- Joined
- Jul 27, 2011
- Messages
- 54,963
- Reaction score
- 43,320
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Independent
She was blatantly disrespectful to the entire court system, yet I've heard some legal analysts saying that she did well during her time on the stand. What do you think, though? Did she do more harm than good for the Prosecution?
I don't think she helped the prosecution. Her testimony was given weeks after the event...the letter "she" wrote? Well, "she" didn't write it at all. It has inconsistencies with the final sworn deposition she gave. She wasn't there. Everything she testifies to about where he was...what he was doing? Ridiculous. She had no idea. She knew only what he said. Get rid of her assumptions...distill everything down to what he actually said? I think she proves nothing.
That, combined with her most obvious prejudice about the case (Zimmerman's guilty as sin), and her complete disrespect and disdain for the court proceedings, all combine to make me think she did more harm than good.
She was blatantly disrespectful to the entire court system, yet I've heard some legal analysts saying that she did well during her time on the stand. What do you think, though? Did she do more harm than good for the Prosecution?
She can't read. I rest my case.
What was your case?
Also, the witnesses are all unrealiable.
And this woman was the least reliable and the dumbest of them all so far. She can't read.
I don't agree with that at all. I think the neighbors, police officers and medical personnel are very reliable.
I agree she was the least reliable and not helpful to the prosecution. I pretty sure she can read, just not well at all.
I agree. I'm confused about that letter, anyway. Did she write it? I thought she couldn't read cursive.
I went to school with people who in the 10th grade (2nd year of highschool) had difficulties reading out loud because they never read out loud. But they never had any problems understanding the text when they read it silently. Just when speaking.
I see these analysts still saying the prosecution has this and wonder if these people wanted and expected a different outcome so they're just hanging onto every little minute thing that might be in "their" favor.
It's my understanding her friend wrote it for her. And, you're correct. Apparently she can't read cursive.
If you can read text silently and comprehend it, but have problem reading allowed that isn't a reading problem. It's a public speaking problem.
If you can read text silently and comprehend it, but have problem reading allowed that isn't a reading problem. It's a public speaking problem.
I think even the analysts who were TM's most fervent supporters cannot believe what's going on in this courtroom. Like. There must be more! There HAS to be more!
I think it was obvious that she didn't really care about the case and was not interested in providing evidence. This could be construed, by the defense, as her knowing that Martin intended to attack. It's speculation - I'm not claiming to know this or that it's true - but I think the defense may paint it that way (perhaps she will be recalled regarding what she knew about Martin's suspicions and intentions). She might not be done hurting the prosecution.
I'm guessing she struggles to read regular typed print so she didn't even want to try reading cursive in front of millions of people.
Well, she reads/writes well enough to have a Twitter account and to tweet. But I wonder, and I don't mean this in an ugly way, how close to the border her IQ is.
Well, she reads/writes well enough to have a Twitter account and to tweet. But I wonder, and I don't mean this in an ugly way, how close to the border her IQ is.
Rachel was extremely helpful to the prosecution. People keep expecting the pross to bring out witnesses that are smoking guns...the pross's smoking gun is Zimmerman.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?