The trial’s most pivotal moment comes when Rhonda Rouer, the fiancée (at the time) of Michael Dunn (middle-aged white man) recounting the events of the night, divulges information that contradicts the statements of her own fiancée. It’s the biggest breakthrough the prosecution and the Davis family could have hoped for, and was the main reason the jury found Dunn guilty.
shareDo you think her testimony really offered proof? My only thing is that the teens drove away and then returned. When asked if they discarded weapons they denied it but I could see some uncertainty on a few faces. the police testified that they didn't search the dumpsters until 4 days later.
shareDunn had reason to lie, The kids had reason to lie. The woman, she had no reason to lie.
i told you not to stop the boat. Now lets go. Apocaylpse Now
Sort of true. She could have lied to protect her fiancee. I just wonder if his professed expressions of love to her, in court, were not to assure himself that she would surely cover his testimony about the "gun". I did not she that coming! But when she testified, THAT did it for me. Up to THAT moment, I did not know who was bringing the most truth.
Exactly what reason would the kids have to lie? You have some proven facts?
http://www.auplod.com/u/dalpuo430da.png
(\ v /)
(='.'=)
The reason her testimony made a difference to me is that she said that Dunn never mentioned that the kids had a gun to her. You don't find that a little strange? You could see some uncertainty on a few faces? Really? You are aware of Dunn's actions following the shooting. Cruised home. Had a pizza. Didn't report it to the police? REALLY? I followed that case and I would have found him guilty on all counts. Shoot him. Hang him. Gas him. Electrocute him. Doesn't matter to me...
share