Thoughts on Week One of Trial

[annoyedbeyond]

That wasn't in what you quoted. What you quoted said 'ever'.

More objectively, however, were observation testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case. On at least three separate occasions Sudyka referred to the “three shots” fired by Zimmerman–”pop, pop, pop”. No one but her has ever suggested that there was more than a single shot fired.

I guess that's where we're going to hang up.
 

[annoyedbeyond]

I conclude that Surdyka was able to see the body of Trayvon Martin, horizontal on the ground, at a distance of some 80 feet or more. This is what I am talking about. Are you disputing this, or not?

Nah.

[nomatter_nevermind]

More objectively, however, were observation testimony by Sudyka that was clearly contrary to facts known and accepted by everyone else involved in the case.

OK. Honestly, it never crossed my mind that this is what you meant. It's 'testimony by Sudyka', not testimony unqualified, testimony in general, which I might have taken to indicate that comments about statements by persons other than Sudyka were implicitly restricted to trial testimony.

Anyway, why did Branca say 'suggested', if what he really meant was 'testified'? Easy enough to use the verb that says what he wants to say.

[annoyedbeyond]

OK. Honestly, it never crossed my mind that this is what you meant. It's 'testimony by Sudyka', not testimony unqualified, testimony in general, which I might have taken to indicate that comments about statements by persons other than Sudyka were implicitly restricted to trial testimony.

Anyway, why did Branca say 'suggested', if what he really meant was 'testified'? Easy enough to use the verb that says what he wants to say.

That's why I say we comment past each other a bunch.

As to why Branca wrote suggested when he meant testified, I really don't know.

[nomatter_nevermind]

As to why Branca wrote suggested when he meant testified, I really don't know.

Maybe he meant what he said. Has he said elsewhere that he meant something else? I thought that was your speculation.

[annoyedbeyond]

Maybe he meant what he said. Has he said elsewhere that he meant something else? I thought that was your speculation.

You must be a joy to live with.

[nomatter_nevermind]

The small amount of light illuminating the lawn, coming from Good's porch light, might have made her observation possible.

Check out State's Exhibit 77 (Warning: somewhat graphic photo of Martin's body).

The video you are so fond of shows the same thing. The porch light has a reflective housing that directs its beam to illuminate the patio, forming a sharp rectangle of light. Good mentioned that in one of his statements.

Assuming it was to any degree easier to see someone who was opposite an active porch light, how do you know Martin or Zimmerman wasn't?

Speaking of David Knechel, I learned something interesting about him. He blogged about the Casey Anthony case, and was involved in the judge recusing himself. He was gung ho for conviction, and he ratted out the judge for seeing him privately and praising the fairness of his coverage.

I think she could just barely see them.

She could see them well enough to know they were there.

I don't buy the theory that either Zimmerman or Martin would have been discouraged by the difficulty of identifying the other at a distance among the huge crowd of other people out there. I have yet to see any evidence for such people.

[nomatter_nevermind]

What I think about this week, is that the defense has essentially won. The only remaining issue, is if a stealth or quirky juror has slipped through to hang the jury.