Because it's the least believable scenario? Serino kept asking him why Trayvon would have attacked him, for a reason.
We can deduce TM attacked GZ because from his perspective GZ kept following him.
Because he lied about not following, he lied about being out of breath from running, he lied about where he confronted Trayvon, and there was too much time from when he told the dispatcher "OK" till the end of the call to believe he was walking back.
Of course they will. Since all of his "misremembering" just magically absolves him of all blame, it's a pretty logical deduction.
Well, since he is a known liar on trial for murder, why would we take his word over hers or anyone else's again?
Right. They contradict each other. Not usually a good thing for a defendant.
The jury will be able to weigh all the parts of his story that are corroborated by witnesses against the parts that it appears he is incorrect or lying about and decide. Clearly, if people in this thread can disagree, people on a jury can disagree and it's not a forgone conclusion for either side.
I think witness 6 is particularly compelling in backing the end of the fight, with TM on top of GZ, and GZ screaming for help. GZ account of witness 6 and his initial statement about GZ askign him for help are too similar to not be an accurate representation of what happened.
Because likely isn't a diagnosis?
But I explained that it is. It was diagnosed as a broken nose, because an xray won't change the treatment. Tell you what - you keep pretending the word 'likely' is important. I'm just going to call it broken, just like serino, just like MOM, etc.
A 50 pound weight difference won't sway anyone that it's unlikely George got completely manhandled by a kid?
When that 50 pounds makes him an obese short guy ? It doesn't sway me, YMMV.
Where do you get 50 feet from?
I made it up. If you disagree, you tell me how far you think he ran. I think he ran from the somewhere on the sidewalk west of the tee around the corner, out of site, and stopped. If he ran for 25 seconds
he would have been home. So seriously, how far could he have actually ran to get all tuckered out ?
He has certainly gotten into altercations. That's a fact, isn't it?
But he was fed up because "those ******** always get away [....] out the back gate".
This time, he had had enough and went after the kid and tried to stop him.
So now the argument is all those prior calls just built up his anger until
this one wasn't going to get away.
So if his prior calls show a history of acting a certain way, that's evidence he acts that way.
If his prior calls show a history of
not acting a certain way, that's evidence he snapped and finally acted that way.
Can you take a step back and look at that argument a little more objectively and admit it may look a bit weak ?
Did you listen to those other calls? He called the cops on kids in the street, playing. He's a weird dude, with some serious issues.
Actually, this call didn't sound remarkably different from any of the others. Which I find to be reason to believe he didn't intend anything different this time than any of the other calls.