Zimmerman/Martin Case News
 

More stuff released.

Apparently one witness says Zimmerman's family (not him though) were racists.

The same witness claims Zimmerman sexually abused her from age 8 (when Zimmerman was 10) thru age 16 (when Zimmerman was 18). A series of 4-5 specific events over that time.

No corroboration of that claim as yet released, and no previous record of complaint.

So, thats the news. The Jury pool grows more and more exposed.

Now Zimmerman is a child molester.

By any means necessary, eh?

And a special shout out to the victimology mindset that's fully entrenched in American society.

Well we know he's a murderer for sure.

We know he's a killer.

The courts will decide if he's a murderer.

what an interesting nick you have there. meaning?

So you've managed to determine that the accusation is false? How?

No previous claim and convenient timing?

I'm not sure that a person two years older then an alleged victim could be referred to as a child molester. Also the OP referred to the person as a witness. What were they a witness to? What relevance is that piece of information to the case being discussed?

Character witness...

But still, I hope she and her accusation are properly vetted...

Well for starters, molestation and other sexual deviancy, criminally or otherwise, is just about never a one-off situation.

And with all the scrutiny here - one chick, a friend of the family (two fuggin' years older, no less) says he's a sexual monster.

But no one else has.

Just because I can say something about you, say that you like banging doberman pinschers, shouldn't mean that the onus is on you to disprove it. Most particularly if there is zero corroborating or circumstantial evidence to support it.

And more than that, you missed the point of my post, namely that the powers that be are reaching at straws in order to disparage Zimmerman.

This is nothing.

Wait until a juror says that Zimmerman wore a hoodie once and listened to Public Enemy. Then...then it's on.

Somewhat irrelevant now. The Jury pool is (predictably) already quite tainted at this stage. The P.R. Assault against Zimmerman has been exceedingly successful.

It'll be very interesting to see how fair a trail he gets at this stage.

I think the concept of a "fair trial" in this case is now impossible. You'd have to find 12 people who have essentially been shut out from society for the past year to not have any preconceived notions about Zimmerman, good or bad.

You know, there are plenty of people who only use their TV and internet for porn, right?

And those kinds of people will be the most qualified to serve on the Zimmerman jury.

Yup.

See you in court.

:rotfl:

Interesting note - the Miami Herald reported this story with the words "when they were both children" and the same story, word for word, same reporter, in the Boston Herald, omitted that phrase.

And the claim is it wasn't a one-off thing, but lasted for years.

"No one else came forward" does not mean "did not happen".

Personally, I've got a healthy skepticism on this one absent some corroboration. But I'm not prepared to say "she's lying!" any more than I'm prepared to say "she's telling the truth". I have nowhere near enough information to know.

Sure. But if you did say something like that about me, I'd sue you for slander and you would need to prove the statement was true in order to avoid liability. Etc., etc. But I wouldn't expect anyone who didn't know me personally to be able to say definitively that you were lying . . . since they'd have no basis to do so.

So . . . the powers that be (who are they, btw?) somehow manipulated a family friend into lying about the guy?

Of course.

However, a lack of evidence or corroboration makes a claim potentially of little value other than tainint the potential jury pool with the bias that Zimmerman is a "sex offender" without being found guilty of such a crime.

Agreed.

Not outside the realm of possabillity. We know literally nothing of this woman (who is apparently a Cousin of Zimmerman). For all we know, she could be looking for a payday, want to write a tell-all book later, or could be an illegal alien or some other crime trading a good story for amnesty/prosecutorial discretion in her case. That last option wouldn;t even require collusion between prosecution and her, she could just be telling a tale, saying what she thinks they want to hear, to try and save herself in some way.

As you say, we don't know and lack details. Which is why I believe it's foul play to have released this to the public in such a way. At current, we have no evidence other than her claim, and alot of potential motivations for making it up or exagerating for self-gain. But many a possible juror will only read "sex abuse" and could bring that into the trial with them.