Bond Hearing Testimony Reveals Huge Hole In State's Case Against George Zimmerman !

Sun-Sentinel ^ | Vanity

[MindBender26]

Among all the coverage of Zimmerman being granted bail, most reporters are missing the most important detail of the day. The State's investigator admitted, under oath, that they have no way to disprove Zimmerman's claim that Trayvon Martin started the flight and assaulted him.

The details are buried deep in the story, but they are crucial:

Gilbreath is the State's Investigator:
O'Mara is Zimmerman's attorney:

(from the story)

"During further questioning by O'Mara, Gilbreath admitted that the state has no evidence who started the fight. There is also no evidence that Zimmerman didn't walk back to his car after chasing Martin on foot, as the defendant has claimed."

That speaks to, make that screams Stand Your Ground, and combined with new pictures of a bleeding and battered Zimmerman taken three minutes after the police arrived, it's all becoming so very clear to legal observers that Zimmerman walks on a SYG motion or at the least a SD verdict.

[Aunt Polgara]

>>Looks like Zimmerman’s attorney O’Mara is one tough defense attorney.<<

You can say that again. He basically ambushed Dale Gilbreath, one of the investigators who signed the probably cause affidavit. Gilbreath didn't even know he was going to be testifying. It was stupid on his part to even be there.

[longtermmemmory]

I hope they do.

Not only that but the race baiters and the bpp for their bounty.

Imagine zimmerman owning their logo and trademark!

also a dismissal provides immunity from civil suit.

[RIghtwardHo]

Actually, circumstantial means anything not eyewitness. No one saw the actual shooting (unless I missed that which is entirely possible). But, there is a lot of evidence to be sure. There were audio witnesses and witness after the fact, but no eyewitness of the shooting.

In fact, about 90% of all cases rely solely on circumstantial evidence.

[RIghtwardHo]

Actually, circumstantial is not a bad thing. My fault for not clarifying what I meant by “circumstantial”. As I posted elsewhere, circumstantial is all evidence that is not an eyewitness to the shooting itself.

Sadly, television makes “circumstantial evidence” seem like some sort of lesser evidence. It is not and, in fact, is often much more reliable than eyewitness evidence.

My fault for not being more specific about what I mean.

[hoosiermama]

Who says this person doesn’t have a video or pictures of the actual confrontation.

If it’s John (as in John Doe) the description of the incident sounded like he had some experience giving details....Could be he’s LEO or military trained. Taking pictures to protect GZ position was quick thinking regardless.