Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I've low crawled many times through wet grass.....for the life of me...most I remember is sweating, how one always have that "One" itch when your butt is wet, and whoever came up with "Grass PT" needs to die. I just can't tell you what "wet grass" sounds like. Be glad you can't listen to her. As from the recent posts. Please tell me cursive writing is not a dying art....I actually have written notes all the way back to 1990 up till now.....

It is. I learned it initially in third grade but moved to another school and never heard anything about it again. Now I only use cursive when signing something.

I still write in cursive but I don't write often......Man, cursive is so much faster than normal writing....so sad.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I still write in cursive but I don't write often......Man, cursive is so much faster than normal writing....so sad.

Not for me it's not

I got poor penmanship grades because we were only allowed to write in pen if we used an erasable pen. You know what happens when a left handed writer writes with an erasable pen? Yeah... I had streaks of blue, black, and red on my hand for 3 years until I finally got to high school and they were like, "cursive lolwut? Write however you want."

 LordofHats wrote:
It is. I learned it initially in third grade but moved to another school and never heard anything about it again. Now I only use cursive when signing something.

he's right. Its not required in many areas now. My boy can't do it. My daughter can, and in epic fashion, but you have to pry the phone and laptop out of her hands with a crowbar first. Note you have to do same if you want to talk to her as well.

Wonder how much an impact she made on the jurors when she said she can't read cursive. Granted not as big as admitting to lying three times on official documentation. Its just to me. Her credibility is damage more. Now she putting off the vibe the she sign anything in front of her....

Her credibility is pretty crap. Sad for the prosecution cause she probably did hear something but clearly she has not been prepped well at all. You'd think the prosecution would have caught these problems before putting her on the stand.

Maybe they did. They can only use the material they have.

 LordofHats wrote:
Her credibility is pretty crap. Sad for the prosecution cause she probably did hear something but clearly she has not been prepped well at all. You'd think the prosecution would have caught these problems before putting her on the stand.

Just listening to her, I think she was prepped. I suspect that she may have been prepped to the point of having been coached, honestly.

She's just so much of a parody of an inner city future welfare recipient that it doesn't matter. She's like a self-satire.

At this point IMO. Game Over for the Prosecution unless Z takes the stand which we all know he won't do. So now we're down to the actual shooting. Prosecution best have McGyver on their side.

 sourclams wrote:
Just listening to her, I think she was prepped. I suspect that she may have been prepped to the point of having been coached, honestly.

I think she was too. Just not properly. Her testimony is terrible and some of the stuff she's being face with should have been dealt with (and could have been I'd think). EDIT: That letter, I mean seriously? Either she was super nervous or the prosecution did a job.

She's like a self-satire.

Indeed.

Prosecution has a snowballs chance in hell of saving this. Should be counted as a mistrial on basis of jury alone.

The prosecution's witnesses should be getting a chunk of the defense lawyer's attorney's fees because it's like they're doing the Defense's jobs for them. The defense is doing a killer job cross examining the witnesses so that makes it even better, but /still/ this is brutal.

 Jihadin wrote:
I've low crawled many times through wet grass.....for the life of me...most I remember is sweating, how one always have that "One" itch when your butt is wet, and whoever came up with "Grass PT" needs to die. I just can't tell you what "wet grass" sounds like. Be glad you can't listen to her. As from the recent posts. Please tell me cursive writing is not a dying art....I actually have written notes all the way back to 1990 up till now.....

I can read it still, but can't really write it anymore, with out some serious head crunching. I haven't had to use it since maybe 5th grade.

But yeah, I'd say her testimony was at best worthless. I am a bit surprised that the defense didn't attack her credibility a bit more based on her personal conduct. I read a lot of her tweets that got "deleted" and my god... what a drain on society she is going to turn out to be. I'm not boned up on trial stuff more then what I've seen in Law & Order. Is that something they could have attacked her on?

Not really unless they brought the tweets in on evidence to my knowledge.

For the record I can't write in cursive beyond my signature.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Not really unless they brought the tweets in on evidence to my knowledge.

For the record I can't write in cursive beyond my signature.

Makes sense I guess. After reading some of that crap though, it makes me wish they could have drug her threw the mud. Who the hell admits to drinking and driving on twitter?!?! WHILE DOING IT?!?!?!

[

 Jihadin wrote:
I've low crawled many times through wet grass.....for the life of me...most I remember is sweating, how one always have that "One" itch when your butt is wet, and whoever came up with "Grass PT" needs to die. I just can't tell you what "wet grass" sounds like.

One of my 'favorite' PT sessions was on a nice grassy area. Prior to PT, the in-ground sprinkler system had put over an inch of water onto the grass, and it was cold enough to freeze the top 1/4 inch of that. What a glorious morning that was.

I learned that wet grass sounds a lot like teeth chattering and cursing that morning.

 djones520 wrote:

I can read it still, but can't really write it anymore, with out some serious head crunching. I haven't had to use it since maybe 5th grade.

But yeah, I'd say her testimony was at best worthless. I am a bit surprised that the defense didn't attack her credibility a bit more based on her personal conduct. I read a lot of her tweets that got "deleted" and my god... what a drain on society she is going to turn out to be. I'm not boned up on trial stuff more then what I've seen in Law & Order. Is that something they could have attacked her on?

I can actually still write it, more legibly than my print is, though I suspect it's because I'm a lot slower at it than when I'm chicken-scratching notes.

The witness was pretty sad. Like, "one of the people I go to Walmart to observe when I'm wanting to feel good about myself" kinds of bad.

Bastion of Journalistic integrity Salon.com responds to the smearing of the defe... err prosecution's star witness.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/the_smearing_of_rachel_jeantel/

...Here is what is true about Jeantel. She has publicly admitted to underage drinking and getting high. She is a poor speller (at least on social media). Her way with words is not calculated to win favor – she has testified that Martin told her “a creepy-ass cracker” was following him. She has responded to the defense’s line of questioning with an icy “You got it?” and “That’s slowed, sir.” The Daily News describes her diction as “often difficult-to-understand” and says it’s “cringe-worthy” and “humiliating” that she couldn’t read a letter out loud on the stand because she says, “I don’t read cursive.” Jeantel has also admitted to law enforcement that she lied about her initial claim that she didn’t attend Martin’s funeral because she was hospitalized at the time; she now says that she felt too “guilty” to face his parents and “didn’t want to see the body.” She admits that at the beginning of the investigation, she said she was under 18, because she didn’t want to get involved. She is unpolished and emotional....

In the Daily New's defense, it is absolutely cringe worthy and humiliating that she cannot read a letter she said she wrote.

We finally got power back so I could watch the video (no audio in work) and all I can say was that I hope that the DA isn't looking for re-election soon.

 Seaward wrote:
Well, I can say I heard it here first. As long as people scream loudly enough and long enough, it doesn't actually matter whether or not there's reasonable evidence to charge someone with a crime, we should do it anyway.

The legal system isn't run by popular referendum. I'm sorry to see that you appear to think it should be.

But of course, that isn't what I said, and while its clear you were just reading it that way as a cheap debating trick, for a second I'm going to pretend that it was a genunine misunderstanding, because you're either a particularly dim child, or a reasonably intelligent golden retriever.

Anyhow, to explain it to you... popular outcry does not in fact drive the law. Action still requires individuals within the legal system. As such, popular outcry cannot drive the legal system, merely encourage action where otherwise none was being taken. And when that action is no more than having a fair trial, then there simply isn't, and cannot be unfairness.

Did you follow that, this time?

 sebster wrote:
But of course, that isn't what I said, and while its clear you were just reading it that way as a cheap debating trick, for a second I'm going to pretend that it was a genunine misunderstanding, because you're either a particularly dim child, or a reasonably intelligent golden retriever.

Anyhow, to explain it to you... popular outcry does not in fact drive the law. Action still requires individuals within the legal system. As such, popular outcry cannot drive the legal system, merely encourage action where otherwise none was being taken. And when that action is no more than having a fair trial, then there simply isn't, and cannot be unfairness.

Did you follow that, this time?

So in sebsterville, everyone has the hundreds of thousands of dollars that adequate representation costs when you have to defend yourself in a case like this. And it's not unfair for someone whom the police and local prosecutor declined to charge to have to throw that cash out just because the public wants blood.

I suspect the typing fingers engaged long before the brain. At this point, I'd almost be disappointed if that wasn't the case.

Seb....Sea...ease off a bit.

edit
Trial underway so it really doesn't matter how it started

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Bastion of Journalistic integrity Salon.com responds to the smearing of the defe... err prosecution's star witness.

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/27/the_smearing_of_rachel_jeantel/

I thought it was a compelling article. Most of the things being said about her (even here ITT) even have zero relevance to her credibility. How much of a "drain on society" you think someone is going to be has pretty much feth-all to do with how believable their account of events is, to my thinking. The letter with the cursive she claimed to write but then it was shown she didn't, that's more appropriate and effective in that it shows she isn't always truthful (not that she can't read cursive, who cares).

Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
But of course, that isn't what I said, and while its clear you were just reading it that way as a cheap debating trick, for a second I'm going to pretend that it was a genunine misunderstanding, because you're either a particularly dim child, or a reasonably intelligent golden retriever.

Anyhow, to explain it to you... popular outcry does not in fact drive the law. Action still requires individuals within the legal system. As such, popular outcry cannot drive the legal system, merely encourage action where otherwise none was being taken. And when that action is no more than having a fair trial, then there simply isn't, and cannot be unfairness.

Did you follow that, this time?

So in sebsterville, everyone has the hundreds of thousands of dollars that adequate representation costs when you have to defend yourself in a case like this.

I wonder if you would raise this concern for the 17% of state prisoners who declared an Alford Plea.

I would post the age of the jurors instead I read their profile. All are professional and of my age and beyond. All are in a profession that requires handwritten notes. I'm sure they were floored as I was when she said she could not read cursive. The letter her friend wrote was in cursive. She just gave the perception that she will do/say whatever that needed to be done.

 azazel the cat wrote:
I wonder if you would raise this concern for the 17% of state prisoners who declared an Alford Plea.

Probably not, but if you can link me to any of their cases that showed the local boys with jurisdiction didn't want to file charges and got overruled after a media circus demanding a trial, I might.

Though Alford pleas don't have a lot of relevance in this scenario.

 Seaward wrote:
So in sebsterville, everyone has the hundreds of thousands of dollars that adequate representation costs when you have to defend yourself in a case like this. And it's not unfair for someone whom the police and local prosecutor declined to charge to have to throw that cash out just because the public wants blood.

In sebsterville, otherwise known as the planet inhabited by all people except apparently Seaward, its completely fething ridiculous to claim that just because a police investigation came to a conclusion, then there is no scope to question or challenge that decision through whatever means available... because police investigations aren't flawless. To the extent that the media can play a role in that, well then good.

And yeah, that means that when they shoot someone, there's a fair chance that a person will have to find the legal fees to properly argue their case in a court of law. If that's a problem, well then it's probably a good idea not to follow people around your neighbourhood, if you're just going to end up moaning about the legal fees it costs you to shoot them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Jihadin wrote:
Seb....Sea...ease off a bit.

edit
Trial underway so it really doesn't matter how it started

Yeah, there's a trial, and it doesn't really matter how it started. I agree.

It's Seaward who's claiming because an initial police investigation said there was no case to answer, then the trial is some kind of manifest unfairness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:
Probably not, but if you can link me to any of their cases that showed the local boys with jurisdiction didn't want to file charges and got overruled after a media circus demanding a trial, I might.

I'm sorry, what? Are you honest to God, hand on your heart claiming that media pressure has never played an important role in bringing to trial cases that otherwise wouldn't have been?

Because, you know...

 sebster wrote:
In sebsterville, otherwise known as the planet inhabited by all people except apparently Seaward, its completely fething ridiculous to claim that just because a police investigation came to a conclusion, then there is no scope to question or challenge that decision through whatever means available... because police investigations aren't flawless. To the extent that the media can play a role in that, well then good.

Whereas, clearly, with bang-up witnesses like we saw today, there was a great deal left to be discovered. The sound grass makes when earbuds fall on it, for example. I bet those lousy Sanford cops never even asked if the earbuds could be heard falling!

And hey, we all know the media never gets things wrong for the sake of telling a sensational story.

I'm sorry, what? Are you honest to God, hand on your heart claiming that media pressure has never played an important role in bringing to trial cases that otherwise wouldn't have been?

Because, you know...

You're claiming a case where the investigation was ongoing and the prosecutor had yet to decide on charges when a media outcry blew up (Steubenville) is the same as a case where the investigation was concluded and the prosecutor declined to charge them (Martin)?

Amazing.

And just to point out the problem with your magical "media solves everything!" scenario, a lot of the idiots who got involved, such as Anonymous, did nothing but taint potential evidence. It harmed more than it helped. But hey, it made sure people knew about it, and at least provided the illusion that your bizarro-world version of justice by referendum became reality.

There should have been a trial or a damn good investigation when the incident happen. A life was taken and it does appear casual connect the dart investigation was done. That it went down that ways says a lot on the quality of the police dept.


edit
what's the info on the pic?