It makes him a liar. And key aspects of his story are dependent entirely upon his word.
That's super. Guess what? He's still a liar.
His story doesn't actually depend solely upon his word, and the prosecution has to do more than prove George Zimmerman is a liar, they have to prove he's a murderer.
It has nothing to do with the evidence against him, and everything to do with his credibility. As it stands right now, he has none.
How long do you plan to keep this up?
Months from now will you be saying 'George Zimmerman didn't disclose his paypal contributions at his bond hearing! He's
lying, he's
guilty!!!!'
Don't you think it might get kinda
old by then?
First of all, he didn't have just "mere minutes", unless you want to argue he immediately began giving the police a detailed account the moment they arrived.
In the police report it indicates he started talking to police when being taken into custody about yelling for help, obviously they were taking heed of what he said and were willing to report it, however it might have played out. If he'd lied about that do you suppose it would have been used against him? My point is within minutes from the time of the shooting everything he said about it was relevant, which means he didn't have any time to be thinking things through to create a 'story.'
Secondly, it's not as if he had to give some completely fabricated story. All he had to do was tell them exactly what happened with just any details that might incriminate him left out or changed. That the witness testimony or physical evidence hasn't yet undermined his version of events doesn't mean he didn't lie.
However that witness testimony and physical evidence has wholly undermined the case made against him initially in the media, and so far has backed up crucial contentions regarding the nature of the fight. As it stands just what
possible evidence could undermine the doubt a reasonable person might have that Trayvon might have been beating up George Zimmerman as opposed to the littler guy
with a gun initiating hand-to-hand? Without evidence of the latter, how can there not be doubt?
And it should be noted that the police did want to charge him with manslaughter.
So a professional investigator who has seen more of the evidence than any of us didn't feel the case was quite so open and shut.
Then why didn't they file charges initially? Perhaps I missed something here, but last I recall Serino tried to make a case for manslaughter but (was he overruled?) didn't because of lack of evidence. Was something else revealed?
It could be he had reason too suspect Zimmerman was the liar we now know him to be.
Do you suppose GZ passing the voice-stress analyzer when asked these questions
about the death of Trayvon might have curtailed that suspicion?
Is someone on the losing end of fight always an innocent victim justified in killing the other person? That Martin was winning the fight shortly before he was killed hasn't ever really been in question. But a lot of what transpired before depends on Zimmerman's account.
There's like a minute or two, isn't there? Not much of any time from when the 911 guy told him again that police were on their way, and GZ was seemingly nervous about not knowing where TM was. It then picks up with John who's surprised that TM doesn't let up on GZ when he tells them he's going to call police. At that moment John says TM had the fight well in hand, if he was the victim of an attack and just wanted out of it, why didn't he let up?
Did he pursue and confront Martin? Who started the altercation? These are important questions for which the only answers we have come from the version of events of a proven liar.
Instead the prosecution has to provide evidence that
leaves no doubt that GZ was the one who confronted Martin, which is going to be tough to do what with the fact TM should have been long gone by the time GZ got off the phone.
You may not find that to be significant, but others do.
I think the prosecution has to actually prove its case.
He didn't just lie to the prosecution. He lied to court, and apparently his own attorney.
Yeah, you go with that. At the end of the day, Zimmerman is still a liar who attempted to perpetrate a deception in a court of law. And now we're expected to believe what he tells about the night he killed someone under murky circumstances.
I think Dershowitz made a better case on why the prosecutor should be charged in the clip I just re-linked. I don't think she's the only liar or witholder of information who ought to be expecting charges at the end of the day either.
.
