Replies

I understand what you’re saying, but being fair, Zimmerman did try to follow Martin - we know that from the 911 tapes.

I have doubts as to the girlfriend’s truthfulness but she has also given some important information:

The assumption has been made by the ‘hoodie’ group that Trayon was wearing his hoodie up because it was supposed to be raining at the time and Zimmerman profiled Martin specifically because of the hoodie. Trayvon’s girlfriend’s statement contradicts that:

“He said this man was watching him, so he put his hoodie on,” she said.

“He said he lost the man.

(This seems very important. We can assume Trayvon said this after Zimmerman broke off contact and while Zimmerman was still talking to 911 - so if Martin ‘lost’ Zimmerman, why did Martin return to where Zimmerman was instead of continuing on his way to the apartment he was headed to? )

“I asked Trayvon to run, and he said he was going to walk fast. I told him to run but he said he was not going to run.”

(it’s reasonable to believe at this point Martin decides not to appear afraid in front of his girlfriend “i’m not going to run!”. Did Martin decide to retrace his steps and confront Zimmerman? How did Trayvon get ‘thisclose’ to Zimmerman less than a minute later, that the girlfriend could now also hear Zimmerman’s voice?)

“Trayvon said, ‘What, are you following me for.’ And the man said, ‘What are you doing here.’

“Next thing I hear is somebody pushing, and somebody pushed Trayvon because the head set just fell.”

(if Trayvon said anything in response to, ‘what are you doing here’, the girlfriend probably would leave that out of her narrative but one can assume a punch would be accompanied by some sort of comment and no comment coming from Zimmerman or Martin was reported. Which makes me believe perhaps Martin did say something. The ‘hearing of pushing’ could have been Zimmerman being punched or pushed to the ground. If Martin did retrace his steps instead of continuing on to the safety of the apartment he was headed to, it’s then reasonable to believe Trayvon pulled the earbuds out of his own ears and hung up the phone so his girlfriend wouldn’t be a ‘witness’ to the beating he was planning on giving Zimmerman.)

I called him again and he didn’t answer the phone.”

(I’ve dropped my phone a few times and most of the time it remains connected to the call. Not sure what the odds are on that or if Martin had a flipphone or a droid, so not sure if that is important or not.)

I decided to take up your implicit challenge and I found this account of the girlfriend's account of her conversation with Martin.

At some point in this matter we have to analyze evidence. I ask you to review this phone call and explain where there's anything in it that implicates Zimmerman. At best, it might contradict his story that he was returning to his car where and when, by Zimmerman's account, he was assaulted by Martin. That would not be true if it were Martin who doubled back on Zimmerman and we have no evidence that Martin he did not double back. I think a very important fact might be the physical location of the body in relation to Zimmerman's auto. If it was proximate, Zimmerman's story holds.

Even if Zimmerman's story does not hold with respect to who followed whom it does not adduce any evidence of wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part. He had a perfect legal right to follow Martin.

In the absence of any evidence from the girlfriend's account or otherwise, we must conclude that there is no evidence except the following: Zimmerman admits that he shot Martin. Zimmerman says he was assaulted by Martin. There is absolutely no evidence that contradicts that.

In fact, there is an eyewitness who says that a fight took place.

Zimmerman says he was struck in the face, forced to the ground, and his head was being bashed into the concrete. There is no evidence whatsoever contradicting that. There is evidence that in the fight Martin was on top of Zimmerman. There is evidence that Zimmerman's nose was broken and the back of his head was cut. There is evidence that he was treated for these injuries before he was filmed entering the police station. The film at the police station in freeze-frame shows a likely injury to the back of his head.

There is an eyewitness that Martin was on top of Zimmerman.

Zimmerman says he was crying for help while being beaten by Martin. There is absolutely no evidence contradicting that assertion.

In fact, there are multiple witnesses to confirm they heard cries for help. Telephone recordings confirm that the cries were Zimmerman's.

There is no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part. Repeat, there is no evidence whatsoever of any wrongdoing on Zimmerman's part.

Any conclusion that he used excessive force must be confected out of thin air. Any conclusion that he started a fight must be confected out of thin air. Even if he did start a fight, if he was in reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm and had no place to escape because he was on the bottom, on his back, being pummeled, he had a right to use deadly force. There is no evidence that this was not the case.

We still have the presumption of innocence in this country. You must have some evidence somewhere, anywhere to overcome this presumption. The presumption shifts the duty to the state to come forward with evidence. What evidence do you have? Hypotheticals and theories are not evidence. Overzealousness, rudeness, racial stereotyping are neither crimes nor evidence.

At some point you have to have a crime and you have to have proof of a crime. The burden is on the state to prove a crime. It is the duty of the state to refrain from charging a crime that it cannot prove. That is why prosecutors have discretion and that is why we have the protection of being indicted by a grand jury so that we will not frivolously be charged with crime.

Here is the account of the telephone conversation I found on CNN news which is hardly a source favorable the Zimmerman, and ask you what do you read in it that carries the highest burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for the state to convict of a crime? I ask you if you can even find inferences most favorable which justify a reasonable man in concluding that we have probable cause of a crime?

"Martin's girlfriend

Benjamin Crump, the Martin family lawyer, says Martin's girlfriend's account of what happened connects the dots and destroys Zimmerman's claims of self-defense.

The girl, who did not want to be identified, said she was on the phone with the teen before the shooting.

When Zimmerman got closer to Martin, she told her boyfriend to run, but Martin told her that he was not going to run, she said.

"What are you stopping me for?" Martin asked Zimmerman, according to the girl.

"What are you doing around here?" Zimmerman asked in response.

The girl said she then got the impression that an altercation was taking place and that someone had pushed Martin, because the headset fell out of his ear, and the phone shut off."

How in the world does this "destroy Zimmerman's claims of self-defense?" http://edition.cnn.com/2012/03/30/justice/florida-teen-shooting-witnesses/index.html