Skip to comments.Prosecutor: Account that he, police chief opted not to arrest Martin's shooter a 'lie'
Posted on 04/02/2012 3:04:40 PM PDT by Cboldt
An "outraged" Florida prosecutor fired back on Monday at the family of Trayvon Martin, describing as "outright lies" their account that he and a local police chief met and decided not to follow a detective's advice and arrest the teenager's killer. ...
In the letter delivered Monday, the Martin family said that a Sanford police detective "filed an affidavit stating that he did not find Zimmerman's statements credible in light of the circumstances and facts surrounding the shooting."
The family said Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee and State Attorney Norm Wolfinger met the night of the shooting and disregarded the detective's advice, letting Zimmerman go.
Neither Sanford police nor prosecutors have confirmed the existence of such an affidavit, which ABC News first reported. Sanford officials and special prosecutor Angela Corey's office declined comment.
But Wolfinger, who stepped aside in the case last month, vehemently denies that any "such meeting or communication occurred" between him and Lee.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I missed what he said before, to backpedal from.
-- He wants to issue a denial in light of what happened to the police chief, but he's got to word it carefully in order to avoid lying. --
Well, they met, so I don't think he's denying that. Chief Lee had other issues in this case, not just taking a direction contrary to the alleged Serino affidavit.
What sort of narrow denial do you find in "vehemently denies that any 'such meeting or communication occurred' between him and Lee."? CNN only quoted a short phrase there, I know.
I’ll believe the voice recognition when they use the same software the government used to listen in to Osama from their satalittes when he was talking on the phone.
Now, that's not a baby...and dad originally said he didn't expect him home that night so why did he call cops first thing in the morning. Tray was not a 10 year old. Somethings wrong with daddy's story...????? And now he comes out with a blatant lie??
I don’t get why a media paid “expert” (paid in cash or with PR for the company) get’s taken seriously anyway.
NBC has ZERO CREDIBILITY. They should be fined at the least for broadcasting a FRAUDULENT TAPE which they most likely edited to paint a RACIST PICTURE of ZIMMERMAN.
Tracy (dad) was away until 11 pm, and the "commotion" was likely calmed down by then, and also located about 100 yards away, in somebody else's back yard. He says he tried to call Trayvon that night, got voicemail; tried Trayvon's cousin, got the same thing, so figured they were at the movies.
But he and Trayvon (and others) had an outing planned the next morning, so there is some alarm when Trayvon is not at home the next morning.
As for the Serino affidavit, or face to face meeting between Lee and Wolfinger (whichever one of those two, or both, that Wolfinger appears to be denying), the only place Tracy would get those is from police. Maybe from his lawyer, Crump; I haven't checked the timing of the story of internal dissent first coming out.
According to the article, he denied the meeting. The article says he denies “such... communication,” but that could mean a lot of things, given the weasily language that politicians use. He could simply mean that the content of the communication was misrepresented. But if so, the question is to what degree it was inaccurate. Are we dealing with the definition of “is?”
Whatever the interpretation of his denial, though, you get the impression that he would like to deny that he participated in the decision to let Zimmerman go. Yet, if that were the case, you would think that he would simply deny that he had any role in it, instead of indirectly attacking it by disputing the accuracy of the statement by the family.
Assuming that he did have a role in making that decision, then I would call that “backtracking.”
I think the Big O can clear all this up with a Skittles Summit at the White House ... /src
Does the US media really want a Balkanized war in the United States? I think they do!
And the way I'm reading it (which I admit might be fairly attributed to my bias), he's denying "decided not to follow a detective's advice."
I agree with your point, if all he is denying is some sort of meeting; or the distinction between a phone call and face-to-face, then why the outrage? Why call the family liars for something picayune?
-- Whatever the interpretation of his denial, though, you get the impression that he would like to deny that he participated in the decision to let Zimmerman go. --
That could be. I've never researched for the interaction between Wolfinger and Lee. I agree with your remark, he could have easier said that he was not involved in the decision.
-- Assuming that he did have a role in making that decision, then I would call that "backtracking." --
If he did have a role in the decision, and then said he didn't, I'd call it lying.
Thanks for your thoughts. Gives me something to think about and look into.
Remember NBC got stung pulling the same on Richard Jewell re the Atlanta Olympic bombing?
Business as usual for the MSM.
There’s few lies so transparent and obvious that the MSM won’t ‘buy’ them if the lies comes from the mouths of people they like.
Writing’s an important skill for a journalist - but a more important one is NOT BEING A GULLIBLE SUCKER for every liberal.
Yes, it could be lying. I was trying to be charitable. One thing is certain... These guys mishandled it all around.
It's NOT possible to get a conviction against a man who had NOT been CHARGED with a crime. They can't 'convict' you either martinidon. BECAUSE you have NOT been charged with a crime.
If a policeman came by because your neighbor said your lawnmower was too loud - and he checked it - said it was fine - and WITHIN THE LAW - then you won't be arrested. If your neighbor keeps asking when you're going to 'be convicted' it wouldn't make sense because you can't be convicted for nothing. That's the situation.
"Therefore, we respectfully request that the United States Department of Justice investigate the circumstances surrounding this meeting between Chief Bill Lee and State Attorney Norm Wolfinger, in which they disregarded the lead homicide investigator's recommendation to arrest George Zimmerman for manslaughter," wrote Crump in the letter to [Deputy Assistant (US) Attorney General Roy] Austin.
And Wolfinger's response without CNN's cruft spitting up the context:
"I am outraged by the outright lies contained in the letter by Benjamin Crump to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roy Austin dated April 2, 2012," wrote Wolfinger. "I encourage the Justice Department to investigate and document that no such meeting or communication occurred. I have been encouraging those spreading the irresponsible rhetoric to stop and allow State Attorney Angela Corey to complete her work. Another falsehood distributed to the media does nothing to forward that process."
I'm still looking around for accounts that have Wolfinger saying he met with Lee, or Lee saying he met with Wolfinger, or similar (with Wolfinger being involved in the discussion, the night of the shooting); where the account is attributable to an official source.
If I don't find something, I think we're stuck with an ambiguity for now. ...
Maybe not. Read Crump's letter - he alleges Zimmerman family members were present. I can understand why Wolfinger would be upset about that allegation.
Good stuff, thanks.
Sometimes an expert does help clarify a technical point, or interpret evidence. But this expert, heh, by his own guidelines, he lacks enough evidence to make ANY conclusion.
But agree 100% when it is a media-paid expert. Hired gun, guaranteed.
Sure sounds like the lawyer is “axing” his friends in higher places to investigate and affirm lies.
Maybe Z should go after his law license.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.