It's really not my fault you are ignorant of the law. The law clearly states a witness must have "personal knowledge" to testify on a matter. A witness does not have "personal knowledge" to a matter they did not see. You're being your usual obtuse self. It state it in plain English, "[SIZE=-1]a witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced which is sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter," and you still can't understand it.[/SIZE]
OMG! You really do not understand, do you?
I am sorry I assumed that you may be intelligent and at least a little educated.
Obviously, I thought wrong.
I really am dumbfounded by your lack of understanding.
For some reason you do not understand that if a person sees the whole fight from the point it went to the ground, they have personal knowledge of what they saw happen, and of what they saw that didn't happen, and can be questioned about it.
What they say is evidence.
Heck, that person can even give an opinion as to whether or not they believed it was possible for head slamming to have happened during the fight.
But you are so unknowledgeable about legal procedure, that you don't even understand the simplest of concepts.
That is exactly what you have to do if you are to make a point, which thus far, you have failed miserably.
The only failure here, has been your ability. Your ability to understand.
But if it's any consolation, I understand why you choose to run away instead.
lol
Run?
What a laugh.
The only running being done is by you, running in circles because you do not understand.
:lamo
The prosecution has said they have evidence that Zimmerman's account of having his head bashed in by Trayvon is not true.
That's a huge problem for you, ...
Hilarious. That is not exactly what they said, and it is definitely not a problem for me, but is apparently one for you.
so you invent the implausible case that their evidence may be based on the eyewitness testimony of those who say they didn't see it happen ... only for that to be the evidence the prosecution is talking about, as you ignorantly assert, they would have to have an eyewitness who claims they saw the entire fight from start to finish -- but there is no such witness that you know of,
You really have a problem don't, you?
lol
Ignorant is your thought processes, and you're assertions.
:doh You somehow think what was said shows that Zimmerman was lying, when it doesn't. lol :doh
The best part is, when I challenge you to identify the witness you need to make your point (and even that's pretending that you understand section 90.604, which you don't), the witness who saw the entire fight, which I know for a fact you can't do -- you do the only thing within your power and that is to run away from your own point as fast as your walker will allow.
"That is not something I have to do. I only stated that it is possible that this is what they have." ~ excon
... no, Forest, it's not possible because they don't have a witness who saw the entire fight.
How idiotic.
You are the one who ignorantly jumped on a plausibility used to explain what the evidence
could be. [Which it is.]
Not what it definitely was.
And somehow you in your convoluted thinking believe I must identify which witness it is.
lol
Which you have demanded even after I suggested it could be statements from Zimmerman himself. [Which is really a stupid move on your part.]
You do not know who saw what. You just don't.
Just because they do not have a witness as to whom started the fight, does not mean that they do not have a witness who saw the physical confrontation from the point it went to the ground. Duh!
What I suggested is not only plausible, but very possible.
Too bad you do not understand the law.
If you did, you wouldn't be trying to argue against it. ... Strike that; - Yes you would.
What is fact, is that the investigator has said that evidence exists that indicates what Zimmerman says, in reference to getting his head slammed, may not be true.
Which can simply be one of the witnesses stating that they never saw Zimmerman getting his head slammed.
That would be an indication of such.
No, it cannot be that. Absence of evidence is not evidence. He agreed with the question that there is evidence.
What a eye witness says is evidence. Whether you like it or not.
"evidence that indicates"
[what an eye witness indicates]
Even what Zimmerman has stated could indicate such. Simply because of the way he described what happened at different times.