Replies

In a sane world, 99 percent of the evidence is not needed. You need one guy, the one who saw Trayvon on top pounding GZ, and then you have the wounds on his nose and the back of his head. Boom! no way to ever, ever, ever get past the burden of proof. Prosecutor should decline to prosecute on that alone.

But this is not a sane world, governed by the rule of law. It is a dumbed down idiocracy, governed by the rule of sex ed teachers and commie journalists. They could still get a conviction in that world if they convince a group of dimwits that GZ started it by following a guy because he was black. If you had a jury of Jeantals, you could tell them to assume that Trayvon was beating the hell out of GZ, that there was video of it, but they would still want to know why GZ got out of the jeep and whether it was because Trayvon was black. If so, then GZ should fry.

As a result, the defense clearly feels the need for overkill, to beat it into the heads of the dummies that GZ is innocent and to give them no excuses to buy into some prosecution theory that isn't even legally supported--like GZ is guilty because he followed Trayvon. So that is why they had 4 people saying it was GZ's voice, not one or two. And that is why it would be sweet to have that lying money grubber Mrs. Fulton on the stand and play a tape that you recently recorded of Zimmerman, and have her identify it as her son's. The defense doesn't want to win under the actual rules, it wants to embarrass the other side into submission. It may be a good idea, if they do it well enough, it may just keep the riots from happening.