timmah said:
Are you really going to blatently misrepresent what I'm saying? Really? I never said or insinuated anything of the sort. You have quite a habit of jumping to rash conclusions. I was simply explaining why there was reasonable doubt, and why her story cannot be considered as 100% fact by the jury, it has to be weighed along with other evidence and testimony. It's a simple matter of how a court of law is supposed to work, and how the jury is supposed to view testimony and evidence in total. I fully believe that she is confident that she heard Trayvon, I don't think she's lying about that, but you have to at least try to understand why a jury cannot take the testimony of one individual as gospel and decide the whole case on that, especially when there are so many what-ifs and seeming contradictions from other witnesses. The evidence and all the testimonies in total left reasonable doubt, so the jury could not convict. I'm at a loss as to why you can't grasp this simple concept. Maybe if she was the only witness and there were no physical evidence presented you'd have a point, that's not the case. |
I dont care about the jury and didn't i say that it was speculation?
