Why the State of Florida Failed to Convict George Zimmerman

By now, the shock of the verdict in the trial of Trayvon Martin has settled into the hearts and minds of all interested parties. I was not entirely shocked by the verdict, not because I believed there was not enough evidence, but because the State of Florida failed to use the evidence they had at their disposal to the lead the jurors and the rest of America to one simple conclusion, George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin. This blog will discuss some of the mishaps made by the prosecution and explain why Zimmerman ultimately got away with murder. All of these are number one on my list:

  1. The State failed to advise the jury of the biggest indicator of Zimmerman’s guilt, his immediate and thorough attempt to distance himself from his own recorded voice and in effect, lie on himself. It seems that almost immediately George Zimmerman decided that his only chance of getting away with murder was to deny, obfuscate, misrepresent and downright lie about what we heard him say on that NEN call. For instance, Zimmerman clearly has Martin running from near the clubhouse/mailboxes on the NEN call, yet he later changes his story and has Martin running from near the T. Rachel Jeantel confirmed Zimmerman’s NEN version of events and she said Martin told her he was at the mailing area when he started running. In the first map Zimmerman drew for Detective Singleton he again places Martin’s running location near the mailboxes and as his story evolved, he scratched out the original location and moved it closer to where the body was found. Why would Zimmerman distance himself from where he actually started chasing Martin? Because it would prove that he had encountered Martin solely because he followed him from quite a distance and when Martin stopped running because he believed he had lost Zimmerman, Zimmerman caught up to him. Another example of him distancing himself from his own recorded voice is where he clearly represents to the NEN caller that Martin is armed. More than once he mentions that Martin either has something in his hand or is reaching for his waistband. Why would that be a noteworthy comment to mention to a NEN operator except for that he presumed Martin to be armed? Once he is confronted with the clear indication that he believed Martin to be armed, he changed his story and said he did not think Martin was armed. Why did he change his story? Because if he believed Martin to be armed and went after him anyway then Zimmerman was conscious of the fact that he carried a gun on his hip. He later claimed that he was surprised to learn that he even had his gun, he only remembered he had it once he was flat on his back and about to lose consciousness. Obviously he knew that story would not make sense if he believed Martin to be armed from the very start. If he believed Martin to be armed then his own gun on his hip would be the first thing he thought about. It is clear that he believed Martin to be armed, how many burglars are unarmed? He even admitted he was on top of Martin after Martin died because he believed Martin had some type of weapon. Indeed, his bloody finger print was found on Martin’s waistband because he frisked Martin for a weapon once Martin was dead in the grass. Zimmerman claimed to have a poor memory yet he was allowed to convince the jury that his recollection hours, even days after the incident, were more accurate than what he said in real time as events unfolded. And let’s not even discuss his admission that he followed Martin by answering “yes” when asked on the NEN call. He later changed that as well and said the heavy breathing we heard was not him following or chasing Martin but that he only exited his car to retrieve an address and on Hannity he changed “he’s running” to “he skipped or walked away quickly.” The State failed miserably by not reminding the jury that Zimmerman’s biggest lies were the ones he told on his own recorded voice.

 

  1. The State failed to properly impeach the Defense witnesses. The biggest example of this was the State’s failure to totally devalue the utterly useless testimony of John Good. Instead, they called him to the stand, pretended he was their witness when he was a clearly a Defense witness, and they allowed his false narrative to be the basis for the Defense’s entire argument. John Good said he only saw 10 seconds of what both sides say was a 1 minute and 20 second encounter (although I think 44 seconds is the actual length of the encounter) and therefore what John Good saw was basically, nothing. We know he saw nothing because he admitted he heard no punches being thrown and just like all of the other witnesses; he did not see a fight. And just like all of the other witnesses, he did not hear a fight. The only thing we can conclude by taking all of the witnesses testimony at face value is THERE WAS NEVER A FIGHT. The lack of Zimmerman’s DNA on Martin proves there never was a fight. There was a struggle, but there was no fight. John Good says he saw the two move to the sidewalk and then he went back inside. The most important part of this story is what caused Zimmerman to shoot Martin. Zimmerman says he shot Martin because Martin was bashing his head on concrete and then inexplicably, Martin decided to reach for an invisible gun. The evidence presented clearly shows that Martin died WHOLLY in the grass. No part of his body was touching the sidewalk. In fact, he was facing away from the sidewalk entirely. That means that what John Good claims he saw does not match up with the final location of the body therefore John Good saw NOTHING. John Good might as well have seen Zimmerman following Martin in his truck, that is how useful Good’s testimony was but the State allowed the Defense to mention him over and over as if he was an important witness when he was not.

 

  1. The State failed to connect the dots and take advantage of a gold mine placed into their laps by their own eyewitnesses. Selene Bahadoor, Jane Surdyka, Selma Mora and Jeanee Manalo all place Zimmerman on top of Martin when the shot was fired. It is not possible that these four women saw the exact same thing unless what they saw was noteworthy. None of them ever saw Martin move and none of them ever saw the two change positions. If John Good’s testimony was the end all be all of this mystery and matched Zimmerman’s story, then at least one of those women should have seen one simple thing: they should have seen Zimmerman get up off the ground. I can understand that maybe they didn’t look out in time to see Martin rise up and put his hands up and fall down (never happened actually) but I cannot accept that they also didn’t see Zimmerman get up and claim the dominant position over Martin. All of those women confirmed that upon immediately looking outside Zimmerman was already on top and the other person never moved a single inch again. What those women witnessed was the execution style murder of Trayvon Martin as he screamed for his life and the State prosecutors were too inept to understand the importance of what those women saw.

 

  1. Failure of the State to understand the physical evidence photos that prove Zimmerman is a liar. The bloody nose photo alone should have sent George Zimmerman to prison. There is no way that Trayvon Martin caused that injury and beat up George Zimmerman without getting that blood all over his hands, shirt and sleeves. To overcome this common sense view of the blood evidence the Defense tried to explain it away by at first saying bigoted bacteria ate Zimmerman’s blood off of Martin’s clothes to help the black teen and then they said the blood didn’t flow out until Zimmerman stood up. They said it had went down Zimmerman’s nose and into his throat as he lay on the ground and that’s what explains the lack of blood on Martin. For as long as I live I will not understand why the Florida prosecutors didn’t look at that photo and notice that Zimmerman’s bleeding was caused by an external wound, not an internal nose bleed. At the tip of Zimmerman’s nose were three small pin prick-like abrasions that were the source of his bleeding. Those abrasions were external, so they could only bleed EXTERNALLY. It is clear from the photo that no blood ever came from Zimmerman’s nostrils so it is not possible that blood flowed down his throat as he lay on his back. That wound bled instantly and the only reason Martin doesn’t have that blood all over him is because that blood did show up until after Martin was dead. The cause of that injury on Zimmerman’s face was from a gun recoil. Whatever your theory, what we know for sure is that Martin didn’t cause that injury and then continuously beat up Zimmerman. The blood and DNA evidence says that’s impossible. Why couldn’t the State just look closely at the photograph?