|
From CTH.......
John McLachlan says:
March 11, 2013 at 3:42 am
Although they did not do so at first, the Martin family and prosecution now claim that the prolonged screams and pleas, heard during witness phone calls to the police, during the fatal confrontation, which preceded the gun-shot which killed him, were those of Trayvon Martin.
If true, then this would surely have several implications:
The prolonged screams would imply that the defendant conducted a prolonged and violent assault upon Trayvon Martin, before shooting him.
This would indisputably mean that the defendant was of a depraved mind.
It would also imply that the defendant was prepared to physically assault someone, whilst risking being disarmed by his victim and be killed, himself, while conducting his assault.
How many armed men commit murder using a gun, after first subjecting their victim to a prolonged physical assault?
Is this a common occurrence, a rare occurrence, or nearly unprecedented?
Would someone intent upon murder, who was carrying a gun, not be more likely to shoot their victim from a safe distance and avoid unnecessary risk to himself?
How many men commit murder, after summoning the police to the crime-scene?
Surely such a prolonged physical assault should have left Trayvon Martin with some visible injuries, yet the only injuries recorded upon Trayvon Martin’s body were scraped fingers and the fatal gun-shot wound.
The absence of physical injuries upon his body, other than the fatal gun-shot wound, is thoroughly inconsistent with the prosecution’s necessary claim that Trayvon Martin was subjected to a prolonged assault, as heard in the witness’ phone calls to the police.
It was only the defendant who sustained injuries which were consistent with being the victim of a severe physical assault and therefore much more likely that the screams and pleas heard during the witness’ phone calls, were those of the defendant.
This would imply that the depraved mind was that of Trayvon Martin.
The affidavit for probable cause for arrest of the defendant was substantially dependent upon the testimony of an alleged ear-witness who is now revealed to be a proven perjurer and whose testimony includes both proven error of fact and unsustained speculation.
Initially, this alleged witness was claimed to be 16 years old, but now is claimed to have been 18 years old at the time of the shooting.
A private attorney, now attached to the prosecution as co-council, is also proven to have committed perjury and may soon be proven to have engaged in either soliciting or altering the testimony of this alleged witness.
The errors of fact included within the testimony of the prosecution’s principal alleged witness reflect precisely the same errors of fact which were incorrectly described upon police reports released to the Martin family and their private attorney, who is now co-council for the prosecution, before their belated discovery of the alleged witness.
The Martin family and their private attorney have significant vested financial interest in the arrest of the defendant.
The state has concealed the identity of its principal witness, whose authenticity as an actual witness has never been confirmed and may even be refuted by forensic evidence, hitherto withheld without any legal justification.
The state has admitted that it has no evidence which contradicts the defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defence.
Neither has the state provided any evidence that any of the defendant’s known actions, prior to the fatal confrontation, were in any way unlawful.
The prosecution had insufficient confidence in its incriminatory evidence that it bypassed the Grand Jury, before preparing the probable cause for the arrest of the defendant.
The prosecution has refused to release discovery to the defence, which it is legally obliged to do, under Florida law.
The presiding judge has consistently refused to order the prosecution to release discovery to the defence, to the detriment of the defendant and in violation of his constitutional rights.
What threshold of accumulated evidence is required to justify the opening of an enquiry into possible malicious prosecution by the state?
Can such an enquiry be initiated, while the same possible malicious prosecution is in progress?
Who has the authority to authorize such an enquiry?
The corrective measures which protect citizens from malicious or over-zealous prosecution, must exist.
In this case, they do not seem to have been implemented and rather may be actively suppressed.
_________________  Do not go gentle into that good night.___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light
|
Login
FAQ
