TexasCHLforum.com

[quote="sjfcontrol]She seemed so certain...[/quote]

People in the dark ages were certain the Earth was flat.....

sjfcontrol wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:By the way, did you notice how quick she was at dates and days of the week? She knew what day of the week and date each of her meetings were. Can you say 'savant'?

Not so much. She insisted that March 19th was a Monday. It was not. It was a Tuesday. None of the dates she gave matched the actual day of the week. (I'm listening to her testimony now.)

What year?
March 19th 2012 was a Monday -- but I suspect that is before the current legal team was involved.

She seemed so certain...

Whoops! It seems it is me who is not the savant. I forgot we were talking about last year.

BTW, I'm not having any problems understanding her. What does that say about me?

baldeagle wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

baldeagle wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:By the way, did you notice how quick she was at dates and days of the week? She knew what day of the week and date each of her meetings were. Can you say 'savant'?

Not so much. She insisted that March 19th was a Monday. It was not. It was a Tuesday. None of the dates she gave matched the actual day of the week. (I'm listening to her testimony now.)

What year?
March 19th 2012 was a Monday -- but I suspect that is before the current legal team was involved.

She seemed so certain...

Whoops! It seems it is me who is not the savant. I forgot we were talking about last year.

BTW, I'm not having any problems understanding her. What does that say about me?

It says you understand "mumble"?

I'm not sure we are talking about last year. Wouldn't march put it at about the time the shooting hit the media? Didn't George have a different legal team at that point? Yet March of this year seems too close to now. That they wouldn't have had time to investigate comments if the depositions were just a couple of months ago.

OK, I'm not totally bonkers. She said "Tuesday, March 15th" referring to this year. That was actually Friday. Although that Friday the deposition was rescheduled to April 30th, which WAS a Tuesday, so maybe a little confusion there on her part.

sjfcontrol wrote:

baldeagle wrote:Whoops! It seems it is me who is not the savant. I forgot we were talking about last year.

BTW, I'm not having any problems understanding her. What does that say about me?

It says you understand "mumble"?

I work at a University. I have to talk to people from all over the world; Indians, Chinese, Koreans, Pakistanis, Mexicans, Lithuanians, etc., etc. I've learned to really listen when people talk.

You guys who sat through her testimony are heroic. I wasn't able to stomach more than 10 minutes of it. Even poor Zimmerman looked frustrated.

That anyone would give a single shred of credibility to her testimony will forever mystify me.

If this is an accurant representatation of the youth of this age, we are irrevocably doomed as a country.

I Don't know about the mumbling lady, but the blonde middle aged woman, who didn't see anything, but knew that Trayvon was being beaten by Zimmerman from their voices, was sympathetic. Crying etc when she heard her 911 call replayed. "oh he's killed him, he's dead" etc, etc.

Its really too hard for me to watch, as I feel Zimmerman is being railroaded. When I do watch, I just get mad.

philip964 wrote:I Don't know about the mumbling lady, but the blonde middle aged woman, who didn't see anything, but knew that Trayvon was being beaten by Zimmerman from their voices, was sympathetic. Crying etc when she heard her 911 call replayed. "oh he's killed him, he's dead" etc, etc.

Its really too hard for me to watch, as I feel Zimmerman is being railroaded. When I do watch, I just get mad.

She was an emotional basket-case on the 911 call. Far too upset to make any kind of rational assessment.

Also, regarding her ability to determine a persons approximate age from the sound of their voice, I would hope that at some point the defense would point out that when we are under stress, the pitch of our voices naturally rises. This could possibly make a grown man's voice sound child-like. And by the time a teen reaches 19, his voice would have finished changing, anyway.

And as for those claiming that Zimmerman was on top, and flailing his arms, how do they justify the fact that Martin was untouched except for the gunshot wound and a small abrasion on his finger, while Zimmerman had wounds on both the front and back of his head.

sjfcontrol wrote:

philip964 wrote:I Don't know about the mumbling lady, but the blonde middle aged woman, who didn't see anything, but knew that Trayvon was being beaten by Zimmerman from their voices, was sympathetic. Crying etc when she heard her 911 call replayed. "oh he's killed him, he's dead" etc, etc.

Its really too hard for me to watch, as I feel Zimmerman is being railroaded. When I do watch, I just get mad.

She was an emotional basket-case on the 911 call. Far too upset to make any kind of rational assessment.

Also, regarding her ability to determine a persons approximate age from the sound of their voice, I would hope that at some point the defense would point out that when we are under stress, the pitch of our voices naturally rises. This could possibly make a grown man's voice sound child-like. And by the time a teen reaches 19, his voice would have finished changing, anyway.

And as for those claiming that Zimmerman was on top, and flailing his arms, how do they justify the fact that Martin was untouched except for the gunshot wound and a small abrasion on his finger, while Zimmerman had wounds on both the front and back of his head.

Your like a lot of my clients, always wanting to use logic. I keep having to remind them that logic is not involved when dealing with the government.

She doesn't read cursive -- and so can't read her own letter written with the help of a friend.

sjfcontrol wrote:Anybody who,would convict somebody on a charge of 2nd degree murder on the basis of HER testimony has some other agenda in mind.

Well, the difficulty of course is she is saying T was actively fleeing from Z, that Z confronted T, and then an apparent scuffle broke out. They are easy to impugn but you now have several witnesses disagreeing or not supporting Z's testimony that he was attacked. We'll see how it goes today.

I like how the news agencies covered over the "crazy cracker" comment from T which actually supports a more combative mental state and blasts the "sweet innocent child" image the prosecution is trying to show.

sjfcontrol wrote:

AndyC wrote:19 years old (I swear, I thought she was in her 30s!) and, by all accounts, about to go into 12th grade in the fall.

Thank you SO much, No Child Left Behind.

Well unless my math skills are no better than hers, that is not all that far behind. 12th grade is 13 years if schooling (don't forget kindergarten). 13 + 5 is 18.

By the way, did you notice how quick she was at dates and days of the week? She knew what day of the week and date each of her meetings were. Can you say 'savant'?

She's about two years behind. People are turning 18 in the 12th grade, not 20.

She does think "Creepy xxx Cracker" is a racial statement ???? REALLY? WHAT!?
Oh My!
This girl has NO credibility,and I surely hope the jury sees that!