Tell me in anything other than idiot how saying that when you saw nothing to begin with is relevant?


But one man's testimony could be key for the police.

"The guy on the bottom who had a red sweater on was yelling to me: 'help, help…and I told him to stop and I was calling 911," he said.

Trayvon Martin was in a hoodie; Zimmerman was in red.

The witness only wanted to be identified as "John," and didn't not want to be shown on camera.

His statements to police were instrumental, because police backed up Zimmerman's claims, saying those screams on the 911 call are those of Zimmerman.

"When I got upstairs and looked down, the guy who was on top beating up the other guy, was the one laying in the grass, and I believe he was dead at that point," John said.

Here is your witness statement.

Local news here btw
http://www.myfoxtampabay.com/dpp/news/state/witness-martin-attacked-zimmerman-03232012

He either saw something or he didnt.


Next time find a story that actually says something. This kids testimony pretty much boils down to it was to dark for him to see anything - The end.

 

-----signature-----

To be fair his link was actually the mom of the kid talking to Al Sharpton.

 

-----signature-----

I was hoping to avoid that one little fact.

 

-----signature-----

Yeah, I don't get the point that is being made in the text of that link. The mom claims that her son does not believe it was self defense, though he saw nothing. Yet at the same time claims the investigator tried to lead her son into helping him prove it was not self defense and got angry when the two stories didn't match. So, if her son really didn't think it was self defense, why would the investigator get angry and claim that he need to prove it wasn't self defense?

 

-----signature-----

I suppose with avoiding all the big ones already the little one might get by.

 

-----signature-----

 

-----signature-----

You people fail at context. That speaks to the cops agenda.

 

-----signature-----

Again.....you got nothing

My version of the story has a witness that actually saw something. Your version of the story has a witness who claims he saw nothing.

Cant make this shit up

 

-----signature-----

If their agenda's matched, ie, this was not self defense, there would be no reason for the cop to get angry with the kid. Either their stories matched and it wasn't self defense or they didn't and it upset the cop.

 

-----signature-----

Oh right. The witness who saw just enough.

While the kid, who ws actually there saw nobody punching anyone.

Actually you CAN make this shit up. And that is exactly what you are doing.

 

-----signature-----