"When I walked back towards him..."
I haven't heard this on recording, so it could have been a simple transcript error. But assuming the statement was as reported, it very easily could have been a simple misstatement of "When I looked back towards him", given that the next statement would include the words "walked" ("he was walking back towards me"). This is extremely common, especially when you have a common phrase like "back towards" in both parts of the statement. Ever play music? You'll do this a lot. You have similarities, and you accidentally duplicate additional aspects in the different parts of the statement/phrase/sentence/etc.
Even so, worst case, what would be the implication? That he walked towards him? Or that he walked towards him and started a physical altercation by striking Trayvon? Where is it supposed that he struck him? Was there any evidence of that strike? Of course not. But that's not relevant, only the specifics of the actually present injuries to George are relevant, and relevant as evidence that he was NOT physically assaulted.... or something like that.
.... people are using it against him that he knew the street name in a post-event interview, as if that proves he necessarily knew it that night, in that moment. this qualifies as pathetic and embarrassing childishness. this should be beneath a prosecuting attorney.
as to the statement, "THIS IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSES,, THERE'S NO ADDRESS HERE.... "
PROSECUTOR, "BUT THERE'S A NUMBER ON THAT HOUSE RIGHT OVER THERE..."
THAT HOUSE WAS NOT ON TREEVIEW CIRCLE. IT WAS ON THE OTHER STREET, WHICH HE DIDN'T KNOW THE NAME OF. HE ONLY KNEW THE NAME OF THE TREEVIEW CIRCLE ROAD, SO HE HAD TO GET A NUMBER OF A HOUSE ON THAT STREET, SO HE COULD GIVE A FULL ADDRESS TO THE OPERATOR.
The claim that there are no bushes in that area? NO BUSHES?... THERE ARE BUSHES ALONG THE SIDES OF THOSE HOUSES.
WOW, THIS WHOLE THING JUST GETS MORE RIDICULOUS BY THE SECOND.
"I moved his hands apart [to check his hands]" , but he wasn't dead yet, so why is it surprising that his hands may have instinctively come back to the wound? what a joke.
HOW IS IT INTENTIONAL MURDER WITH A DEPRAVED MIND, WHEN HE LEFT THE INJURED MAN AFTER SHOOTING, NOT ONLY BELIEVING HE WAS STILL ALIVE, BUT WHILE HE WAS, IN FACT, STILL ALIVE?
gee, no one can keep their distance while attempting to monitor someone they are scared of... that's not possible! lol.
ARMPITS! How does he get the gun out!!?
Again this is ridiculous nonsense. They would be moving around and he already said he was shimmying along the ground, which means they would have been adjusting almost constantly. Silly, ridiculous nonsense.
Race pimps have wasted millions of dollars, gotten people fired and threatened, and brought the country to the brink of racial riots for nothing.
FACT: the prosecution has not presented any theory as to the origin of the physical altercation. they have no theory that fits the facts of the single most important aspect of the event. that alone is reasonable doubt.
No comments:
Post a Comment