TexasCHLforum.com

baldeagle wrote:

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.

Rachel Jeantel, the last person to talk to Martin, is scheduled to return to the stand Thursday, when the defense has promised hours more of cross-examination after Wednesday's grueling outing that lasted more than 90 minutes.

The defense focused on two lies she had told: about her age and why she did not attend Martin’s funeral.

Jeantel shaved two years off her age, saying she was 16, in the hope that she would be given more privacy as a minor, she said. She also said she missed Martin’s funeral because she was in the hospital at the time.

texanjoker wrote:argh you guys made me turn it on to see this "witness."

from the LA TIMES...if she is lying the jury should be taking note.

Rachel Jeantel, the last person to talk to Martin, is scheduled to return to the stand Thursday, when the defense has promised hours more of cross-examination after Wednesday's grueling outing that lasted more than 90 minutes.

The defense focused on two lies she had told: about her age and why she did not attend Martin’s funeral.

Jeantel shaved two years off her age, saying she was 16, in the hope that she would be given more privacy as a minor, she said. She also said she missed Martin’s funeral because she was in the hospital at the time.

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.

texanjoker wrote:argh you guys made me turn it on to see this "witness."

from the LA TIMES...if she is lying the jury should be taking note.

Rachel Jeantel, the last person to talk to Martin, is scheduled to return to the stand Thursday, when the defense has promised hours more of cross-examination after Wednesday's grueling outing that lasted more than 90 minutes.

The defense focused on two lies she had told: about her age and why she did not attend Martin’s funeral.

Jeantel shaved two years off her age, saying she was 16, in the hope that she would be given more privacy as a minor, she said. She also said she missed Martin’s funeral because she was in the hospital at the time.

K.Mooneyham wrote:It really doesn't matter what the that witness says, exactly. She's just part of the motions on the way to convicting George Zimmerman for political reasons. I'm sorry, but my faith in our overall "justice system" is ebbing rapidly. I'll be truly amazed if he is acquitted.

sjfcontrol wrote:Well, I'm very glad I didn't play a drinking game where we take a shot every time this witness says "Sir".

(What's a "speaking objection"?)

Speaking objection is an objection that contains more information than needed by the judge to sustain or overrule it. It is often in the form of an argument. Many judges prohibit lawyers from using speaking objections, and sometimes even from stating the grounds for objections, as it can influence the jury.

An interruption of the opposing counsel with a speech rather than a simple, succinct objection stating a rule or point of evidence is also referred to as speaking objection.

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.

VMI77 wrote:

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.

And lets not forget the photo of Martin on his back, with his pants legs below the knees, and his knees wet from sitting astride Zimmerman.

Panda wrote:

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.

Convict? If she is their star witness, any grand juror who would vote to indict probably had some ulterior motive.