At 2:49 am this morning, Romaine posted the following comment about the witness John (W6) in response to my article titled, Was Trayvon Martin a Peaceful and Non-violent Person?
Having read the comments of the MMA style fighting supposedly performed by Trayvon during his encounter with the defendant; it is my opinion that it is simply an observated opinion of a witness who had no concrete evidence that Trayvon trained, watched, or had knowledge of this form of fighting. It was a witnesses way of describing what he thought he saw at that time. A statement taken out of context and is now being used as a fact with no proof.
John (W6) retracted the statement, so it’s as if he never said it.
No one else even reported seeing any fighting.
The witness did not misinterpret what he saw.
The witness lied.
I am attempting to figure out why he lied.
Since his false statement matches the defendant’s false statement, I believe the defendant or someone on behalf of the defendant, persuaded him to lie.
If that is not what happened, then the two matching false statements must be coincidental.
I am not going to estimate the probability that the matching statements are due to a coincidence.
Such an exercise would be a waste of time.
I believe there is a reasonable probability, however, that John (W6) may testify that the defendant or someone on his behalf urged him to tell that lie to the police so that they would not arrest the defendant for murder.
Would John (W6) tell the truth to avoid being prosecuted and serving time for lying to police?
Would you, if you were in his situation?