The public outrage & dismay over the acquittal of George
Zimmermann for the murder of Trayvon Martin, a 17 year old Sanfield, FLORIDA
teenager is unprecedented in any case of its kind. While the public attention
is fixated on the absurd two word final verdict of the mis-informed jury, I
decided to take a step back to assess the Scenarios that lead to this
devastating outcome and the aftermath.
I came-up with one and only one conclusion; the title of
this article. From the Prosecution, the defense attorney, the testimonies, the
media and the Jury, the entire trial was a farce. How does each of these
parties play into what leads to a legitimate trial turning into a farce?
The prosecution break rule number one, they did what they
tell you not to do “Never bring a witness
to stand unless you are sure of what they are going to say”. The prosecution
brought in Chris Serino, the lead homicide investigator of the case and his
testimony helped the defense than it helped the prosecution, if it did help the
prosecution at all. This is a really weird act, since it is my understanding
that in Florida they have this depositions where the attorneys have the
opportunity to cross examine the witnesses before they go on stand in the
courtroom. If the prosecution couldn’t figure out that Mr Serino would say what
he said, then shame on them, if they did know he would say what he said and
still bring him to stand, shame on them. An entire book can be written about
the role of detective Serino in this whole trial, obviously this article is not
enough to discuss his role, but I will give a brief overview of him; He is
the person who recommended manslaughter charges against George Zimmerman and at
one point during his investigation he told Zimmerman, I quote: “Had you told this
child that you were neighbourhood watch & you were just wondering what the
hell he was doing when he came up to your car, you probably wouldn’t be here
right now”. But During his testimony detective Serino told the court
that he believe that Zimmerman was been truthful.
The ridiculous irresponsible knock knock joke made by the
defense Attorney Don West at the start of his cross examination of Rachel
Jeantel explains why I call the defense a joke, not to mention his irrational
and dubious remark about the prosecution; Calling the prosecution “A disgrace”
for pursuing the case, it’s an insult to the US Justice system to think that
trying such a case was disgrace. You got to be really stupid to even think that
any system will just believe, without trial in a story told by a man who has a
long history of violence & trouble with the law after shooting an innocent
unarmed teenager, and yep I just called Don west stupid, as a matter of fact if
it only takes what he did to win this case, then just any unversed criminal
lawyer could have won the case. I called Mr West a total joke because you
could easily tell his expressions were filled with hatred and anger for no good
reason.
With regards to the testimonies and specifically with the
testimony of detective Chris Serino, something didn’t click to me. Here is the
man who recommended a man slaughter charge against Zimmerman after
investigating into the case and then he testify to the absolute opposite of that
by saying that Zimmerman was telling the truth, why would you recommend a
manslaughter charge when he was telling the truth all this time? I mean if he
killed Trayvon Martin in act of self defense, then why are we here? The
prosecution brought him in and he helped the defense market its case to the jury.
Chris Serino concluded that Zimmerman was either telling the truth or he was a
pathological liar, to Mr Serino I say “You’re either an absolute joke or you’re
a pathologically inconsistent liar”. The fact that the defense counsel
proceeded to ask him whether he has any insight from his investigation that Mr
Zimmerman is a pathological liar give me the impression that the latter is the
truth. The defense must have a pretty damn good idea what his response was
going to be before taking the risk of asking him that question, my own question
is how on earth didn’t the prosecution figured this out during the deposition?
There can be only one possible answer; He must be a pathologically inconsistent
liar.
These whole episodes of farce lead us to the most important
group in the case, the people who made the call that George Zimmerman is free
of the charges of murdering Trayvon Martin. The jury took 16 hours to come up
with just two words, “NOT GUILTY” to close the case, 16 hours and they wouldn’t
even say what wasn’t he not found guilty of, isn’t that creepy? I mean come on
after 16 hours you ought to come up with something better. I know that the
final decision comes down to whether he was found guilty or not, but in a case
of this magnitude and the time they took to reach their publicly unpopular
verdict, the jury have the moral responsibility of explaining to the public and
the family of the victim whether the verdict was reached by unanimous or
majority decision or perhaps to explain whether they haven’t just found the
accused guilty of the “Murder” & “manslaughter" charge or they found him
absolutely “NOT GUILTY”.
But if anyone think race haven’t played any role in the
final verdict of the jury, then you definitely need to go right back to
Kindergarten, yep you definitely have the brain of a two year old. Its obvious
Zimmerman racially profiled Trayvon Martin, but there is not just enough
evidence to suggest that his murder was racially motivated, it’s a tough call
to say Zimmerman just killed Trayvon because of his race, who knows? He might
just be another monster who should pay for the price of his actions regardless
of the race of Trayvon. My theory though is that the final verdict of the case
would’ve been different if the positions were swapped. I must say that I’m
person who doesn’t let himself to be limited by this race issue, but we have to
tell the truth and the best way to solve a problem is to discuss it, we cannot
deceive ourselves that something doesn’t exist, when there is clear evidence
that it does, this will just escalate the problem if anything. We cannot just
let innocent kids go through what Trayvon Martin went through whether they are
Black, White, Hispanic, Latino, Asian or Native American, with the perpetrators
walking away free.
And let me make it clear that I’m not suggesting that the
jury verdict was racially motivated; I honestly am not. What I think however,
is that they let their perceptions, prejudices and stereotypes take the best of
their judgement. I’m of the believe that the jury would have reached a
different verdict if they just forgot about who gave what testimony or forgot
about that character that the defense have made Trayvon Martin I.e. growing /smoking
Marijuana, kicked out of school or what not. I think the jury found it conveniently easy to
believe in some witnesses than others, for example Rachel Jeantel, She
represented her true self during her testimony, she act the way she would in
everyday real life scenario you can tell, what people forget to remember is that
cultural and racial barriers/differences exist and you will be surprised to find
out how many grown-ups are out there who have no idea that there is a grey part
to life where most people live as opposed to their perceived “Black &
White” categorization. To the jury the tone of her voice, her language of
expression, her body language or her outfit may represent an unreliable/irresponsible
witness, but it’s her spoken words that should matter. Stereotypes exist &
sometimes we all get caught up by this judgemental act without even realizing
it.
I have no doubt or whatsoever that had the jury put
themselves in Zimmerman’s position from the moment of the 911 call to the
shooting & killing of Trayvon Martin, they wouldn’t have found him NOT
GUILTY. If the jury had asked them selves what would they have done if Trayvon
Martin had attacked them as Zimmerman claimed and they‘re as big as George
Zimmerman, I’m pretty sure their actions wouldn’t include reaching for their
gun. Zimmerman could have easily stepped back and avoid any physical contact
with Trayvon the moment he realised that he was unarmed and innocent, but he
didn’t because perhaps he knew he had a gun hidden that Trayvon didn’t knew
about. The reality is that, we all know even if Trayvon had indeed attacked Zimmerman,
he wouldn’t have done this had he known Zimmerman was armed. It doesn’t take a
genius to tell that Zimmerman would have escaped from the altercation with
Trayvon without any life threatening injuries if he wasn’t armed with a gun, he
definitely would with his size compared to Trayvon’s. As a matter of fact he
could‘ve avoided the whole altercation by telling Trayvon that he was a
neighbourhood watch & just thought he looked suspicious. I’m pretty sure
anyone of the six Jurors wouldn’t have got into a power struggle with Trayvon
if he looked as suspicious as Zimmerman had claimed to the 911 operator, why
would Zimmerman do it then? He must’ve known something that we all didn’t know
& I guess will never know.
To add salt to injury, the media reaction after the jury
verdict was ridiculous, it was a total joke to watch CNN and see the type of
ill-informed people who were given TV space. People like Robert Zimmerman become
a common face in America for the wrong stupid reasons, a guy who doesn’t know
what he is talking about for one reason and secondly was just instigating
public feud. Robert Zimmerman if he really cares should’ve been with his
brother in the courtroom in Florida when the verdict was given rather than
talking gibberish at some TV interviews in NY. He made some really horrendous
comments & remarks that were just utter and blatant lies, like saying to
Piers Morgan, I quote; “Trayvon had plans
for George that night” , I mean isn’t that an insult to the intelligence of
the audience? The evidence is out there that the kid was followed while walking
home. He Robert Zimmerman told Don Lemon that he will like to understand what
make people as angry as Trayvon was, to this I respond; He should first try to
understand what makes people as stupid as Zimmerman was. I’m not taking sides
here but let’s face it; Robert Zimmerman lacks the moral to give interviews to
a global audience.
It irritates me when CNN vaunt about bringing some expert
opinion to the audience after the commercial and next thing you know people
like Buck Davis are on live TV, the guy who have no clue about the topic in
discussion. Buck Davis is another big idiot; the guy thinks George Zimmerman
had no idea about the race of Trayvon Martin when the 911 call evidence was all
over the news, are you kidding me? Even the anchorman Don Lemon had to remind
him that the 911 call was there for everyone to see, after which he had to
change his story. When the story was about Trayvon Martin, he brought in how an
African American was murdered in Chicago for refusing to join a gang; again the
host had to remind him that was a different case and not the focus of the discussion,
what a joke! People like Buck Davis should just save themselves the embarrassment
and keep their opinions to themselves, but be it Buck Davis or Robert
Zimmerman, blame it on the people who give them the opportunity to air their
ill-informed opinions to the World.
Call me a sceptic or a cynic if you like, but for me the
dots just didn’t connect in the whole Zimmerman trial and unless the missing
dots are found, the Trayvon Martin murder will not change a thing, much like how
the Connecticut, New Town shooting didn’t change a thing about America’s gun
laws. Just two or less weeks of breaking news headline or a top story,
whatever you call it.
No comments:
Post a Comment