Trayvon Martin
oNY has been following the Trayvon Martin homicide case daily since the early days of it, and even as leaks occur regularly, some very basic questions remain unanswered. These are the 5 that trouble me most. Use the comment section to tell me what yours are.
What is the relationship between George Zimmerman’s father, a retired Virginia judge, and the prosecutors and law enforcement? The decision not to charge Zimmerman was made by the Seminole County State’s Attorney Norman Wolfinger, against the advice of the police. The state’s attorney — not an assistant — also appeared at the scene of the killing, an unusual move for the top prosecutor in a county. Who told him that he should come and why, on a Sunday night, did he agree to it, as The Grio has asked? Did someone tell him that the killer was the son of a retired judge? Does he know Zimmerman’s father personally? When Wolfinger announced that he was stepping down from the case last Thursday, he said he was doing it to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. What was the potential conflict of interest that made him step down?
Why was no background check conducted on Zimmerman? How did the state’s attorney decide to trust Zimmerman’s account of the killing without so much as conducting a background check on him? In the day’s immediately following the killing, Sanford Police reported that Zimmerman was “squeaky clean.” Within days, we learned that he had been arrested more than once, but the charges were dropped. Why didn’t these revelations lead the state attorney’s office to reconsider its decision?
After Wolfinger had already decided against charging Zimmerman, why did Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee say the investigation was being turned over to the state attorney’s office? Lee urged everyone to be patient while the investigation continued at the state attorney’s office, but the state attorney’s office had already made a decision. Did Wolfinger’s office plan to actually investigate anything, or was that just a ruse?
Why did the city manager say police believed Zimmerman’s story, when the lead detective actually didn’t, but was being forced to accept it by the State’s Attorney? City manager Norton Bonaparte released a statement effectively saying police believed Zimmerman’s self-defense claim and that the evidence corroborated it. That was false. a mischaracterization of the situation. Why didn’t he say what the lead detective really believed? Further, why the did the police release a new statement yesterday saying again that Zimmerman acted in self-defense.
What is the relationship between Zimmerman and the one eyewitness who allegedly corroborated his account? An eyewitness who has only been identified in media reports as John claims that he saw Zimmerman getting pounded by Trayvon Martin. A Florida Fox News affiliate interviewed the witness, but he refused to show his face on camera. It’s unclear where John was standing during the incident and whether he saw how it began, but he says that after he noticed it, he ran upstairs in his apartment to call 911 and heard a gun shot while he was running. Who is this witness on whom it appears Wolfinger hinged his belief in Zimmerman’s claim of self-defense? Is he a friend of Zimmerman’s?
About the Author
Both Wolfinger and Robert Zimmerman are strict Catholics.
Wolfinger’s only son is named Robert.
Robert Zimmerman is Robert Wolfinger’s godfather.
Your main questions are my main questions. Why is Wolfinger at the scene of a measly little homicide on a Sunday night. What is the conflict or appearance of conflict which might be found? If conflict exists, why didn’t he recuse himself on Feb 26, or when Bill Lee said they were turning the case over to his office for review (what? He’d already made the call …) He waited a long time to wnat to avoid the appearance of conflict. This stinks to bloody high water & more is going to come out for sure.
Also, I discuss “John” here: http://bit.ly/TMwitness Seems to me a fake. i may have misunderstood who police interviewed that night (if the 13 y.o. wasn’t interviewed until later), but my MAIN point in that piece is that the video Fox did purports to take place on Feb. 27, so we are supposed to believe they THEN stayed MUM on their own EXCLUSIVE interview of a key witness until March 23? That is not at all believable. The source video shown on a site posting with original posting date of Feb. 27 & an “updated” date of March 23, when everyone suddenly “rediscovers” this witness. What do you think Fox might have updated on March 23rd. Just one more on the long list of things that make you go hmmm …
Kelly, I too have been pondering similar thoughts. Currently, the media is placing the bulk of the focus on eyewitness accounts, and now the newly released police video. Something definitely stinks here. I just spent ten minutes trying to see if I could find something to link Robert Zimmerman Sr. and Norm Wolfinger, and learned that they are both Vietnam vets. Hmmm, wonder what a ‘people search’ report would tell me? I think I’l spend a few buck later to see if the two may have served together when in the military.
The second thing that baffles me is why there was no forensic evidence gathered. If Trayvon pounded Zimmerman’s head into the concrete as was suggested, surely there was blood present. I know it was raining, but a proper investigation (or even pictures!) would have revealed this. The more searching I do online, the more I realize we are not alone in our thinking.
We are not alone.