This week, the prosecution has released some of the evidence to the public in the Trayvon Martin murder case, which leads to the suspicion that murder may be a misnomer. It is the medical records that raise eyebrows. PJ Media has a report that really puts the DA's case in question.
http://pjmedia.com/ronradosh/2012/05/17/george-zimmerman-vindicated/
Then there is this from Fox:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/17/photo-reveals-zimmerman-had-bloody-nose-after-shooting-trayvon-martin/
So if George Zimmerman clearly suffered a broken nose and injuries to the back of his head, Martin had lacerations on his knuckles, and the lone witness says that he observed Martin on top of Zimmerman pummeling him into the sidewalk, does that not vindicate Zimmerman?
It appears that the DA is going to build her case on the theory that Zimmerman imitated the confrontation with Martin. If so, she is going to have to refute Zimmerman's version of the events. Zimmerman's story is that he lost sight of Martin in the neighborhood then proceeded back to his vehicle. He then crossed paths with Martin, who reportedly came up to him, asked him if he had a problem, and when Zimmerman replied in the negative, stated "You do now", at which point, Martin knocked Zimmerman down, got on top of him and began pummeling his head into the sidewalk telling him "you're going to die tonight". The witness confirms that Zimmerman was on the bottom of the fight and screaming for help. The shot was apparently fired when the witness was in his apratment calling 9-11.
What is crucial for the prosecution is to refute Zimmerman's version of how the two came face to face and who initiated the fight. Thus far, there doesn't seem to be any witness to that point in the incident. If she cannot, there is no just way for Zimmerman to be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt.
At this point, I question whether this case will ever get to a jury-or should.
Certainly this case is more complex than the media would have had us believe when the news first broke. Still, there is the issue regarding the screams that were heard on the tape.
ReplyDeleteI think it's best just to let our legal system take care of this and not rush to any judgment one way or another.
But this compelling evidence apparently will not stop Eric Holder and his Department of Just -us (DoJ) from considering charges of a hate crime for Zimmerman. We all know the rest of Holder's serious problems in the DOJ.
ReplyDeleteSquid
This whole episode reeks of the hand of Sharpton. From the picture of a 12 year old instead of the punk Martin really was, to the near riot in the streets. Zimmerman is being railroaded. And if convicted maybe white people should take to the streets in protest. Oh that would be racist right?
ReplyDeleteAnd then there is the newly reported evidence that Martin ran away from this strange man who was threatening him... only to see the strange man coming at him again...
ReplyDeleteIn order to convict, the prosecution will have to refute Zimmerman's version of events? Duh-uh. Tell me Gary, were you EVER involved in a prosecution that went to trial where the defendant couldn't tell a story with a straight face that, if true would show him to be snowy innocent?
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteYou must remember who has the burden of proof.
Amazing. A conservative remembers who has the burden of proof! What a day!
ReplyDeleteThe burden of proof certainly requires evidence, but it does not go so far as to provide that "the defendant's uncorroborated account of events creates a rebuttable presumption of innocence."
Its not the details, its the entry of a plea of not guilty, that creates a burden of proof. As I'm sure you know, the jury will be free to credit, or to disbelieve, Zimmerman's version of events.
Yes, this is a more complex case than ANYONE, from Al Sharpton to Graceless Nancy to Findalis and Squid have entertained. Most real life cases are.
The public campaign was legitimate to the point of insisting on a thorough re-examination of the grounds for a trial. Now, its time to let the trial proceed, without second-guessing every new tid-bit that gets dropped before the media.
Siarlys,
ReplyDeleteIt's called reasonable doubt. Whether it is true or not, Zimmerman's account so far is in line with the other evidence (that we know of).
I would suggest that the DA needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman's account is false. That will require an eyewitness or video or audio that shows that Zimmerman actually went up to Martin and initiated the fight.
Hmmmm... so if nobody witnessed who started the fight, the guy with the gun automatically walks...
ReplyDelete...what a statement for a former DEA officer.
Of course the prosecution needs evidence... there is a cloud of media talk about various possibilities... none of which is worth a can of beans until after the trial.