| Author |
Message |
    
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, April 20, 2012 - 06:32 pm: | 
|
http://southflorida.sun-sentinel.com/news/os-george-zimmerman-bond-hearing-20120420,0,4802623.story
quote:During further questioning by O'Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed.
So they have no evidence that contradicts Zimmerman's story at all!!!!???? This sound like prosecutorial misconduct to me. I hope Zimmerman sues the state big time when this is all over. No evidence against him, but 911 calls that back his story of self defense. That really is criminal! 
They do throw in this tidbit though...
quote:However, he said that Zimmerman's statements, as well as his description of the injuries he suffered, are contradicted by other evidence in the case.
Riiiiight....
He suffered no injuries... 
Florida really stepped in this one!
|
Moxnix
| | Posted on Friday, April 20, 2012 - 06:51 pm: |
|
Fred Reed has something to say on everything, including this case:
http://fredoneverything.net/Zimmerman.shtml |
Sifo
| | Posted on Friday, April 20, 2012 - 07:16 pm: |
|
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/04/20 /Dershowitz-prosecution-immoral
quote:With ABC News’ release of the George Zimmerman photo showing blood flowing freely from his head, the question becomes whether Angela Corey, the prosecutor in the case, had access to the photo before charging Zimmerman with second-degree murder.
The arrest affidavit did not mention the photograph, or the bleeding, gashes, and bruises on Zimmermans’ head. Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School stated upon release of the arrest affidavit that it was “so thin that it won’t make it past a judge on a second degree murder charge … everything in the affidavit is completely consistent with a defense of self-defense.”
After the release of the photo, however, Dershowitz went much further, telling Breitbart News that if the prosecutors did have the photo and didn’t mention it in the affidavit, that would constitute a “grave ethical violation,” since affidavits are supposed to contain “all relevant information.”
Dershowitz continued, “An affidavit that willfully misstates undisputed evidence known to the prosecution is not only unethical but borders on perjury because an affiant swears to tell not only the truth, but the whole truth, and suppressing an important part of the whole truth is a lie."
When asked if it made a difference whether the prosecution had the bloody photograph at the time they charged Zimmerman, Dershowitz responded, “We do know that there were earlier photographs before the affidavit was done that strongly suggested blood on the back of the head, and we know the police had first access to him, so if there was blood they [the prosecution] would know about it …
"I've had cases in Florida against prosecutors,” Dershowitz said, “and this is not the first time they have willfully omitted exculpatory evidence. It's a continuing problem. Here, it’s not only immoral, but stupid. The whole country is watching. What do they benefit from having half-truths in an affidavit?"
Dershowitz added, "I'm not taking sides, but I'm insisting that both sides play by the rules, and so far the prosecution is not playing by the rules."
|
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, April 20, 2012 - 09:13 pm: |
|
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html# read_more
In my youth.... I was born and raised in a state that was a territory back during the Civil War, and a haven for negros escaping slavery.
Had relatives in old slavery states, and have seen the Klan march. I also had the honor of talking with some old fellows that had strong views on the subject Ann discusses in her article, and She is dead on correct with the facts.
Whe I was young there were still survivors from the bloody years in Kansas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas |
Thumper74
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 12:06 am: |
|
Interesting article, where can I find more? |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 06:59 am: |
|
http://jpfo.org/filegen-n-z/ngn-download-view.htm
Some members of a certain demographic remember the past, instead of voting for a "liberal" future.... and getting the past with new paint.
Since the past includes pogroms, mass murder, totalitarianism sold as hope and change..... |
Sifo
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 08:11 am: |
|
One other interesting point was made when Zimmerman's attorney was questioning the police investigator that put together the affidavit where it claimed that Zimmerman "profiled" Martin. He actually refused to use the word racial in describing the type of profiling that Zimmerman did. With the police investigator, under oath, refusing to say there was a racial component to the profiling, it's going to be very difficult to later say that Zimmerman had racial motives. I can't find a clip of it online though. It's hard to believe how incredibly weak the case is against Zimmerman. |
Rich
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 08:30 am: |
|
This shows unchecked power of these prosecutors to bring charges, evidence be damned.
I kept waiting for the judge to roll his eyes. |
Pwnzor
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 08:45 am: |
|
1992, here we come. |
Court
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 09:29 am: |
|
>>>It's hard to believe how incredibly weak the case is against Zimmerman.
It's not weak, it's non-existent.
The same investigator was asked, quite pointedly, if he was aware of ANY evidence to support the charges.
He hemmed and hawed for a moment.
The question was asked again, very directly.
The answer "none" . . in a very sheepish voice.
Zimmerman is walking, it's just a matter of going through the motions to prove "he was charged and had a trial".
He's stupid and is the type of gun toting idiot that threatens the rights of responsible people. He is not, citing the lead investigator, a "2nd Degree Murderer".
Pure social silliness. |
Thumper74
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 09:47 am: |
|
I watched a bit on it last night... There was an attorney for the Martins (maybe the prosecutor), saying that his apology was too little, too late, and in the wrong setting... The ONLY thing they had 'against' him was that on the 911 call, he estimate Martin's age to be in the late teens, but when he apologized to their family, he said he didn't know how old Martin was. They were talking about a 17 year old not breaking the law, with Skittles in his pocket being the victim of a shooting. It still seems to me that it's a 17 year old with Skittles bashing someone's head into the ground got shot in self defense. Really? This is what they were talking about in the news... Not that there was no evidence against him... It's a ••••••• circus.
My favorite part in this is when the prosecutor gets her ass fired.
It doesn't make much difference in age when it comes to stuff like this! A 17 bashing your head into the ground isn't much different than an 18 year old bashing your head into the ground. |
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 02:38 pm: |
|
Ann Coulter rarely ceases to impress me. |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 03:39 pm: |
|
I guess every one has an openion-= from what I see he had it comeing. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 07:22 pm: |
|
As I have stated before. It bears repeating.
!7 years old. Matters when you are charging him for a crime. Matters when you are selling him beer. Matters when he needs permission to marry, join the armed forces, go into a strip club....
Does not matter a darn when he's trying to kill you.
Honestly, I'd feel darn bad about someones son dead at my hand. Justifiable self defense might mean a small difference in attitude, how well I sleep, etc. But I'm still not going to enjoy telling Mom I'm sorry. If he is 17 or 22 makes no difference to that.
In fact 17 is adult enough, IMO for a lot of things society has set arbitrary restrictions on.
Because we cannot, in mass fashion, determine the maturity of individuals in allowing certain responsibilities, we have arbitrary laws in place. And make no mistake, they are arbitrary.
True, there is medical evidence that teen boys brains just have not developed the part that supposedly assess's risk. Duh.
It's also true that most of you have met 13-15 year olds ( usually female ) that have more sense than some 35+ years olds. It is not, however, the way to bet before observation of the individual.
Having lived with a 19 year old lout with less sense than most, ( repeatedly playing the same nine inch nails song over and over was just an annoyance. I'm sure I did just the same with Kansas & the Beatles, etc. Insisting that he was "Gen X" and the world owed him a living was, unfortunately, not something he outgrew like actual adults do. ) and his 13 year old cousin 5 blocks away being as mature as most Bishops, just shows that we are arbitrary, and may have to be for some time to come. ( subsequent developments have shown the former 13 year old far better equipped to deal with reality.... ) |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, April 21, 2012 - 07:26 pm: |
|
Cowboy, there is a missing piece of the puzzle. What caused Martin to be fighting Zimmerman? Who threw the first punch?
If, I repeat, IF Zimmerman started the violence, self defense is not applicable. The "stand your ground" law has nothing to do with this case.
Without the ME reports, I can't have an opinion. NBC can, ABC can, etc, but those opinions are not based on fact, but on ideology, greed, and evil. As are the "Rev's" who accuse without reason. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, April 22, 2012 - 11:07 am: |
|
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/04/21/upd ate-10-part-2-the-trayvon-martin-shooting-deedee-r eveals-the-false-truths/#more-37932
I have not tried to confirm anything here. Take it with a lot of salt.
One bit strikes me as interesting.
Without an arrest that leads to trial, there is no implied probable cause, which could lead to Compensatory and punitive damages for wrongful death. They need an arrest and subsequent trial. They DO NOT need a conviction to achieve PAYDAY.
Remember this specific point as you contemplate the Crump strategy.
Or, If I understand this correctly, the only way for the LAWYERS to get rich, rich, rich is to have George arrested, so they can then sue. This MAY explain everything, except reveal the actual truth of who hit who first. If it was Trevon, that is information to be suppressed by the lawyers going for the gold.
There may be a RICO violation here, and an interstate one. Federal crimes may have been committed by the lawyers.
Then again this may be all so much BS. |
|
