George Zimmerman verdict thread

1235»

Comments

  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Pr0n wrote: »
    Seeing as the prosecution's star witness hurt their case cutting it both ways might not be so bad.
    cutting both ways, as far as i'm saying here, means if witnesses are unreliable AS A RULE, you don't really get to pick and choose when that rule applies
    Pr0n wrote: »
    But how would having a professional take the stand and explain the unreliability of witness testimony, which you agree with, be trying too hard?
    one day the prior post(s) will make sense
  • Pr0n
    Pr0n Members Posts: 204 ✭✭✭
    Sure you can. You don't have to discredit all witnesses, just the ones that are hurting your case. Of course you have to prove they are confabulating which isn't always the case.

    And that day could have been yesterday if you'd just explain it.
  • ILLBOT
    ILLBOT Posts: 911 My Name Is My Name.
    Minion DETECTED BANNED ALIAS
    REASON: Elrawd, Ron Swanson

    USER BANNED
    Pr0n
  • janklow
    janklow Members, Moderators Posts: 8,613 Regulator
    Pr0n wrote: »
    Sure you can. You don't have to discredit all witnesses, just the ones that are hurting your case. Of course you have to prove they are confabulating which isn't always the case.
    your argument was specifically that witness testimony supporting Zimmerman was considered inaccurate/unreliable because it was witness testimony. while i do agree with that, the PROBLEM is that you're still saying "witnesses i don't agree with should be considered unreliable! other witnesses are fine!"
    Pr0n wrote: »
    And that day could have been yesterday if you'd just explain it.
    yeah, well, hey

  • Jewpac
    Jewpac Members Posts: 267 ✭✭
    Why would prosecution deliberately hurt their own case? That's nonsense. If the defense wants to try and discredit witnesses that help the prosecution they are free to do it, but choosing to hurt your own case is bad business.