[wtc911]

It's just a statement. Clearly Trayvon at some point turned and confronted Zimmerman.

How that happened and what happened asocciated with it makes the difference between murder, manslaughter and self-defense.

___________________________________________

There is nothing "clear" about this.

It is not known by the public whether Martin turned and confronted Zimmerman, if Zimmerman continued to look for him ("these assholes always get away") or if they bumped into each other.

Nor is it known who said the first word, who closed the gap or who threw the first punch.

Zimmerman's statement is not evidence or proof because it is self-exculpatory and not supported by neutral third-party statements or proof such as a CCTV tape.

For the record, based on what is known via Sanford PD docs and tapes, I do not think that Zimmerman can be charged.

[Jeff Head]

Well, it is clear enough since they turned out rolling in the dirt together and I do not believe Zimmerman did, or could have, caught Trayvon if he had wanted to...ergo, Trayvon came back. But that is my own supposition.

That aside:

based on what is known via Sanford PD docs and tapes, I do not think that Zimmerman can be charged.

That is because apparently the Police have two eyewitness accounts and their statements that do cooborate Zimmerman's statement and the injuries he suffered and his condition and that of his clothes when found by Police.

As I said, all of the evidence will be gathered and analyzed, and there will either be a Grand Jury or not based on that evidence.

[kabar]

Zimmerman's statement is not evidence or proof because it is self-exculpatory and not supported by neutral third-party statements or proof such as a CCTV tape.

How many times must you be reminded that Zimmerman doesn't have to prove himself innocent. The state must prove him guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. There is plenty of physical evidence and witness testimony to corroborate Zimmerman's version of events.

[LachlanMinnesota]

A thought problem: If Martin had not died, would his statements have been admissible without corroboration?

Are you saying that witness cannot be a witness if he was a participant?

Wow. And to think all the trials I have seen called the participants as the main witnesses, many of whom denied any wrongdoing.

Then someone says, “Yes you did, you’re just trying to get out of trouble now.”

Then the witness can introduce the statements to the police made at the time of the incident to rebut the allegation that he is just making it up to get out of it.

If Martin was here, he may say, Zimmerman assaulted me, but would that be a self-serving statement?