timmah said:
Pschologically speaking, she's going to have a built-in bias to see Trayvon in the best light since he's her friend, so she's going to believe that he wasn't the agressor based on that bias. Because of this, she's less credible on this front in a court of law than a voice expert in the mind of a jury. There are very clear arguments to be made that she couldn't have identified the voice 100% over a cell phone, especially since trained experts could not, there's really no qustion about that. I understand why YOU came to that conclusion, and you're entitled to your opinion for sure, but that's not how it works in a trial. Please go and do a little reading about how our justice system works in relation to reasonable doubt, it might help you to understand why the jury could not convict Zimmerman. |
I knew it Lol
I knew you were going to do it
We must disregard everything that might even remotely make Trayvons side look even remotely justifiable and take Zimmermans words as gospel even though he is known to have backtracked his story lol
Good day, sir








