If there is such evidence, it should have been in the indictment.
Nah, Holder told her to go ahead and prosecute anyway.
Probably told her he needed some “space” until after the election and then she could have a federal job.
They may be stalling for time and praying for a miracle from Hell.
I wonder if drug testing was done on Martin.
There is nothing more important than having a lid on a boiling cauldron at this time to prevent overflow. A legitimate LE official would try to keep the lid on. If zer0 is gone (voted out), and if the chips are going to fall; let the chips fall then (after zer0) and not at this time (during zer0). My humble opinion.
I’ve said before and I’ll say it again that this incident is not an example of purely criminal prosecutorial intention that we saw in the Duke Rape Hoax. That said, I will allow one similarity: many of us are told, or are thinking, “well the prosecutor has to have more than what we’ve seen, right?”.
In the Duke Rape Hoax, the answer was always, and increasingly shockingly, no. I can only wait to see if there is anything more to this incident than what we (and the Sanford police?) already know — but I agree with earlier posts here that if there were more to it, we should have seen it in the indictment.
As discussed in other threads, there might in fact be less, not more, from the prosecutor than we have been told. The doubts raised about the “girlfriend” at the other end of the phone need to be addressed.
The autopsy report should be interesting. I’m curious about the tests on the KelTec. Did it fire every time when tested? Were Martin’s finger prints on the gun?
In effect, Obama's son was armed with a chunk of concrete.
I suspect that Corey has very little in the way of credible evidence, and that all of this was a set-up to let the court take the fall for allowing Zimmerman to walk.
That said, Corey has put herself in a position for some serious sanctions by the court.
The evidence will prove that Angela Corey is depraved.
It will show that the 911 tape had Mr. Zimmerman replying “okay” when the 911 operator told him to NOT pursue St. Trayvon. Evidence will show that George did NOT follow the kid in an aggressive manner. Evidence will show that Trayvon was a thug.
None, other than obvious political pressure. It's too bad the state can't be forced to reimburse Zimmerman for the monies he's going to have to spend to defend himself once he's found innocent........
It will reveal the secret of Curly’s gold
I can honestly not think of a single thing that could convict Zimmerman other than ballistic evidence that Zimmerman shot Trayvon in the back while he was trying to run away or something of that nature, since the prosecution already admitted they have no evidence of who started the fight.
Now that ABC has had to admit that the video they broadcast does indeed show signs of injury to the back of Zimmerman's head, the Orlando Sentinel is forced to admit such. But, of course, they don't have to show the widely viewed picture taken at the scene which shows the blood on the back of Zimmerman's head.
Evidently, the Orlando Sentinel would be completely comfortable if Zimmerman is convicted on the basis of the videos and the picture is disregarded. They are truly a shameful bunch.
Watched the bond hearing, got the impression the main evidence they have is inconsistencies in Z’s story from all the times they had him repeat his story.
After that, maybe the distance from which the shot was fired. Also, the detective seemed to be buying that it was T yelling for help. Odd because that doesn’t seem to hold up very well.
Interesting if T had any drugs in his system. If he was a pot user, it can be detected for a pretty long time. Z said he was acting strangely, who knows.
I’m curious, how does a person talk on their cell phone for 400 minutes before the battery dies out? Mine is only good for about 45 minutes.......
Corey has already shown she is willing to prosecute, and convict, an innocent man for political gain. She represents the worst of our justice and political system. Not to mention she looks more than slightly depraved on television. I’m sure she knows her case is non-existent. It’s a serious charge but I’m betting she’s trying to massage the evidence to try and have something convincing to go to court with. I wouldn’t put it past her to be trying to manufacture damning evidence.
Well, since it's the prosecutor refusing to release it, it must be either extremely incriminating or extremely exculpatory, and knowing what little I know of the particulars, Option 2 sounds more likely.
BTW, in a state that has grand juries, what gives her the latitude to skip that step and indict in her own? Isn't the grand jury system one of the means by which we keep our paid employees on a proper leash?