During the time the jury was deliberating, and in anticipation of a possible guilty verdict, I had written a post outlining what was structurally wrong with the basis of the “optics” in the defense case. It contained, essentially, two possible issues to think about:
Then, as I was going to delete the post, it occurred to me that even in victory it actually still applies.
Why?
Well the structure of what I had written was about the aspects never presented to the jury. What I realized in reading it yesterday, was it still applies – only this time with modifications to explain why the viewing public had such a negative outcome to the verdict.
In essence, the same reason(s) the jury could have found George guilty, is the very same reason(s) the public is unable to accept his acquittal.
FIRST: Mark O’Mara spent 4 minutes of silence to prove what exactly?
Sure, the implication was that Trayvon should have made it home; But he never actually said that directly, instead he just implied it was a possibility. Which “implies” Trayvon could have hidden around laying in wait for the “creepy ass cracka” to show up. But again he never actually presented the basis for Trayvon provoking the encounter. (more…)





Driving back from Miami-Dade today, and recognizing the defense had run out the clock on Sybrina Fulton’s opportunity to testify, this question crossed my mind: Should the defense ask her any questions ?