It is, in legal parlance, a 'self-serving statement'. The legal system in the US operates under the assumption that nobody will lie to inculpate himself in a criminal matter but that most people will lie to excuplate themselves and avoid or lessen consequences of their actions.
In some jurisdictions a self-serving statement may not be admitted in court unless there are neutral corroborating witness statements or evidence such as a security video.
Maybe Zimmerman's statement is truthful...I don't know, you don't know and the legal system does not consider it evidence or proof.
Apparently, the Sanford police bought it. Zimmerman has not been arrested, or even charged with anything.
First, are you insinuating that Zimmerman is lying? You can discount Zimmerman's statement all you want, but he has the right to explain the circumstances surrounding the incident from his perspective. The physical evidence appears to support his version of events along with other eyewitness testimony. The facts will determine the veracity of Zimmerman's statement.
In some jurisdictions a self-serving statement may not be admitted in court unless there are neutral corroborating witness statements or evidence such as a security video.
That is a laughable statement on its face. I have served as a member of a jury in a murder case. The idea that the accused cannot submit a statement in their defense is pure nonsense. Do you have any source to support such an assertion? Are you a lawyer?
Maybe Zimmerman's statement is truthful...I don't know, you don't know and the legal system does not consider it evidence or proof.
If that statement is supported by fact and witnesses, it is part of the evidence or proof. So far, the police have not arrested Zimmerman because his version of events is supported by physical evidence and eyewitness testimony. The burden of proof falls on the state, not the accused, to prove he is innocent. That is the way our justice system is supposed to work. You are innocent until proven guilty.
Which is why there are laws against giving false statements to police officers.
In some jurisdictions a self-serving statement may not be admitted in court unless there are neutral corroborating witness statements or evidence such as a security video.
Source, please?
Maybe Zimmerman's statement is truthful...I don't know, you don't know and the legal system does not consider it evidence or proof.
A statement from one of those involved is not considered evidence? Source, please?