Day 5- Zimmerman Trial

[RGinWA 816]

Well, according to you folks, her testimony isn't credible so you really don't know what he said. Or what terms she and her friends use for white people, for that matter. Or is her testimony credible and you're now conceding that Zimmermann was actually chasing Martin? Or do you just cherry-pick the parts of her testimony that fit what you want to believe and disregard the rest?

It's so cherry picked they need to hire farm workers to finish their argument on Dee Dee.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

So asking for restraint as a "black person" is different than a white person saying it?

Last time I checked asking for restraint means one thing, asking people to be restrained from some action?

1. The act of restraining or the condition of being restrained.

2. Loss or abridgment of freedom.

3. An influence that inhibits or restrains; a limitation.

4. An instrument or a means of restraining.

5. Control or repression of feelings; constraint.

But I guess that's black code for kill whitey and riot now? Got it...

Here is his statement. I know what restraint is, he is saying if they show it, it will reflect badly on the black community . he is basically arguing against restraint.

"If he walks and we show restraint, then it sends the message that killing a black person has little to no consequence"

[RGinWA 816]

Here is his statement. I know what restraint is, he is saying if they show it, it will reflect badly on the black community . he is basically arguing against restraint.

"If he walks and we show restraint, then it sends the message that killing a black person has little to no consequence"

Link please?

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

It's so cherry picked they need to hire farm workers to finish their argument on Dee Dee.

She was asked if she used the word cracker and if she thought it was a negative term. She replied she used it regularly and that she so no problem with it.

That is not repeating what you claim someone else said, that is directly stating how you feel.

You boys try to keep up now, you hear.

Link please?

just scroll back a page or to in this thread and read Marvins post.

Here -http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/438624-day-5-zimmerman-trial/?p=6333363

Edited June 29, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[RGinWA 816]

She was asked if she used the word cracker and if she thought it was a negative term. She replied she used it regularly and that she so no problem with it.

That is not repeating what you claim someone else said, that is directly stating how you feel.

You boys try to keep up now, you hear.

just scroll back a page or to in this thread and read Marvins post.

The point is, are we accepting EVERYTHING she says or just the cracker statement? Because either she's believable or she's not. You picked the most negative thing in your mind from her statements and only used that as evidence.

But ok, you don't see how that's cherry picking. This is the exact reason we invaded Iraq by using this same logic.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

The point is, are we accepting EVERYTHING she says or just the cracker statement? Because either she's believable or she's not. You picked the most negative thing in your mind from her statements and only used that as evidence.

But ok, you don't see how that's cherry picking. This is the exact reason we invaded Iraq by using this same logic.

I have reasonable doubts about her testimony just as you do. I am sure at least one person on the jury does also.

[Darnell 8,478]

But I guess that's black code for kill whitey and riot now? Got it...

What's wrong with that? I'm looking forward to mopping up once it's over.

But ok, you don't see how that's cherry picking. This is the exact reason we invaded Iraq by using this same logic.

Huh? #### no,

we invaded Iraq because a president couldn't spell.

Sure, Q and N are dissimilar letters, but come-on..

[Darnell 8,478]

Well, according to you folks, her testimony isn't credible so you really don't know what he said. Or what terms she and her friends use for white people, for that matter. Or is her testimony credible and you're now conceding that Zimmermann was actually chasing Martin? Or do you just cherry-pick the parts of her testimony that fit what you want to believe and disregard the rest?

I'd rather 'see' what the defense is doing on the cross-examination, and try to 'glean' more outcome possibilities once that's completed.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Did I miss something? Isn't he having a trial?

When he's convicted, just remember that fact and don't cry racism.

I promise not to riot if he is convicted.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Well, according to you folks, her testimony isn't credible so you really don't know what he said. Or what terms she and her friends use for white people, for that matter. Or is her testimony credible and you're now conceding that Zimmermann was actually chasing Martin? Or do you just cherry-pick the parts of her testimony that fit what you want to believe and disregard the rest?

I concur. I think if we did a survey that at least 1 in 6 people would have the same reasonable doubts as you.

The job of the defense is to instill reasonable doubt in the prosecutions case in people's minds but most particularly the minds of the jurors. She made that easy. Now, if you want to defend her testimony, then tell us why she should be considered credible. Otherwise you are simply adding to the doubt.

The fact is she was bomb for the prosectuion. Their only hope is to make us (and the jury) forget about her with some overwhelming evidence from someone else. They did that for me by presenting Jonathon Good who very credibly told us how TM was pounding the ####### out of GZ when GZ shot him. I am way past the illiterate, rude friend. I may go back and watch for laughs, but she has been forgotten.

[RGinWA 816]

I have reasonable doubts about her testimony just as you do. I am sure at least one person on the jury does also.

I have doubts about a lot that's been presented, but key hurdles as to "the law" for a conviction will be hard to dismiss.

Just because we want Dee Dee to be a different person on the stand and don't understand where she comes from doesn't mean some of her key statements don't ring true.

If she's so unintelligent how does she divulge the state of mind about TM feeling stalked by GZ so intricately? It's coached? We'll she's the worse coached witness in the history of coached witnesses.

I mean she isn't some criminal mastermind you'd agree, then take some of her statements at face value.

I've lived in rural Alabama and although those people sounded unintelligent, if you listened they made a lot of sense.

[Darnell 8,478]

Just because we want Dee Dee to be a different person on the stand and don't understand where she comes from doesn't mean some of her key statements don't ring true.

I take a difference stance on this, alas.

My stance? Crump's coaching skills are abysmal.

[RGinWA 816]

I take a difference stance on this, alas.

My stance? Crump's coaching skills are abysmal.

Yet, how good would Dee Dee ever be on the stand?

I think she's proven that she never wanted to testify because of her personality, her speaking shortcomings and her possible feelings of guilt for not doing more on the call.

I believe she's fully aware of who she is and how she's perceived by most people.

[Darnell 8,478]

I believe she's fully aware of who she is and how she's perceived by most people.

IMO, her own personal perceptions of herself not matter, one whit.

[RGinWA 816]

IMO, her own personal perceptions of herself not matter, one whit.

Maybe they don't matter, but her not wanting to testify was demonstrated over and over in this case.

That has remained consistent and the reason she didn't want to tell all the story was consistent with her testimony.

Sure her statements have problems, but her memory was demonstrated to be extremely accurate on dates times and days of the week. You can't coach memory like that. She remembered every call and deposition and failed appointments date and time and day of the week, along with her testimony.