|
Sharpton prediction
On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 12:45:38 PM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
On 3 Jul 2013 14:20:22 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote: When challenged on this determination on cross examination by defense she became somewhat frustrated and hostile because she was forced to admit that more than one punch and more than one head banging on the concrete walkway *could* have taken place. Dude Zimmerman bang his head on the concrete or punch himself first? === Well dude he or duden't he? only the dude knows... |
Sharpton prediction
|
Sharpton prediction
|
Sharpton prediction
F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/2/13 6:16 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message m... On 7/2/13 6:08 PM, Eisboch wrote: "F.O.A.D." wrote in message ... On 7/2/13 4:13 PM, Eisboch wrote: I was just thinking about how Big Al will present today's testimony on his "Politics Nation" show this evening. I can see it now: "So far Zimmerman and his defense attorneys have insisted that young, 17 year old Martin punched him repeatedly and smashed his head over and over on a concrete walkway. Well, today heard the truth. The state prosecutors presented the chief medical examiner for the county and her testimony doesn't support Zimmerman's claims at all. He was only hit once or twice according to the examiner who, by the way, has a long list of exemplary qualifications." Then Sharpton will stare at the camera, point his finger and exclaim: "Nice try, Zimmerman, but WE GOTCHA!" Actually, Zimmerman hasn't "insisted" on anything during the trial. He hasn't testified, and probably won't. ------------------------------------------ Ok. "Insisted" was the wrong word to use. Try "have consistently stated" instead. I am getting a headache. Need to find something to do. Zimmerman's lawyers have consistently stated. One person is dead and the other person, who claimed his head was slammed into the ground 25 times, needed a band-aid. ------------------------------------ Yeah, someone on Big Al's show just said the same thing 15 seconds ago. You must be watching. Did you also hear Al comment about "Zimmerman's depraved mind ... if he has one"? Zimmerman is a thug. According to wikipedia: In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted. The incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond hearing. What kind of hotheaded moron shoves a cop? What kind of hotheaded moron shoves around his fiance? The kind that'll shoot a kid if he gets the chance, eh? I agree. He's a wannabe. |
Sharpton prediction
In article ,
says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime? ------------------------------------ The ME didn't witness any crime with respect to her testimony. All she did was evaluate Zimmerman's head wounds from photographs and review the report of the examination by the Physician Assistant. She was giving testimony AS an "expert WITNESS". ----------------------------------------------- Read what you posted above. You made the statement, "What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?" She didn't "witness" any crime. She testified as a witness for the prosecution on her evaluation of Zimmerman's injuries based on photos and a PA's examination. What became contested was her statement that the injuries were a result of only two actions .... a punch in the nose and a single "smash" of the head on the concrete walkway. Oh, boy. It's VERY clear that like the FOXites, you've made up your mind already. -------------------------------- I have not. I wish you would pay attention to what you post and what is posted as a response. As it pertains to the medical examiner you stated: What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime? I answered that she was *not* a witness to a crime in this case. She was simply providing testimony regarding head wounds. How do you conclude that I've "made up my mind" based on that? I've stated several times that I don't know. She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of the case? _____________________________ I'll try one more time . Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime. She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a PA who examined Zimmerman. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a "witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand??? |
Sharpton prediction
|
Sharpton prediction
On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of the case? _____________________________ I'll try one more time . Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime. She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a PA who examined Zimmerman. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a "witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand??? ----------------------------------------- The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these discussions. This one started with you posing the question, "What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?" I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's injuries. Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my response, "witness" is a noun. " Good luck with this. Many people before you have tried to repair Loogies thinker, and failed. ;-) |
Sharpton prediction
On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:
"iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of the case? _____________________________ I'll try one more time . Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime. She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a PA who examined Zimmerman. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a "witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand??? ----------------------------------------- The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these discussions. This one started with you posing the question, "What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?" I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's injuries. Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my response, "witness" is a noun. " On a side note.. you guys were right! This is much more fun to watch than to be involved in:) It's like watching the proverbial "send him looking for the shiny item in the corner of the round room". :) |
Sharpton prediction
On 7/5/2013 10:21 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote: "iBoaterer" wrote in message ... In article , says... She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of the case? _____________________________ I'll try one more time . Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime. She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a PA who examined Zimmerman. Why do you have such a hard time understanding this? Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a "witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand??? ----------------------------------------- The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these discussions. This one started with you posing the question, "What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?" I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's injuries. Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my response, "witness" is a noun. " Good luck with this. Many people before you have tried to repair Loogies thinker, and failed. ;-) Kevin is smarter than you think.. he always manages to keep someone running in circles:) |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com