Quote:
Originally Posted by bondai  I just read the affidavit of probable cause. Geesh, Louise! It's like Deja Vu of the Duke Lacrosse fiasco. http://www.foxnews.com/us...affidavit-probable-cause/
I thought the prosecutor was to use all facts available and all witness accounts available in determining probable cause. That doesn't appear to have been done in this case. The affidavit states that Zimmerman was "told not to follow Martin"...but we all have heard the 911 call and know that to be contrary to what is heard in the 911 call.
The affidavit states that he went to a nearby 7-11 store to get skittles and tea, yet his father said he (the father) was gone until 11:00 and had no idea where Trayvon was.
The affidavit makes no mention whatsoever of any violence perpetrated against Zimmerman...no mention of wounds or witness accounts that told of Zimmerman being beaten by Martin.
It seems to me that the prosecutor used only the witness accounts of Trayvon's mother (it mentions her claim that it is her son yelling...and appears to totally disregard Zimmerman's family claiming it was Zimmerman's voice yelling), Martin's girlfriend, and the witness' whose statements did not include Martin on top of Zimmerman beating him.
Do we have a female Nifong in the making here? Or am I completely misunderstanding the responsibilities of a prosecutor?  |
He was clearly told
NOT to follow Martin in the 911 call. He was asked if he was following Martin; he replied YES. He was then promply told "We don't need you to do that."
Looks like he did it anyway.
This whole thing is a shame and probably neither party is 100% negligence-free.
I doubt Zimmerman really intended to kill a minor armed with Skittles but, unfortunately, that was the end result of his playing Cop.