In the face of inconvenient testimony like that, all the prosecution can do is repeat over and over again in a faux-outraged tone that Zimmerman "followed" Martin. But even if one granted the prosecution's unconvincingly sinister interpretation of that scenario, "following" a person is not a crime, much less evidence for second-degree murder. Moreover, why would a neighborhood watch representative call 911 before committing second-degree murder? That makes no sense.
Nor has the prosecution provided any evidence that Zimmerman was the "aggressor" in the confrontation. It is evidently hoping that a hate-crime theory will substitute for evidence. The prosecution's chief witness, Rachel Jeantel (who was on the phone with Martin before the altercation started), acknowledged to the defense that she didn't know who initiated it. Zimmerman says Martin jumped out of the bushes at him, said "What the f-k is your problem, homey?" and then started throwing punches. If anything, Jeantel's testimony to Martin's frame of mind before the fight - he told her a "creep-ass cracker" was following him - lends credence to Zimmerman's account. So, too, do the wounds on his body and the wounds on Martin's hand.
This week a detective in the case, Chris Serino, testified that he tried to fake Zimmerman out in the post-incident questioning by suggesting that the fight might have been videotaped. Zimmerman expressed relief at that prospect, according to the detective: "I believe his words were, 'Thank God. I was hoping somebody would have videotaped it.'" Does that sound like the response of somebody who has just committed second-degree murder?
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/03/a-nothing-case-against-zimmerm
This is a horrible case, horrible for everyone involved. It can be a mean, cruel world out there, sometimes, and as a friend used to say, "tomorrow is not promised."
The State has not proved GZ'a guilt - not even close. If he's acquitted, will the President intervene as he did when the facts were not known and he implied race was an issue in TM's death?
Nor has the prosecution provided any evidence that Zimmerman was the "aggressor" in the confrontation. It is evidently hoping that a hate-crime theory will substitute for evidence. The prosecution's chief witness, Rachel Jeantel (who was on the phone with Martin before the altercation started), acknowledged to the defense that she didn't know who initiated it. Zimmerman says Martin jumped out of the bushes at him, said "What the f-k is your problem, homey?" and then started throwing punches. If anything, Jeantel's testimony to Martin's frame of mind before the fight - he told her a "creep-ass cracker" was following him - lends credence to Zimmerman's account. So, too, do the wounds on his body and the wounds on Martin's hand.
This week a detective in the case, Chris Serino, testified that he tried to fake Zimmerman out in the post-incident questioning by suggesting that the fight might have been videotaped. Zimmerman expressed relief at that prospect, according to the detective: "I believe his words were, 'Thank God. I was hoping somebody would have videotaped it.'" Does that sound like the response of somebody who has just committed second-degree murder?
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/07/03/a-nothing-case-against-zimmerm
This is a horrible case, horrible for everyone involved. It can be a mean, cruel world out there, sometimes, and as a friend used to say, "tomorrow is not promised."
The State has not proved GZ'a guilt - not even close. If he's acquitted, will the President intervene as he did when the facts were not known and he implied race was an issue in TM's death?
No comments:
Post a Comment