Day Eight of the George Zimmerman Trial: Being a Criminal is Fine, but Wanting to Become a Cop is the Equivalent of “666”
Print Friendly and PDF

[Read my new report on the Zimmerman trial, “George Zimmerman and the ‘Thirteenth Juror’—the Threat of Black Riots If He’s Acquitted.”]

The whole thrust of the prosecution’s case on Wednesday was to prove that George Zimmerman was a “cop wannabe.”

When I was a kid, if you depicted someone as an aspiring policeman, you were making a testimonial as to his good character. Today, however, such people are depicted as “cop wannabes,” which is somehow proof that they are murders waiting to happen. Meanwhile thugs like Trayvon Martin, who really was a murder waiting to happen, are depicted as angelic “little boys.”

I used to think that people (including The Boss) whose talk was peppered with allusions to The Book of Revelations were nutty. I stopped thinking that a while ago.

The prosecution called one witness after another, who were employed by the Seminole State College, which George Zimmerman was attending at the time that St. Trayvon sought to murder him. It was already public knowledge that Zimmerman was studying criminal justice. However, the prosecution’s tack was apparently to prove, with geometric logic, that:

  1. Zimmerman attended Seminole State College;
  2. Zimmerman took courses in criminal justice;
  3. Zimmerman’s studies, application to become a policeman, ridealong with cops, volunteer work (when no one else would help) as neighborhood watch captain and other incriminating acts proved he was a “wannabe cop”;
  4. One such course taught Florida criminal law;
  5. Said course touched on Florida laws regarding self-defense;
  6. Having taken said course made George Zimmerman an expert on Florida laws regarding self-defense;
  7. Zimmerman’s denial of being an expert on Florida laws on self-defense meant he was a liar;
  8. Thus, that Zimmerman couldn’t be trusted to tell the truth about anything; and
  9. Therefore, that George Zimmerman is a cold-blooded killer.

To which the shrieking heads on HLN’s Nancy Grace and Jane Velez-Mitchell shows added, “Zimmerman must take the stand” in his own defense.

The notion that Zimmerman must take the stand in his own defense is ridiculous. That is a desperate ruse by the Trayvonistas, so that the prosecution can exaggerate the slightest inconsistency in Zimmerman’s testimony, and make it look like perjury.

(If anything suggests bad character on Zimmerman’s part, it is that he had said that he wanted to become a lawyer and a judge!)

The shrieking head shows were in perfect sync with the prosecution. Then I looked at The Last Refuge, which has devoted constant coverage to this case since the beginning in March, 2012. It was talking about the coordination of the Martin Family campaign. Sure enough, the shrieking head shows always have members of the Martin Family legal team (Darryl Parks, Natalie Jackson, et al.) on as “experts,” even within their panels. And Florida criminal justice officials (e.g., Special Prosecutor Angela Corey) seemed already in spring 2012 to be reading from the script prepared by the Martin Family’s lead counsel, Benjamin Crump. Am I suggesting that the prosecution’s case, the Trayvonistas on TV, and the media are all in cahoots? I’m not suggesting it, I’m saying it.

As Sundance at The Last Refuge wrote early Wednesday:

Remember, there is so much corruption in the assembly of this case you can expect the State to avoid the traditional witnesses brought by normal prosecutions. The state has already won a pre-trial motion to bar the defense mentioning the absence of any witness from the State’s case. So if the Seminole County Medical Examiner, or any LEO is not called to the stand – O’Mara cannot mention it. M.E. = Trayvon Blood Tox. etc.

The Scheme Team has, in their desperation, blitzed the media and geography. Darryl Parks, and Jasmine Rand are doing as much Cable News as possible. Jasmine is the David Axelrod of their scheme. She is also a well skilled liar, and working hand in hand to assist and counsel with the State.

Jasmine is also simultaneously trying to coordinate the narrative of Rachel Jeantel with Rod Vereen. You now have: Natalie Jackson, Ben Crump, Darryl Parks, Jasmine Rand, and Rod Vereen all working together to protect their narrative. According to her girls: Alicia Stanley – has also been physically threatened and extorted to keep her mouth shut. They, all of them, are in full tactical combat operational mode to get their lynching money. There is NOTHING they will not do. N.O.T.H.I.N.G.

[Thread 5 – Day 18 (Week #4) Zimmerman Trial – Witness Discussion Thread by Sundance, The Last Refuge, July 3, 2013.]

I find this prosecution strategy underwhelming, but I’m not one of the females on the jury. And the fact that five of them are white will not necessarily help Zimmerman. White female jurors may be suckers for black felons, but they have no problem giving a white or white-enough male defendant the business.

One of the most important witnesses, from the prosecution’s standpoint, on Wednesday, said something I thought was very helpful to the defense.

 Capt. Alexis Carter, a former professor who taught criminal litigation at Seminole State College and now works in the JAG Corps as an attorney, had Zimmerman as a student.

He remembered him as one of his better students in the class.

During cross examination, West asked Carter to explain self-defense and the Stand Your Ground Law for Florida as he did in the class.

“When you have a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous bodily harm, and the term reasonable obviously has two components.

There’s a subjective component that I feel like I’m in fear, in my mind I feel like I’m in fear of death or grievous bodily harm, but when stuff hits the fan, you’re judged by jurors and your actions have to meet a reasonable standard objectively. So whether or not a reasonable person in your position would’ve felt the way you felt,” Carter explained.

Carter also jokingly advised that you probably shouldn’t wait until you’re almost dead to defend yourself, which got a laugh out of the courtroom and Zimmerman.

[George Zimmerman Trial: 8 things to know from Wednesday by Marjorie Sturgeon, Central Florida News13, Last Updated: Wednesday, July 3, 2013, 7:03 P.M.]

I also thought the last witness was very helpful to the defense, though the shrieking heads ignored him.

DNA expert Anthony Gorgone tested dozens of DNA stains from articles of clothing that Zimmerman and Martin had worn. However, the defense got him to acknowledge that he did not collect the evidence he tested (he was reliant on other hands), and that DNA is contaminated by moisture (because microorganisms then grow among the sample) and can be contaminated by what it is packed in. Thus, Martin’s wet, hooded sweatshirt was packed in a plastic bag, and smelled moldy by the time it was re-opened.

Ever since the O.J. Simpson trial, it has been important for defense lawyers to cast doubt on DNA evidence. In the Simpson case, this was done dishonestly by insinuating that Detective Mark Fuhrman had collected blood evidence from Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman and somehow leaked it onto items like Simpson’s socks, SUV door handle, dashboard, etc., and/or that the criminalist had contaminated the blood evidence.

Prior to the Simpson case, no one had made the case for the infallibility of DNA testing more than lawyers Barry Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld. Then, when Scheck and Neufeld defended murderer O.J. Simpson, they contradicted themselves, and acted as if DNA evidence were untrustworthy. Meanwhile, TV’s CSI franchise promoted the notion that forensics science was so perfect that it made crime scene technicians omniscient and able to crack cases all by themselves.

In the real world, forensic testing in general, and DNA testing in particular, has limitations, increasingly grave ones since more and more forensic “experts” are incompetents hired via affirmative action, and the defense and prosecution spar in every murder case over the limitations of such testing, depending on whose ox is being gored, though they always avoid the affirmative action angle.

Print Friendly and PDF