Reader
New Member
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2004
- Messages
- 7,033
- Reaction score
- 95
DLR talks to jury and thanks them for their attention and service. How do you arrive at a verdict. Use the witnesses, evidence, on the law, judge will provide you a copy of it, and your God given common sense. When you do those three things, I would believe you will come back with a verdict of 2nd degree murder.
When you look at that man, can you believe this was just a mistake, an argument that got out of hand? Of the 2 of them, who was the one with a gun?
Timeline will be given to you, shows the call between Rachel and TM, and you also have GZs call, and Lauer's call and we were able to time when these calls were made and the shot was heard. You can put this together and tell what happened.
Rachel was here a day and a half, I'll admit she is not very sophiscated but didn't she tell you the best she could what she heard. She was the person who was speaking to the victim. Was she speaking the truth? She could have embellished or lied, TM, she told the truth about what TM called GZ, cracker, her use of colorful language is less credible just because she is different. The defense wanted you to now believe her. You decide whether she was telling the truth. Their witnesses were more sophisticated but her words match up with the records of the calls and with the evidence. Isn't it evident that GZ assumed that TM was a criminal? I agree Rachel is colorful but on the content of her testimony, I submit what she said is the truth.
She did lie to the mother of TM because she didn't want to see the body, lied about her age because she didn't want to testify.
The NEN call, GZs comment under his breathe about TM, not made to describe TM, shows frustration, ill will, hatred, assuming someone is a criminal and a punk and was not going to let him get away. He admitted in call he was following, played audio.
I'm going to show you in the car on the walk through, GZ makes reference to a st. name and later said he did not know the name of the st. He said this to justify why he was profiling, following, tracking this young man.
When you look at that man, can you believe this was just a mistake, an argument that got out of hand? Of the 2 of them, who was the one with a gun?
Timeline will be given to you, shows the call between Rachel and TM, and you also have GZs call, and Lauer's call and we were able to time when these calls were made and the shot was heard. You can put this together and tell what happened.
Rachel was here a day and a half, I'll admit she is not very sophiscated but didn't she tell you the best she could what she heard. She was the person who was speaking to the victim. Was she speaking the truth? She could have embellished or lied, TM, she told the truth about what TM called GZ, cracker, her use of colorful language is less credible just because she is different. The defense wanted you to now believe her. You decide whether she was telling the truth. Their witnesses were more sophisticated but her words match up with the records of the calls and with the evidence. Isn't it evident that GZ assumed that TM was a criminal? I agree Rachel is colorful but on the content of her testimony, I submit what she said is the truth.
She did lie to the mother of TM because she didn't want to see the body, lied about her age because she didn't want to testify.
The NEN call, GZs comment under his breathe about TM, not made to describe TM, shows frustration, ill will, hatred, assuming someone is a criminal and a punk and was not going to let him get away. He admitted in call he was following, played audio.
I'm going to show you in the car on the walk through, GZ makes reference to a st. name and later said he did not know the name of the st. He said this to justify why he was profiling, following, tracking this young man.