Posted on 06/27/2013 4:48:28 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Today, June 27th, is DAY #14 (of 3rd week) State of Florida V. George Zimmerman case.
Yesterday Witness #8, Rachael Jeantel, did indeed take the stand. She will be back today to complete her testimony. This is the state’s key, and most important witness. This is also the witness we have exhaustively researched. Having quietly followed her social media, and having talked extensively, to her school classmates for over a year.
But before we discuss Jeantel, a summary:
[Yesterday] the morning saw two of the State’s witnesses testify, Jane Sudyka and Jeanee Manaloo, both of whom were residents of Twin Lakes at the time of the incident and who appeared to testify as to their observations that night. Manaloo’s cross-examination continued until after lunch, when she was followed by brief testimony from Ramona Rumph, the custodian of records for the police emergency call recordings.
Finally, the last of the State’s witnesses for the day was Rachel Jeantel, otherwise known as “Dee-Dee”, as Trayvon Martin’s “16-year-old girlfriend,” and as the last person to speak with Martin before his deadly confrontation with George Zimmerman. (continue reading)
(Excerpt) Read more at theconservativetreehouse.com ...
Thanks
Unless Lauer is brought back, the sequestered jury was presumably unable to get online and check her twitter page for themselves. If so, the jury will possibly (?) be left with the impression that Lauer was right and BDLR was wrong and Lauer did not follow RZ on twitter.
IIRC none of that happened in front of the jury anyhow.
Is there no live thread today?
Thanks.
It might be considered a modest dress (if you were going to lunch) if it wasn’t so tight which means it is too small for her.
Aside from the fact that it is too tight/dark bra underneath/straps showing, it isn’t appropriate for a formal, solemn setting such as a Church or a courtroom. It’s not modest in that it is drawing attention, which is the antithesis of modesty.
After listening to the video that you provided UCANSEE2,(thank you for that) I realize that I WAS incorrect. I misunderstood what someone said and I was just saying why I had thought she said home versus phone. So I do not feel that I owe anyone an apology for having expressed my opinion. On the other hand what do you think a person who likes to call me a Womoron should do?
Good morning. How are you doing? Did you hear the witness(for the Prosecution) state that it was Martin on top of Zimmerman, beating him relentlessly ? I wonder if the charges can now be dropped? (nah, the Media and the DNC have too much invested in this trial)
BTW, you have a wonderful HOME PAGE. HAT's off to you.
After listening to the video that you provided UCANSEE2,(thank you for that)
You are welcome. It took me almost an hour to find that section and transcribe it.
I realize that I WAS incorrect.
No problem. I am often 'incorrect' myself.
I misunderstood what someone said....
If I may, you didn't 'misunderstand'. You remembered what you were 'feeling' and that is what your mind stored. You were 'feeling' like Rachel WANTED TO GO HOME. We all felt like that. It was obvious. The judge has already stated that Rachel could go home, in her very first WORDS. Much later, after explaining to Rachel she must be available for RECALL, and as Rachel was leaving the courtroom, she asked CAN I USE MY PHONE. Not just once, but twice.
But you remembered it as CAN I GO HOME. You know what that makes you ? ...... A human being. It happens all the time, and I see it happen repeatedly on F.R.
...and I was just saying why I had thought she said home versus phone.
You remembered "CAN I GO HOME" (even though it was wrong) and you were rationalizing WHY that was YOUR memory of it. EVEN though TWO other posters tried to tell you that was incorrect, and why. You refused to listen to that, and you didn't bother to go look it up anywhere to confirm the facts. You just assumed you were the one who was RIGHT and didn't want to hear any different.
So I do not feel that I owe anyone an apology for having expressed my opinion.
You didn't say it was an OPINION. You said it was fact, and then justified why you thought it was fact, without any evidence to support it, other than your incorrect memory.
You then proceeded to attempt to 'discredit' ME and Nervous Tick with the following...
My "sophisticated backhoe" as you call it, makes more sense then you and some others thinking she asked if she could use her phone in the courtroom. Who is doing the digging? Seems to me it is YOU.
So....you dug your own hole, but insisted we were doing the digging. You were way off base, didn't have the facts, yet claimed others were 'thinking wrong'. Do I have that right ?
On the other hand what do you think a person who likes to call me a Womoron should do?
I think that 'person' should wait for you to apologize, then you can see if that person may have a similar response.
We are all friends, we are all humans. We make mistakes. When I find out I am wrong , I apologize, even if I was perfectly polite during my 'ignorance'.
Maybe Nervous Tick was 'harsh' on you, but you asked for it. You could have stated that you were only going on 'memory' and might be wrong. You could have said you needed to get the facts before you could be sure.
But instead, you got out the backhoe so you could dig faster. And you don't like it because we were throwing the dirt back in to cover up the hole ?
I would suggest to you that it was your 'stubbornness' (I liked the story about your son's car) that led you to the bottom of this hole.
Stubbornness can be a good thing, or a bad thing. I think Nervous Tick was just trying to point out the 'bad' side. Acknowledge that, and let the healing begin (as they say).
Isn't it really silly that this became a big deal, when in reality it was not even a speck of importance to the trial ?
>> Maybe Nervous Tick was ‘harsh’ on you
Yes, Spunky, I was more than a little harsh on you, and the name-calling was totally inappropriate.
I apologize.
Nervous Tick, apology accepted and I also apologize if I have offended anyone.
I am celebrating. ALL THREE OF US WON .
We became FRiends instead of enemies, and I have the utmost respect for both of you.
THANKS and GOD BLESS to you both.
Did you hear that John Good testified that Trayvon was on top of Martin pounding him relentlessly ???
Lies may travel around the world instantaneously, but the TRUTH eventually prevails.
I only wonder how it will end.
>> I also apologize if I have offended anyone.
?? How ??
:-)
Seriously. Already forgotten.
Have a nice weekend, and FRegards
It never ceases to amaze me how fast confrontations can erupt on this board... even among folks who share so many core beliefs. I guess, we have a WHOLE BUNCH of "Type A" personalities here. :-)
Reading the back and forth between the three of you was classic. CONGRATS on working your way through it. I wish that happened more often.
Credit UCANSEE2.
“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”
I learned from that experience, and I pray I will remember it and use what I have learned. But I’m still a hair-trigger type A at the core. :-)
FRegards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.