Dickieboy
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2011
- Messages
- 5,878
- Reaction score
- 1,420
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
Based on those who believe it the premise of this thread is that Zimmerman’s word is TOTALLY useless, a liar. Considering this disregard EVERYTHING he has said as one cannot believe one statement and then discount another.
On what evidence or scenario does Zimmerman get convicted of murder 2?
Remember the NEN calls cannot be used as Zimmerman's words (which are lies) are the stimuli to their responses. Goode’s testimony reveals M on top. The wounds on the back of Z’s head support this and further self-defense. Witnesses that state Z was on top do not explain the wounds on the back Z’s head. This at a minimum would promote reasonable doubt.
What am I missing?
On what evidence or scenario does Zimmerman get convicted of murder 2?
Remember the NEN calls cannot be used as Zimmerman's words (which are lies) are the stimuli to their responses. Goode’s testimony reveals M on top. The wounds on the back of Z’s head support this and further self-defense. Witnesses that state Z was on top do not explain the wounds on the back Z’s head. This at a minimum would promote reasonable doubt.
What am I missing?