Child abuse?! Child abuse. That was the absolutely lunatic argument of the prosecution in the Zimmerman case in arguing for third degree murder as a lesser, included offense. In Florida, that crime is essentially murder committed during the commission of a felony, and in this case, the prosecution argued that the felony is–child abuse. Trayvon Martin, after all, was 17 when he died. There is, of course, no evidence to support the contention of child abuse. There was no testimony to prove it, and Zimmerman had no idea how old Martin was.
Don West’s argument, that the state planned this and sprung it on the defense today, giving them no time to research case law, is absolutely correct. West called it a “trick,” which it surely is. As usual, Judge Nelson ignored his arguments in her usual, testy manner. However, Nelson eventually denied the prosecution’s request, citing–not surprisingly–the total lack of evidence to support the offense.
Some might be tempted to point to this as evidence that Nelson is even-handed, but this is yet another example of her agreeing with the defense only because there is no possible way to explain or justify a contrary ruling.
Nelson eventually settled on second-degree murder with a lesser, included offense of manslaughter, not that there is actually evidence to support either of those charges.
I originally intended to present both closing arguments and the prosecution rebuttal as a single post, but it quickly became obvious that it would be necessary to either summarize di la Rionda’s bizarre closing, or provide it in all it’s deranged glory. I opted for the latter. Merely saying that it was the most disjointed, disorganized, and nonsensical closing I’d ever seen or heard of just wouldn’t do it justice. So I present it, nearly in its entirety in chronological order to better provide the disconnected, confused nature of the entire exposition.
I have not presented everything BDLR said, but anything I left out is merely a continuation of what is presented here, as he repeated the same things over and over and over again. As usual, Andrew Branca at Legal Insurrection provides video for the strong of mind and stomach, and he took the approach I decided to eschew in summarizing the events. May I suggest that if you take the time to read these pages, you’ll have a very complete view of the issues, and the central truth of this case: the prosecution has no case and never did (though that may not stop George Zimmerman from being convicted).
In many respects, BDLR’s “what if?” Powerpoint slide sums up his closing.
The closing was full of supposition, innuendo and rhetorical questions, but devoid of substance, and most importantly, evidence.
Bernie de la Rionda presented the closing argument for the state. It was everything I have come to expect of the prosecution in this case, and less. It stuck entirely to The Narrative, including repeatedly barked swearing under the guise of repeating George Zimmerman’s expressions of frustration at dangerous criminals while speaking with a police dispatcher. There were many mentions of Skittles, hoodies, and characterizations of Trayvon Martin as a virtual 17 year-old infant. The “less” part was the virtual absence of any evidence to fulfill the elements of either offense, or to in any way disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense claim.
None of this will be a surprise to anyone that has been following this series of articles. The prosecution wasn’t able to fulfill the elements of the offense in their initial charging affidavit, nor could they disprove Zimmerman’s self-defense claim. They still can’t. Rather than presenting evidence, BDLR mocked and belittled it. One thing is certain: any competent prosecutor watching BDLR’s B-movie performance–and that’s what it was–would have been left shaking their head in amazement, disgust and embarrassment. If de la Rionda is the face of the law in Florida, as Mr. Bumble said in Dicken’s Oliver Twist, “the law is an ass–an idiot”
This slide used by BDLR well illustrates the overall theme and tenor of his closing:
“What if?” The closing was all about supposition, innuendo, misrepresentation, unsupported accusations of lying, hysterical arm waving, nervous pacing and constant barking at the jury. Notice that the slide is not only ungrammatical, it actually seeks to apologize because BDLR has no evidence to prove his case.
Notice too this slide where BDLR is apologizing for the quality of his witnesses. He frequently did that regarding Rachel Jeantel. Notice also his suggestion that the defendant (that’s the hard to read word in red) gets to choose the witnesses. That’s nonsense on stilts. BDLR is actually accusing George Zimmerman of choosing the particularly effective witnesses that demolished the prosecution case. The missing bottom panel read “Victim didn’t get to choose anything. Or anyone.”
Let’s consider that. Martin chose his actions, and chose to attack Zimmerman. He could easily have been indoors, out of sight and never identified, but he chose otherwise. All of the evidence supports this. None of the evidence supports BDLR.
BDLR began with this, ominously intoned:
A teenager is dead. He is dead through no fault of his own. He is dead because another made assumptions…
BDLR suggested, of course, that it was Zimmerman’s assumptions that were wrong. Playing on the sympathies of the jury, he said of Martin:
A barely 17 year-old man; I think he was three weeks past his birthday.
BDLR began yelling almost immediately, oddly, whenever he spoke Zimmerman’s name, as in “and there sits the defendant GEORGE ZIMMERMAN!” This oddly positioned yelling was a pattern he continued, usually dramatically raising the pitch and volume of his voice at the ends of sentences, often for no apparent reason–there was nothing to emphasize, as in “and then he went to THE BATHROOM!”
For a man who spent a great deal of time attacking the Sanford police, and who negated their investigation, BDLR began by praising them as heroic for giving Martin CPR, but only to blame Zimmerman for not doing that. Of course, Zimmerman had greater concerns at the moment, and the police arrived seconds after the shot, small matters BDLR overlooked.
A sub theme BDLR pursued was to repeatedly say that Martin was a law-abiding innocent minding his own business. Dredging up all the sarcasm of which he was apparently capable, BDLR said of Martin:
He was wearing a hoodie. Last I heard that’s not against the law.
I don’t recall anyone ever suggesting that it was, and I’m certain no such testimony was heard during the trial.
BDLR noted–repeatedly, that Neighborhood Watch is a good thing, and that it’s good for citizens to get involved, but Zimmerman “went over the line.” He exclaimed: “he [Zimmerman] tracks the guy [Martin] down.” There is no such evidence. And then BDLR displayed a photo of Martin, dead, on the autopsy table, sadly telling the jury “that’s the last photograph we have of Trayvon Martin.” That photo would be mentioned again, to bizarre and misleading effect.
Keeping The Narrative firmly in mind, BDLR claimed over and over again that Zimmerman “profiled [Martin] as a criminal.” And as expected, BDLR invoked “fucking punks,” and “assholes,” over and over, and never quietly or calmly. In fact, he said them so often, sometimes asking the jury to forgive him, sometimes not, that the words lost any power to shock and instead came to be nothing more than BDLR swearing like a sailor for no particular reason and to no useful effect. He initially said them to claim that Zimmerman’s muttering those words under his breath was actually proof positive of ill will and hatred. This was as close as he would get to trying to prove that element of second-degree murder.
Despite getting leave to introduce evidence of Martin’s marijuana use, O’Mara elected not to use that evidence. If he had, it might have hampered BDLR’s theme that Martin was not breaking the law. Of course, BDLR knew that he was breaking the law, but he wasn’t about to let that inconvenient truth interfere with his rambling, disjointed pseudo-theory.
BDLR promised to speak about irony, but immediately launched into a claim that he wanted to put on all of the evidence, adding “fucking punks” and “assholes” yet again moments later. This is indeed ironic because it was the prosecution that carefully avoided eliciting much of the information most of its witnesses had, leaving that task to the defense.
BDLR also claimed that Zimmerman was a master liar, concocting lie after lie, and argued that Zimmerman’s inability to rapidly provide a street address to the dispatcher was obviously a lie. He grabbed the iconic photo of Zimmerman, his nose broken and bloodied, and again dramatically slapped his hand over the mouth, yelling sarcastically that there was blood on Zinmerman’s head but not on Martin’s hands.
As Dr. DiMaio–a man BDLR would repeatedly mock–testified, when one dies, blood no longer flows, and what blood might have been on Martin’s hand–no one ever testified to seeing blood on his hands–could easily have been washed off–BDLR finally admitted it was raining that night–or wiped off. There was blood on Zimmerman’s head because he was continuously bleeding, replenishing any blood washed away by the rain, and he was quickly put inside a closed police car as well. Could BDLR truly be so dense as to be unaware of these facts?
BDLR also raised the idea–repeatedly–that because Zimmerman had two general law enforcement survey classes, he “studied the law,” and could concoct lies based on an intimate knowledge of the statutes. This is a gross misrepresentation of the evidence. Neither of the teachers of those classes could testify that they taught any specific material to the class, that Zimmerman was present, that he was tested, or indeed, knew anything about those sections of Florida law.
BDLR suggested that the jury, to deliver a “just” verdict, a verdict that “speaks the truth” (whatever that means), must:
(1) Rely on witnesses and the evidence;
(2) Rely on the law (a matter about which BDLR said almost nothing)
(3) Most importantly, rely on common sense, which to BDLR is his assumptions and innuendo about what might have happened, not the evidence or the law.
BDLR spent quite a bit of time on several occasions discoursing on Rachel Jeantel, actually minimizing her intelligence and trying to convince the jury to believe her because she wasn’t very smart and was an awful witness, but she was “speaking the truth.” Of course, he produced no evidence of that “truth,” spoken by Jeantel or otherwise.
That’s when the first blatant race card was played. BDLR actually told the jury not to disregard her testimony just because her family is from Haiti. I know I’m getting older, but I can’t recall anyone, anywhere, suggesting her family origin had any bearing whatsoever on her credibility, nor can I imagine any juror thinking “well, her family is from Haiti, so she must be a liar!” Jenatel’s horrific behavior, her admitted perjury, and her lies and prevarications on the stand are more than sufficient grounds to accord her no credibility.
In one of several utterly dumbfounding moments, BDLR intoned this linguistic and logical gem:
Nobody knows if Rachel Jeantel is telling the truth but her.
And then BDLR did a paraphrase that has to be nominated for the most awkward invocation of a race card in modern history. Yes, he ripped off Martin Luther King’s genuinely stirring “I Have A Dream” speech. The BDLR version was somewhat less moving when he urged the jury not to judge Jeantel’s testimony on her “colorful personality,” but instead on the “content of her testimony.” And yes, he actually started with “I have a dream…” I cringed in amazement and embarrassment.
Another gross misrepresentation of the evidence occurred with BDLR said:
There’s a dispute about whether the operator told him [Zimmerman] not to follow or not. You decide.
There is no dispute about that at all, but the prosecution has continually tried to suggest that Zimmerman was told not to leave his vehicle. That never happened.
Again, BDLR uttered the scare swear words, and again suggested that Zimmerman’s use of them was indicative not only of evil intent, but premeditation (?!). And again, BDLR hammered on Zimmerman’s inability to remember street names and house numbers, referring to Lauer’s home.
Readers may remember that it was Lauer who kept saying, over and over, as BDLR tried to ignore her, that her house number was only visible from certain angles because of a tree blocking the view, a tree that would have blocked Zimmerman’s view, particularly in the dark and rain.
As to memory issues, people tend to remember only what they need to know. For example, there is a cross street only about 40 yards from where I sit, and I’ve lived here for 11 years, but I can’t recall the name of that street to save my life. Think of the house numbers of a home five down from yours. Any luck? BDLR is also ignoring the facts in evidence that clearly indicate that Zimmerman was trying to give the police a precise address. BDLR kept harping and harping on this, suggesting it was not just a minor memory lapse, but absolute evidence of scheming, deception and ultimate evil.
That’s when BDLR began to misrepresent the testimony of witnesses, when he wasn’t mocking them, that is. He began with Lauer, but spoke very briefly, and almost exclusively, about her husband who had no role in the case. He didn’t address any substantive issues relating to her or her testimony.
With Surdyka, he noted only that she thought the bigger man was on top, and that she thought the voice she heard came from a child rather than an older person. He totally ignored her ridiculously mistaken testimony and the evidence the defense exposed on cross-examination.
He abruptly interjected that Zimmerman had “18 months of MMA fighting.” He did mention Adam Pollock, but made fun of him, and claimed that what happened between Zimmerman and Martin was a fight, another false claim he would repeat over and over.
Regarding John Good, BDLR poo-poohed his testimony, saying that Good couldn’t see Zimmerman’s hands. He actually suggested that meant that Zimmerman must have had his gun in his hands earlier than anyone knew and therefore, Martin wasn’t attacking Zimmerman, but merely protecting himself from a gun-waving Zimmerman who somehow allowed Martin to pound him for some 40 seconds before shooting. It would be hard to imagine a more deceptive and blatant misrepresentation of the testimony in this case than that, but BDLR was just getting warmed up.
He actually noted that there was no DNA on Zimmerman’s gun, suggesting that proved Zimmerman was lying. This means nothing more than there was no DNA on the gun. In this case, it proves nothing at all, and that too was presented as evidence in the trial, making this yet another gross mischaracterization of evidence.
Farce reared its head when BDLR confused Jeantel with Selene Bahadoor, saying that Jeantel saw “left to right” movement (well, she heard grass, so why not see movement over a cell phone too?), but that was the only time he mentioned that extremely weak bit of testimony.
BDLR claimed that Mrs. Manolos thought that the bigger person was on top, did not mention the she based that assumption on photos of a 12 year-old Martin, and again claimed that the confrontation was a fight. Amazingly, he claimed that both Martin and Zimmerman were on top at various times during the fight, another totally unsupported fantasy.
BDLR then quickly flipped through a number of photos of the crime scene at night and the following morning. It was apparently his decision to display the thoroughly drenched landscape with raindrops on the camera lens that ultimately caused him to admit that it really was raining. He did, twice, display a photo of the back of Zimmerman’s jacket taken at the Sanford PD much later after Zimmerman was taken there. The jacket seemed relatively clean, and BDLR claimed that meant that Zimmerman’s claim to have been on his back in the wet grass must be a lie. The lie is BDLR’s ignoring of police reports about the back of Zimmerman’s jacket being wet and covered with grass. He even tried to suggest, in an incomplete and vague fashion, that there was something suspicious in the way Zimmerman was carrying a flashlight.
This led him to demand “where is the blood?” So naturally he launched into a strange exposition about one drawstring on Martin’s mythic hoodie being much longer than the other. He appeared to be suggesting that this was somehow Zimmerman’s fault and it somehow indicated something bad, but he failed to make sense.
Another repeated theme was that Zimmerman was somehow lying because he used “police jargon.” The proof? Zimmerman used the word “suspect,” just like most human beings who have ever seen “Law and Order,” “CSI,” and every other TV cop show ever made.
In another strange sidebar, BDLR poo-poohed Dr. DiMaio, making fun of the suggestion that the brain has a minimum 10-15 second oxygen reserve, allowing movement and thought even if the heart is destroyed. He actually gestured and said words to the effect of “if you take out a heart, and then run around for 10 or 15 seconds…” He ended that deceptive and strange comment by telling the jury “I don’t know; you decide.” Decide what? An incontrovertible medical fact presented by the foremost authority in that field?
BDLR again misrepresented evidence and its meaning when he noted that fingernail scrapings of Martin yielded no evidence, and there was also no blood found on the gun, etc. As with the DNA evidence, this means absolutely nothing, just as Dr. DiMaio testified.
Then BDLR rhetorically asked how Zimmerman could be screaming if Martin was covering his mouth. He then all but screamed “or is he lying about that?!” BDLR knows that Zimmerman testified that Martin only momentarily smothered him just before the gunshot. For the previous 35 or so seconds, Zimmerman had no impediment to screaming as Martin pummeled him.
Do you see the pattern, gentle readers? BDLR so often lied about the evidence and Zimmerman that one might be tempted to think the truth a lie on the rare occasions when BDLR uttered it, merely because it is so different from what he normally says.
BDLR showed a photo of Martin’s left hand, again poo-poohing DiMaio’s explanation of how blood might be washed or rubbed off–assuming there was any in the first place–and claimed Zimmerman started the “fight,” despite there being exactly no evidence presented in the trial to support that blatant lie.
He turned to the jury, and in a righteous tone of voice, exclaimed:
He wants you to let him off because he killed the only eyewitness!
Actually, he hopes for an acquittal because he acted in self-defense under Florida law. On a roll, BDLR exclaimed that Martin–not Zimmerman–had a right to self-defense.
BDLR played an excerpt from Zimmerman’s interview with Officer Singleton, again mock-incredulously whining about Zimmerman’s memory lapse with addresses. He brought up Martin’s circling of Zimmerman’s car and claimed that Zimmerman was lying and that he was not afraid, demanding to know that if Zimmerman were afraid, why would he get out of the car?
Use of Force expert Root explained that quite well, noting that at the time Zimmerman left the car, Martin had run away and was already out of sight. There was no danger, so Zimmerman obviously felt safe trying to keep him in sight. In any case, BDLR adopted the manner, actions and voice of a snotty, balding little girl with a mustache, and lisped “circling the car.” It was actually embarrassing, though BDLR seems to have no ability to feel shame or embarrassment.
BDLR also actually suggested that before meeting Martin, Zimmerman had his gun out of the holster, but later changed that to suggest that when Zimmerman was reaching for something when confronted by Martin, he was reaching for his gun rather than his cell phone.
This was too much for O’Mara who objected, but Nelson essentially overruled the objection without overruling it, saying that she’d give the jury the law later.
BDLR then displayed Zimmerman’s gun in its holster, the barrel locking cable that has always been present removed. He did so to claim that because the holster and gun were black, Martin could not possibly have seen them, adding “or is that just another lie he tells?” Again (still?) there is no evidence whatever to support that contention.
BDLR then asked why Zimmerman holstered his gun after shooting Martin if he was so scared? Actual testimony answered that question. He didn’t know if Martin was hit–in fact he thought he missed–and holstered it to try to control Martin’s arms, and asked Manolo to help him do that.
It was then that Skittles made another appearance. BDLR kept mentioning that part of The Narrative, in the usual attempt to turn Martin into a helpless, innocent child, as though anyone carrying Skittles could not possibly do wrong. Bizarrely, he added:
Skittles that he didn’t even steal from the 7-11, that he legitimately bought!
I don’t recall any accusation during trial that Martin stole Skittles. Of course, BDLR added that the innocent Skittles-carrying Martin was also wearing: a hoodie. Could there be a more obvious indication of innocence and virtue? C’mon! Skittles and a hoodie? Come to think of it, I don’t recall any Florida statute establishing any sort of presumption for Skittles-carrying or hoodie-wearing.
Ignoring the evidence yet again, BDLR poo-poohed the idea that Martin could have possibly overpowered Zimmerman, the man whose martial arts skills were established in evidence to be from .05 to 1.5 on a ten point scale after months of training. Amazingly, BDLR then claimed that Martin was afraid of Zimmerman because Zimmerman was following him. This is nothing more than unfounded speculation. There is not a shred of evidence to support this idea.
By now, nearly 90 minutes into the nearly two hour disjointed rant, BDLR apparently realized that he initially called Martin a 17 year-old man, and began–over and over and over–to refer to him exclusively as a “17 year-old boy,” very nearly characterizing him as a 17 year-old fetus by the time he was finally, blessedly, finished.
BDLR wasn’t through with Dr. DiMaio, mocking the idea that Zimmerman’s displaced nose fracture could possibly be put back into place by the fire/rescue personnel attending him. DiMaio, of course, knows what he is talking about. I’ve seen just that done on many occasions, not only by EMTs, but by emergency room doctors.
BDLR then displayed a photo of the tops of Zimmerman’s shoes, again taken at the Sanford Police station. His point? They were by then mostly dry and had what appeared to be a little grass on their tops. This, to BDLR meant that Zimmerman must have been lying about being on his back on the wet grass, otherwise, how could a little grass possibly have come to be on the tops of his shoes? I suspect that anyone that has ever spent any time walking in grass can explain that one to BDLR.
BDLR also displayed a photo of Zimmerman’s hands, clean after being washed at the Sanford PD, and demanded to know why they didn’t show injuries? This too was explained by Root, who noted that Zimmerman was stunned, and under constant attack wasn’t able to land a single blow. Anyone who has been on the receiving end of a brutal attack, or who has watched a prize fight, can illuminate BDLR, I suspect.
This lead to a repetition of some of BDLR’s favorite themes, including Zimmerman’s never-proved “legal training” that allowed him to construct elaborate, interlocking lies, and yet again screaming “fucking punks” and “assholes.” He ended this pathetic display by mocking Zimmerman, again in sarcastic little girl fashion, lisping: “I’m learning to be a police officer one day.”
I suspect that by this time, the jury was seeing BDLR as cruel and juvenile, or at the very least, beginning to do so.
BDLR then began to play excerpts of Zimmerman’s video reenactment, occasionally stopping, or not, to mutter nasty little asides in the manner of strange uncle Charley flipping through a slide show while observing “and this one is when your Aunt Edna got bit on the ass by a bear!” For much of this section of his speech, his back was turned to the jury as he watched and apparently enjoyed the magic of his commentary.
He again accused Zimmerman of lying for not knowing the street and address, even as the video–shot in daylight–showed Zimmerman walking by Lauer’s home and the tree that was, as Lauer so vainly tried to tell BDLR, blocking the view of her house number. BDLR claimed that in this, Zimmerman was able to fool the Sanford Police. Actually, they were merely convinced, as Officer Serino testified, that Zimmerman was telling the truth and any possible inconsistencies were within normal investigative parameters.
BDLR compounded his misrepresentation by suggesting that the fact that Zimmerman was able to name the street during the reenactment and not on the night of the shooting was absolute evidence of a lie. Well, no…actually it was absolute evidence of Zimmerman’s having time to learn that information by observing the street signs and addresses in the daylight before–or while–taking the police there.
BDLR bizarrely claimed that the proof Zimmerman was lying was “because he was following this innocent–young–boy.” He dramatically paused where indicated by the dashes.
BDLR then made another inexplicable assertion. See if you can figure it out (he’s directly addressing the jury):
You saw the photograph taken by Mr. Manolo. He’s lying about that!
BDLR then brought up the cryptic former testimony about video from a clubhouse security camera. He said he had video but wouldn’t show it to the jury because it was nothing but “impressions” or “shadows,” but he assured them “you can see a car.” He tried to associate this with Jeantel’s testimony in some way, saying something about Martin and mailboxes, but ultimately made no sense at all. Nothing he said or even alluded to was in evidence, and he had no evidence to present. O’Mara said nothing about this, but I suspect that like me, he was wondering what BDLR was thinking, or perhaps, merely doing nothing to keep his opponent from destroying himself.
BDLR then made what is the most bizarre and deceptive statement of his closing, trying to suggest that Zimmerman was once a martial arts powerhouse:
George Zimmerman was pretty fit then. Compare how Trayvon looked in the M. E. photograph.
BDLR was, of course, referring to the photo he showed the jury of Martin’s face, dead on the medical examiner’s autopsy table. I suspect just about anyone might look pretty fit by comparison with that photo, or a photo of any corpse.
BDLR then played portions of the Hannity interview, particularly focusing on Zimmerman’s inartful use of “skipping” in describing Martin’s manner of fleeing. Zimmerman obviously was trying to say that Martin wasn’t in a full sprint, but was traveling at a faster than walking pace. BDLR, again adopting the mocking manner of a little girl, put his back to the jury, and actually skipped about 20 feet, lisping “he’s skipping away, la, la la!” As distasteful as I’ve come to find BDLR to be, I was actually embarrassed for him, and for everyone in the legal profession in Florida.
You knew this was coming, didn’t you? Yes, BDLR got out the doll, mounted it on the floor, and kept yelling “armpits, armpits!” He was trying to suggest that Zimmerman could not have removed his gun from its holster, and actually shouted “how does he get the gun out?!” He ended this bizarre spectacle by exclaiming:
The truth did not lie!
He was again misrepresenting evidence. Zimmerman did not testify that Martin was always in that position, quite the opposite, and the fact that he was able to draw the gun–and the forensic evidence fully supports his account—speaks clearly to the issue.
He again mentioned no DNA on the gun, sarcastically quipping: “I guess that got washed away too,” which is precisely what testimony established very well might have happened.
He began flipping through Powerpoint slides, including one that purported to show that all of the evidence agreed with him–it didn’t. In fact, he showed no actual proof for any of his vague and confusing assertions.
He said that he was about to address the elements of the crime, but didn’t, instead returning yet again to “fucking punks” and “assholes,” which he apparently considered self-evident proof of something or other. He very quickly read the elements of second degree murder, but offered nothing to prove them, just the repeated and feverish accusation that Zimmerman is lying. In fact, many of the slides had no apparent relation to the case, and many were confusing.
Here’s a slide he thought very telling and revealing of the truth:
He quipped that the only evidence George Zimmerman has of self-defense is George Zimmerman, which is yet another egregious misrepresentation of the evidence, which inspired him to again observe that there was no DNA, no fingerprints (there was one partial) or blood on Zimmerman’s gun. He didn’t bother to explain what that might prove, again apparently thinking it self-evident.
His final few sentences were said in a subdued, almost exhausted voice, and he ended by observing that “they can’t take any more photos of Trayvon Martin,” and it’s all Zimmerman’s fault.
At least he was consistent. Just as the prosecution was not able to produce any evidence to prove the elements of the crime in the charging affidavit, they were not able to do so in the closing. Just as the prosecution was not able to produce any evidence to contradict Zimmerman’s self-defense claim at the beginning of the case, they were not able to do so in the closing.
At best, BDLR was able to pole a few tiny holes in the defense case–which actually turned out to be his case–and this only by means of implication, and unsupportable suggestions of what might have happened, by “what if?”. Never have I seen or heard of a prosecutor who relied almost entirely on misrepresentations of evidence and outright lies to try to make a non-existent case. That sort of thing just doesn’t happen because prosecutors normally don’t file cases when they can’t fulfill the elements of the charge in the initial affidavit. BDLR succeeded in establishing at least a little reasonable doubt–about the prosecution’s case.
The prosecution theory of this case remains The Narrative, which is nothing more than leftist, racist philosophy about how things ought to be in their utopia rather than a coherent code of law or social conventions. Trayvon Martin is innocent, childlike, helpless, and a victim because he’s black and was wearing a Hoodie and carrying Skittles, and that is all that should be necessary to convict a “white-Hispanic” of murder because racial grievance mongers anticipating an enormous payday say so.
Thus far, it has worked, but if the jury has any of the common sense to which BDLR appealed, and if they actually consider the evidence and the law, and if they realize that BDLR presented them exactly nothing in closing, George Zimmerman will be acquitted. Unfortunately, for the black grievance industry and professional progressives, that will be far from the end of this sorry saga.
I’ll post an article on the defense closing and the prosecution rebuttal on Friday evening. Thanks for staying with me thought these lengthy proceedings.