Max King of the Wild said:
Her story of events don't match up to any of the other evidence and she admitted to lying to police and trayvons mother about irrelevant facts... If she lied about simple things what else did she lie about? In addition to the admitted lies she also testified that her story changed because she didn't think those bits of information was relevant... Okay, so you are the last person who talked to a person who was shot and you don't think details are relevant? On top of all that she never even seemed interested in being there. If your friend was murdered and you had information that would put his assailant behind bars wouldn't you want to? I don't buy her story for a second. In my opinion one of two things happened with her. Either she has no idea what happened because she didn't hear anything. OR (and I think this is more likely) she knows more than she is saying BUT she is leaving details out that might paint trayvon in a worse position OR over exagerating the story (like everybody does when they are telling their story) but past the point of it being reasonable.... or maybe she is even doing both. But I am 100% confident in saying as EVERYONE should agree there was definatly something off in her testimony and to take it at face value is very naive (for lack of a better word). I feel that if she is leaving out information to help trayvons case it just makes what she is saying suspicious. However, if she were to include those things she thinks makes him look bad that more people would be less suspicious of her testimony and more understanding of what happened that night if Zimmerman were the aggressor |
Even if she kenw the facts I doubt she be able to get them across well.
Thisvideo speaks for itself:
http://video.news.com.au/2397087197/Ngga-redefined
