On Friday the prosecution in the George Zimmerman trial
wrapped up its case, such as it is. One witness was state medical examiner Dr.
Shiping Bao. His testimony was yet
another example of a witness trying to be overly “helpful” to the prosecution,
and in the process exposing extreme bias rather than objectivity. He seemed at
times excitable, as if he was playing for the camera and wary of how he
appeared and sounded. Under cross
examination, he was testy and self-conscious. Bao’s demeanor seemed to be as
much about convincing himself of his credibility as with the jurors. Surprisingly
for an “expert” in his field, he repeatedly referred to notes while under cross;
when asked by Zimmerman attorney Don West why he kept looking at his notes, Bao
claimed that he had written potential “answers” to “potential” questions.
Bao refused to allow the defense to see his notes, but was
told by the judge that he had to supply them as requested. When West started
laughing while reading the notes, an indignant Bao demanded to know what was so
“amusing.” The notes revealed that Bao had changed his mind from one conclusion
to another on several key topics. He explained this by claiming that he spent
“hours and hours” on “new research” in preparing for the trial. This suggests
that he is either incompetent, or felt that his initial findings did not help
his “employer”—the prosecution—enough, so had to find ways to justify different
conclusions.
Bao’s main contentions was that it was “possible” that Martin was under the influence
of marijuana, that he may have been alive up to ten minutes after the shooting—intended
to plant the idea that Martin was suffering in agony for up to that length of
time—and he had been shot from an “intermediate” range. But Bao gave one the impression of an excessively self-conscious man trying to convince
himself that his new opinions were right, trying to be “helpful” for a case going
badly for his employer. He was even forced to concede that he couldn’t be
bothered to oversee the collection of the physical evidence which he used to
change his ideas from one theory to another; he “trusted” his assistants to follow
correct—let alone ethical—procedure. Thus Bao could be as easily disbelieved as
believed, depending one’s level of mind suspension.
The key testimony of the day, of course, was that of Martin’s
mother and brother. Both were not unexpectedly unequivocal in their opinion
that it was Trayvon Martin heard screaming for “help” on the 911 call, despite
the fact that the state’s expert audio witness had already cautioned the jury that
their assertions were inherently biased, particularly given the lack of
fidelity of the sound. Martin’s father, of course, was not called to the stand
due to his initial opinion that the voice was not his son’s. Many comments I read on the Internet questioned the
ethics of allowing Sybrina Fulton to testify, other than as an effort to elicit
an emotional rather than an intellectual response from the jury. Fulton—who has
never deviated from her belief that Zimmerman is a cold-blooded racist
murderer, had already telegraphed her
intention to say whatever was necessary by posting on Twitter the following comment: “I pray that God gives
me the strength to properly represent my Angel Trayvon.” During a brief
cross-examination, when asked if she could accept it if the evidence did point
to her son as having at least some responsibility in the events that night, Fulton
simply clung to the theory that Martin had done “nothing.”
As I pointed out a few days ago, the cynic in me believed that
Fulton was not going to tell the truth no matter what. Her mind is completely
closed to testimony from an eyewitness who was practically only feet away who
saw Martin “pounding” on Zimmerman, with the latter calling for “help.” But more
telling was her referring to her son a “my Angel Trayvon.” Was “angel” the term she used when she kicked him out of her
house after his third suspension from school? Was that “weed” in a pot being
grown in her own home? Was she aware that her “angel” considered himself a “gangsta”
while his own friends thought of him a “hoodlum”? Was she aware of “rumors”
that her son had engaged in physical confrontations with people technically in
authority over him? Certainly school officials told her he was under suspicion of
breaking into students’ lockers and stealing jewelry and other items? Did she
know he was selling drugs to other “children”? Did she consider what her son’s
state of mind might have been after she kicked him out her house to move into
the home of his father’s girlfriend—which happened to be in Zimmerman’s
neighborhood? Did she consider the fact that neither one knew the other or what
their purposes were?
The sad reality is that Fulton was fully aware of Martin’s
personality and predilections, but like many a parent who could not accept the
fact of her failures and subsequent effort to make her “problem” someone else’s,
she is frozen in her own secret hell of denial. To go further, as a black mother, Fulton was programmed to
believe that at least some of the blame for her son’s delinquency was societal.
Any shooting of a black individual by a white (or Latino) is considered a “racial”
crime. There is no context here, no “gray” area, such as in the case of the
worst mass slaying in the history of the city of Indianapolis. In 2006, two
black males conducted a home invasion and shot to death an entire Latino family—including
three children aged 5,8 and 11, found huddled together in a back room and shot
point-blank in the head. The race of the victims did play a part in the
motivation for the act, but it is not something spoken of, because it veers off
the accepted narrative.
Another reality is that interracial homicides are the
exception, not the rule. According to FBI statistics, 6470 of 12,996 murder
victims in 2010 were black. Yet according to Justice Department statistics, 94
percent of all homicides involving blacks have both a black victim and
perpetrator; white-on-white homicides stand at 86 percent. According to FBI
crime statistics for 2010, black male murder victim and perpetrator rates were by
far the highest for any group per 100,000; black males were 8 times more likely
to be victims and perpetrators than white males. We can bat around the meaning
of these statistics forever. But does it not seem that intraracial homicide is
much more “accepted” as a part of life in many black communities—but when it is
“interracial” it elicits an entirely different response? You tell me. One other note of interest: While the cities of New York, Chicago and Detroit receive a lot of attention for their murder rates, according to the FBI nearly half--44 percent--of all murders committed in the U.S. occur in the South region.
The final day for the prosecution to make a case for
second-degree murder against George Zimmerman should have been expected to be
an effort to nail the prosecution’s case tight. Instead, the day predictably
left the prosecution with the only available card it can play: Call Zimmerman a
“liar” as loud and as often as it can. What else can it do when most of its own
witnesses either supported Zimmerman’s story, or were deliberately and
painfully partisan and subjective in their “understanding” of the evidence?
No comments:
Post a Comment