[Jeff Winston]

But how did any of her testimony seem to hurt Zimmmerman?

[JPG]

Nothing that I saw hurt Zimmerman. She, on the other hand, didn’t come off looking truthful and unbiased; the jury had to have noticed.

[xzins]

I understand her testimony was important to the prosecution because it places Zimmerman farther into the neighborhood than everyone thought. They are working the “pursued Martin” angle.

The problem is that she came off so unbelievable.

First, how would she know that would help the prosecution?

Second, she said she “couldn’t see” and “couldn’t make out” but then described flailing arms and body on the ground.

Then she said she didn’t sign a petition that she clearly had signed.

I felt she was impeached, and that the defense left the impression that her testimony was either her or someone trying to pull a fast one at the last minute. And her obvious bias in signing a “justice for murdered Trayvon” petition certainly means she is biased.

[jjsheridan5]

But how did any of her testimony seem to hurt Zimmmerman?

I don't know for certain, but I think it may be this. The prosecution's theory is that Zimmerman was chasing Trayvon all the way back to the truck. Zimmerman's deposition indicated that he walked back to the truck, and that Trayvon emerged from the darkness (hardly a description of someone running out of the darkness). The left-right direction of the running was back in the direction of Zimmerman's truck. It would be inconsistent with Zimmerman's story, and consistent with the prosecution's version of events. If the footfall was in the other direction, however, it is consistent with both versions of the story (I think), since that would presumably be from the initial running that Zimmerman did to catch up with Trayvon.

I don't know any of this for certain, but, if true, it would be why the prosecution would want this little embellishment. Otherwise, her testimony really doesn't seem to add much value.