Speech Expert: Trayvon Martin Screaming for Help in 911 Call Is ‘Imaginary Stuff’

This is all the prosecution has. If they can convince a Jury that it is Martin, they have the “excuse” for a guilty verdict. This is true even though there are a hundred logical “human nature” reasons that it would be absurd that it was Martin screaming.

I think it's more likely that the prosecutors will argue that GZ harassed TM in such grossly unreasonable fashion as to render TM's striking back justifiable, or at least excusable. Among other things, they will argue that the savagery of the attack demonstrates that TM must have been provoked by GZ, since there's no way anyone could have attacked GZ so savagely without provocation.

Of course, if the case were presided over by a reasonable judge, anything even remotely resembling such a line of argument would clear the way for the defense to introduce evidence showing that TM may have been prone to attack people savagely without anything remotely resembling legitimate provocation. Given that it is in fact presided over by Judge Nelson, however, I suspect the prosecutor might be allowed to make such an argument without the defense being allowed to rebut it.

Third possibility

Zimmerman on top of Martin Zim gets head smashed into pavement and nose broken while Martin suffers no injuries but scrape knuckle. Obviously the coroner and the camera that took pictures of Zim wounds are racist.

Depending upon the juror selection, this third one may well be the one the dumb ass jurors would believe. Perhaps George fell over backwards from the recoil of the pistol and hit his head as he fell. Yeah, that’s the one they’ll believe.

Here is the thing about this case: If you look at the timeline of events it is pretty clear that Martin doubled back and bushwhacked Zimmerman. From the time Zimmerman got off the phone and the time Martin was on the phone, and the time people called 911, Martin had time to go to his dad’s house twice. Well, almost.

IOW, Z was right to call him in. He was acting suspiciously. and the jewelry and burglary tools found in his bag could be used (if admissable) to suggest that he WAS planing on a burglary that night. But I digress.

The timing thing is one of Zimmermans best facts in his favor.

If you look at the map and the location of events coupled with the timeline, a clear picture forms. A strong argument can be made for M hiding in the bushes or around a corner and then confronting Z, resulting in M’s hubris convincing him that he can beat up a pudgy, short mexican. Except the intended victim carried the great equalizer.

Oops.

If you look at the timeline of events it is pretty clear that Martin doubled back and bushwhacked Zimmerman.

The prosecutor needs to do two things:

avoid a directed verdict of acquittal
get at least one juror to hold out for conviction

The prosecutors are probably hoping to have the second requirement taken care of even before they call the first witness. Their biggest obstacle to railroading GZ is the requirement that they provide some combination of claims which, if all evidence is assumed to mean what the prosecutor says it does, would justify a conviction.

Realistically speaking, there's not really any way that someone could harass or antagonize a complete stranger so heinously as to justify a TM-style reprisal in the time between GZ's first sighting of TM and TM's attack upon GZ. On the other hand, if it's even vaguely conceivable that GZ could have done so, that might be enough for a judge to refrain from issuing a directed verdict of acquittal.

It's too bad there's no way the jury can be polled on the question of whether the prosecutor should have a piano dropped on his head. Whether or not the defense could get six out of six jurors to vote for acquittal, it could probably get at least five to vote for the piano.

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.