I am listening to an interview with a former federal prosecutor discussing the facts of this case. I am getting to understand why the conversation has changed from what the reports say to what is so wrong that the evidence is not proving what we know to be true.
Zimmerman was ordered by the police to not follow Martin. That's a fact that we know to be true, but the recorded evidence is that the disipatcher said "You don't need to do that".
Trayvon Martin was only reacting to an attack by Zimmerman. That's a fact we know to be true. Several witnesses say that Martin was bashing Zimmerman's head into the pavement MMA style.
Martin's father identified a recording of his son screaming for help. Another fact we know to be true. Several witnesses saw and heard Zimmerman screaming for help.
Martin's girlfriend testified that she was talking to her boyfriend and the line went dead when the headset was pushed down. A fact we know to be true, even though from silence you can't know that the reason was a headset being pushed down unless you saw it and she didn't.
It's an accepted fact that Zimmerman was uninjured, but the medical evidence is he had several injuries.
It's a fact that Martin had no injuries to his hands, but the autopsy report says he did.
It's a fact that Zimmerman shot Martin from some distance away, but the autopsy report shows the shot was fired from one inch to eighteen inches away.
It's a fact that Zimmerman had drugs in his system when the only evidence of drugs showed up in Martin's system.
The prosecutor being interviewed went through all the facts, which makes Zimmerman clearly guilty, but ignored all the evidence proving otherwise.
Early this morning, our local news anchor expressed a surpise, on the air, of what was so wrong with the police work, that they are unable to produce evidence proving what we all know to be true. It was puzzling at the time, not any more. The problem is with the evidence! The evidence itself has to be wrong. It isn't proving what we accept are unarguable facts.