Zimmerman trial starts

[dontworrybehappy]

[Kane]

...an earwitness? Wha?

[The Comrade]

they didn't see it. they heard it. get it?

GET IT!?

[JDHURF]

Earwitness. I love it.

[dontworrybehappy]

I didn't make up that term, it was discussed I think on courtTV or something about the trial, and how one of the witnesses was the girl that was talking on the phone to TM at the time this all transpired. Since she saw nothing and only heard stuff, she was called an earwitness. I think it's clever, whoever thought of it.

[Kane]

[PoS]

[NAB]

[eynon81]

[Professor]

One thing to interject.

Just because one witness says that Z was on top, then another says that TM was on top, doesn't mean that either one of them were lying. Countless studies and cases have found that 2 people can see the exact same event, yet have very different accounts.

For instance, Z was in red and TM in black. It was dark, with orange halogen lights (let's assume that was the streetlight color, since most cities use these). And, let's say that the fact is that TM was on top and Z was on bottom. But, TMs "black" hoodie could have appeared orangish (slightly red) because of the lighting. And, Zs jacket could have appeared black because it was in shadow.

I certainly don't know that if the above is even accurate. But, it could explain why 2 people would say different things, based upon seeing the same event.

My point is that, when one person says one thing and another has a contradictory statement, assuming that both are equally convincing, you should probably throw both their accounts out. Or, at least, view both with equal amounts of skepticism.

Only when one of their testimony corroborates other pieces of evidence should it be given more weight.