Trial and News Coverage of it.

I was watching the trial off and on again today and loved the defense forensic expert. That just plain slammed the prosecution down if not out.

But I was also watching the talking heads on HLN and CNN after that and was absolutely stunned by the absolute misinformation and BS they were saying.

The other day I was expressing my shock about commenters on the news sites and where they got the bizarre ideas they were coming up with.

Tonight I got to see. 

First of all I can't stand the nasty strident tone of Jane Valez Mitchell or even worse that of Nancy Grace, not at all. 

Second was something I'd been seeing for a while on those two shows and that was complete unadulterated bias against George Zimmerman. They make no attempt at all to try and hide it either. There is nothing except contempt for him when they speak of him. 

Nancy Grace outright has called him a murderer  of this poor child numerous times while always referring to TM as just a kid. JVM isn't any better. 

According to their bizarre beliefs TM is like a ten year old that was brutally gunned down by this horrible despicable adult who targeted, stalked, started a fight then cold bloodily murdered this little boy. 

Grace even brags about having the ability to turn off a guest's microphone which she is going to use whenever anyone says anything pro-Zimmerman. I watched her do it again tonight. I've watched her do it before too. Dr. Drew at least tries to let everyone there speak but the bias is very clear there too. Tonight he called the testimony of the guy who writes the books on forensics that all others are trained with to be complete BS over the fact that consciousness can remain for a very short time without a heart beating. 

This guy is a world renown and extremely well respected forensics specialist and that gets said about him?


So after watching tonight I began to see where some of these people must be getting the complete lines of BS their commenting upon. 

One of them played a clip of Trayvon's not-girlfriend saying Trayvon had ran from Zimmerman then circled around and surprised Zimmerman by confronting him and asking "What are you following me for" or the like. 

This is the woman on the phone with TM at the time of the incident and she says TM confronted GZ. Further her original statement said something to the effect the GZ replied "What are you talking about?" then later on she changed it to GZ challenging TM with "What are you doing around here?" 

Nobody seems to pick up on that crucial piece of testimony. TM did exactly what GZ said in his original statements and all following. 

GZ stated he lost sight of TM and then TM came out of nowhere and confronted him. TM's girlfriend said the same damn thing in her testimony. 

The thing is that the talking heads and hosts went on about how Zimmerman stalked TM, targeted TM, profiled TM, either struck TM or started a fight with him, and my favorite of all was that GZ then stood there pulled out his gun and murdered Martin because Zimmerman was losing the fight he started. (Supposedly)

Many were dismissive of Di Maio's testimony today and one or two even said he didn't do a thing for the defense or prove anything. 

Wrong on both counts by the way.

But then they started throwing out crap that just had me sitting there with my mouth open. Now they are saying TM was trying to get away from GZ when GZ shot him. Even though that was in court today and was categorically proven not to be the case they're up there saying it.

They are still saying he was some kind of neighborhood vigilante who started it by getting out of his car. 

Well lets take that a moment. 

He was the neighborhood watch Captain and saw something he thought was suspicious. Because these F***ing punks always get away GZ did get out of his car and try to keep TM in sight while guiding the police in to where he was. He also did it at a distance because specifically he did NOT want any kind of confrontation. The police dispatcher was asking "Where is he now" or something to that effect. 

Now if you have a police dispatcher asking you several times where the suspect is now? What would you think you should be doing? Maybe following at a safe distance?

The dispatcher asked if GZ was following the suspect and he said yes. The dispatcher said "We don't need you to do that" 

Now I'll tell you personally I've been in somewhat similar situations in general where I'd see a drunk driver or something and would hang back following the guy and staying online with the PD while doing so to set up an intercept on the drunk. I've been told we really don't need you to follow him and I've replied its not a problem, that I'm way back and not putting myself near the suspect and don't mind doing it in order to get a cop met up with the DUI. And they were perfectly fine with that, but then again I made it very clear I wasn't getting even close to the suspect vehicle and I always got a thanks if not the more usual "We really appreciate you staying with this so we could get officers directed to the vehicle"

Now there have also been a couple times when dispatch has (not on the calls described above) point blank said we've got a description you gave us and we don't want you to follow or have anymore involvement in this and they had my phone number and if the officer needed to get in touch with me he'd call me. Not very friendly departments the few times I ran into this. Basically FO and don't call us we'll call you if we want you.

Very plain there. DO NOT FOLLOW. Not "We don't need you to do that" One of those times was in Jacksonville Florida as a matter of fact. They didn't even put out the call until I was in Georgia a bit. Large gap and guess what? They were unable to locate the suspect. 

Anyway once the dispatcher said that GZ said okay and STOPPED, then headed back to his SUV. 

It went on from there. 

But these talking heads ignore constantly the evidence which every day of this trial goes further to prove GZ's account of events. Since day one the prosecution has put on the greatest defense of GZ that could have been done. Hell the defense doesn't really have a job left to do since the prosecutions and their witnesses have proven GZ's case for him.

A number tonight even said the prosecution had done a wonderful job and there is plenty of evidence to convict GZ. What in the hell are they smoking? It must be some good stuff, I'll tell you that. 

Anyway I was just astounded and totally confused with the garbage coming out of their mouths. It literally defied belief and they're now completely making up things to explain why all the evidence backs GZ's account completely plus some. Now they're also demanding he be charged with manslaughter as a possible charge in the jury instructions.

My biggest worry is the defense might think it needs to do something rather than leave it well enough alone. One talking head a while back said "It's the defense team's to lose" and I'm afraid they're putting crap that isn't necessary up there like the neighbor's testimony today. Totally useless. They already had everyone and their mother's uncle up there testifying that it was GZ's voice so why bring another. (The race factor because she was black is my guess)

So I'm afraid they may be getting stupid here. The stuff they're trying to introduce is mostly not needed and won't help them in my opinion. About the only thing that could is supposed conversations and stuff about MMA fighting and other fighting TM had been involved with. 

Even with that I'm not sure I wouldn't have finished with Di Maio and said "We're done" You couldn't cap your case better than this guy today.

So I hope the defense rests and lets it go without making asses out of themselves. 

I can't see how a jury could possibly do anything but find him completely not guilty. Yet at the same time I am very pessimistic about things and wonder if they won't find him guilty regardless of the facts.

It makes me think of a day over twenty years ago I guess it is now. I had to pick up an LAPD Lt. and take him to LAX and we got to talking on the way there and the whole RK thing came up as it had just broke and he told me something I still remember to this day and I think applies to this as well. It went something like this.

"I think they'll find him guilty but if there was any justice in this world they'd come back with a not guilty verdict because they didn't do a damn thing wrong." 

While I knew this from my background and training I didn't think they would either so I was completely taken by surprise when they actually acted for justice instead of opinion. Btw the Lt. was black.

Let's hope this will be another time where the jury does what is right instead of what is being demanded of them by certain parties.

P.S. For all those suddenly threatening massive rioting to make the RK riots look like a weenie roast, all I can say is that as happened in the RK riots, non-rioting people lock and load and decent folk will show you what you get when you come to their neighborhoods with a very big and painful welcome.