, not having been there and not even knowing what the neighborhood looked like. All she said is that Trayvon said he was “near” his house, which could mean just about anything, including, as far as I’m concerned, exactly where this witness said he was.
I heard nothing particularly useful for either side here.
He exited the truck, looked for the street sign so he could give it to the dispatcher, and not seeing it continues on. If his sole intent was to get the street number he would have walked back until it was visible. It was not his sole intent nor would there be any contention on his part that it was.
saying he said this as a singular reason for leaving the truck is a false debate point. It’s clear by the phone call that he was following Martin and he even brings this up in the video when he said it was suggested he not follow Martin. At this point he agrees to the suggestion and continues to the end of the T to get an address from the street he knows the name of.
Who did that?
It doesn’t have to be a singular reason to be a falsehood afaict.
Ugh, fucking prosecutor has no clue how twitter works. Every courtroom should have some 15 year old kid on hand to tell them when they’re being morons.
The prosecutor doesn’t know. The defense doesn’t know. And the jurors probably don’t know. But the prosecutor has successfully (and falsely) managed to imply that the witness was not objective.
Fortunately he went through that horseshit when the jury was out.
The prosecution is the one who needs to build a case. If the witness wasn’t useful for the prosecution then I count that as a plus for the defense.
