Yes, I know that’s a bit over the top, and I’m deliberately phrasing it as a question because I’m not categorically stating that’s what they’re doing over the possible result of George Zimmerman’s trial. But it sure seems that way. Having said that, let’s all note that this is the first BBC mention of the trial since just before it actually started. They’ve been absolutely silent about the trial the entire time it’s been going on, and it’s not difficult to suspect their silence has something to do with the fact that most of the testimony – from both sides – has discredited the case for the prosecution. BBC reporting on the incident before the trial has been dishonest, misleading, and has censored key facts in order to lead their audience to the approved thought: Zimmerman killed an innocent boy from a distance, in cold blood, due to racism and racial profiling, and Trayvon Martin was murdered simply for what we call “Walking While Black”. Let’s also remember that the BBC tried to stoke racial tensions with their World Have Your Say segment in which they encouraged discussion about how the US is essentially run by white supremacists, with a legal system driven by white supremacists. They did everything in their power to suggest to the audience that Zimmerman remained free initially due to a racist State, again misleading the audience to the desired thought. After five-plus years of Beeboids in the US finding racists under the bed and telling you that opposition to the President has racist underpinnings, the Narrative is all but assured.
Now that it’s pretty much over, bar the closing statements, and a verdict is coming soon, the BBC can resume normal operations. Notice that they continue to use the “undated family photo” of a smiling, angelic, pubescent Martin, instead of the more updated photos Martin himself posted on Facebook. This is a deliberate editorial choice to lead the reader in a specific direction. If they had shown the more recent photos of Martin in a hoodie, with the golden “grill”, the gun, etc., that might prejudice the reader into thinking maybe the lad was a possible troublemaker. What’s particularly galling about this editorial decision – for that’s what it is, the photo didn’t come up randomly – is that the mere fact that Martin had grown into being a bit of a troublemaker, and was all about the gangsta act, absolutely shouldn’t make anyone think he had it coming. Yet the BBC News Online geniuses decided that they didn’t want to portray Martin as anything other than in the best light possible. It’s only natural to wonder if someone with thuggish tendencies would start the fight, which is why the BBC kept all this from you. This is dishonest, and a failure of journalism. Of course, BBC journalism on this story has been a failure from start to finish.
Reminders of the BBC’s failure can be read here, here, and here. Note especially how the BBC has censored the fact of the physical altercation between Martin and Zimmerman from all reporting – except for one article. This physical altercation is the key to the entire case, as Zimmerman’s defense is that Martin was beating the crap out of him and then, when he noticed Zimmerman’s holstered gun, made a reach for it. It was then that Zimmerman grabbed his gun and shot Martin. This should be included in every single report about the case, from start to finish, because it’s the single most important element on which the jury will base their verdict. If one doesn’t know about this very close physical contact – and BBC audiences who blinked and missed the lone mention don’t know about it, as its been deliberately kept from them in nearly all reporting – then the entire case looks dramatically different from reality. Even though the BBC didn’t mention the fight once, I think they got away with it as they’ve never mentioned Zimmerman’s testimony that Martin was reaching for his (Zimmerman’s) gun, which would then make a clear case for self defense. An acquittal would seem like a sham of a travesty of a joke. Which would then mean that BBC audiences would not only be unsurprised at a resulting race riot, but would be inclined to understand and support the outrage. I think that’s the goal of BBC News producers and journalists here: to direct their audience to a specific opinion on the case.
As far as I’ve been able to determine, the BBC has never reported on Zimmerman’s history of fighting against racism, or his efforts in support of blacks. Nor have they every made mention of Martin’s checkered recent past. Can’t have those inconvenient truths interfere with the Narrative.
The way the BBC opens the report betrays their agenda:
Florida officials have appealed for calm as the trial of a neighbourhood watchman who shot dead an unarmed black teenager enters its final phase.
“Unarmed”. This is “accurate”, but at no time does the report mention the physical altercation between the two. The BBC is once again censoring the most important fact of the case, and it’s important to call them on it. This makes it all the more bizarre for the BBC to then mention further down that both Martin’s and Zimmerman’s mothers said that the screams heard on a recording were their own son’s. Why was anyone screaming? Without the key fact of the fight, this is a non sequitur. Expecting the reader to remember the one mention of the fight from two weeks ago doesn’t work. Just in case anyone might possibly start edging toward an unapproved thought, the BBC makes sure to tell you that Martin’s mother was “absolutely” certain it was Trayvon. Wasn’t Zimmerman’s mother also sure? I guess the BBC thought her opinion was not as relevant because she didn’t qualify it with such a strong word. By elevating one mother over the other, the result is that the BBC guides you once again towards the desired conclusion that Martin was completely innocent, and that Zimmerman was possibly beating the crap out of him before drawing his gun and murdering the lad in cold blood. They reinforce the notion of Zimmerman’s complete guilt by informing everyone that the prosecutor told the jury that Zimmerman killed Martin “because he wanted to”. Again, without the knowledge of the physical contact – especially about Zimmerman’s repeated testimony that Martin was reaching for his (Zimmerman’s) holstered gun – people already inclined to believe the racist Narrative – which the BBC encouraged – will draw the desired conclusion.
It’s entirely possible that the BBC journalists who put this together believe in their hearts that Zimmerman is a racist who killed an innocent boy in cold blood. But that’s no excuse to censor the most important fact of the case, or to emphasize one side’s argument over the other.
In actual fact, the only racist remarks made were by Trayvon Martin to his girlfriend moments before the incident. He referred to Zimmerman as a “creepy-ass cracker”. This was all over the news after her testimony in the trial, yet the BBC censored it, as they have everything else during the trial. So BBC audiences have no idea about reality, and know only the dishonest Narrative forced on them by BBC journalists. As it became increasingly clear that the racism angle was a non-starter in the trial, Martin’s own family made a public statement that it wasn’t about racism. Yet the BBC kept that from you, and are now wringing their hands over a potential race riot in the event of an acquittal, because, well, that’s been the Narrative from their friends and acquaintances and thought leaders in the US mainstream media, as well as their friends and acquaintances and thought leaders in the far-Left blogosphere.
Just in case anyone doubts where the BBC’s sympathies lie, just look at the one report which mentions the fight. As always, we get the angelic photo of Martin, plus a sympathetic picture of Martin’s mother wiping tears from her eyes. Of course everyone is going to feel sorry for her, feel her pain. It’s still manipulative for the BBC to juxtapose that with the angelic, smiling image instead of the more recent and relevant thug shots. The BBC has also censored the recent news that the judge blocked from the trial a load of texts from Martin about learning to fight, how he could sucker punch somebody, and getting a gun. Again, this might make Martin seem less than angelic, and possibly responsible for his own actions and starting the physical altercation. It might lead the BBC audience to suspect that this wasn’t a cold-blooded racist murder after all, so they left it out. They know about it because even the Guardian made a brief mention.
John Anderson in the open threads has been keeping us apprised of the craziness of this trial, including how even prosecution witnesses end up supporting Zimmerman’s case. A couple of examples here, here. and here. The BBC certainly doesn’t want you to know any of that, and it’s not included in this report, either. So BBC audiences will have absolutely no idea why Zimmerman might be acquitted, if that’s what happens. There’s a reason the prosecution has demanded, and the judge has in one case allowed, that the jury consider lesser charges instead of the one they brought. Their case is a disaster, and they’re desperately trying to get a conviction on something, anything. But BBC audiences don’t know about the reality, so this news of a lesser charge being introduced must seem very curious indeed.
Quite simply, you cannot trust BBC reporting on this story. And it’s because of the personal ideological biases and prejudices of BBC journalists.
Very good summary.
“Quite simply, you cannot trust BBC reporting on this story.” Yup.
The BBC do everything in their power to ensure that their warped narrative is well and truly cemented into the viewers mind. Deliberately altering stories to manipulate the public’s perception on such matters is nothing short of criminal. But then again what can we realistically expect from a broadcaster that has a fixation on tampering with news stories, past or present, to coalesce with their quintessential view of life.
” BBC’s quintessential view of life.”
Superbly well stated Beez
Quite simply, I do not trust the BBC’s reporting on any story these days. Nicely written David and I have cut and pasted what you have written and will be sending it to my local M.P.
If on their own terms the point of the BBC is to provide balanced reporting, and they come nowhere close to balanced reporting on this or most other issues, then what is the point of the BBC? If the point is to promote the views of middle class leftists, then why should everybody else have to pay for it?
The defenders of the BBC never quite seem to make their mind up whether they like the BBC because it promotes “correct” views, or because it is a neutral source of balanced reporting. If it is the former it is a subversion of democracy, and if it is the latter then it is more or less a complete failure.
Anybody seen Scott or Dez to gainsay this fine summary of a case that held out so much promise to the BBC until those nasty facts and unhelpful testimonies got in the way, during the trial?
Of course there`ll be riots if the liberal elite nave anything to do with it…as the BBC showed in Manchester, Tottenham,Croydon etc….they`ve got plenty of our money sloshing around in their well filled boots, and hoping someone will claim the Rodney King prize for justice deferred/denied.
Meanwhile whitey was expected to STFU about OJ Simpson…maybe a riot is justified there too, in the cause of “balance”.
The BBC just will not stop stirring the shit in the hope of good pictures of the flies they hope to attract.
If the Tories and good people don`t wake up to that, then they`ll deserve Pan-Arab Socialism in its pastel shades( so as not to scare von Rumpoy or Mandelson)
As I pointed out last month, the bBBC has stopped reminding us that their hero, the blessed Saint Barack, said ‘If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon’.
As soon as the thug shots came to light, that sentiment needed to be sent down the memory hole, pronto.
Well he’s hardly going to be blonde haired and blue eyed is he.
Am I right that the third degree/ first degree manslaughter for aggravated child battery has been thrown out?
Third-degree murder and child abuse have been denied by the judge, yes. The defense is obviously pissed off that they’ve clearly defeated the charge the State brought against Zimmerman, and now have to retool their closing argument to deal with the manslaughter charge. I don’t know why the prosecutor is allowed to suddenly bring in a whole knew charge out of desperation, but I guess that’s how Florida’s white supremacist legal system works. 😉
I think that maslaughter has always been on the cards – it ranks as a “lesser included charge”. What the defence will be concerned about is that the dodgy judge must make it clear that the defence of self-defence applies to manslaughter as well as murder 2.
The other big worry for the defence with this judge is that there ought to be a clear line drawn between facts and circumstantial evidence. Most of the arguments of the prosecution – to the extent they have any coherent case – relies on a hodge-podge of notions that you might at a big stretch see as circumstantially against Zimmerman. This wispy stuff should be sharply contrasted with FACTS – which side has proved the moist facts in support of its case.
One awful example of the judge’s bias was when she refused to include in her draft directions-to-the-jury a direction that if Zimmerman was watching Little Angel Martin this was not unlawful. She said, in effect “Show me a Florida statute that says it is lawful.” A complete reversal of the fact that EVERTHING is lawful – unless by statute or case law it is deemed unlawful !
I think the judge has been running scared from the very beginning – she holds her job only through the favour of politicians who have been pushing this race-baiting prosecution. Plus she is not a good jurist – and some of her earlier decisions in this case had already been successfully appealed by the defence.
But I am rambling on. Quite wrong, of course, to rabbit on about facts and rules of evidence and natural justice and suchlike. Forget all that stuff – what the BBC wants is the Narrative ! Plus the ability to get paid lots of money while failing to report anything much.
All these white Southern women stacked against a Hispanic male doesn’t sound like a recipe for racial justice to me. I mean, the BBC has been telling me for years how they’re all racist down there, but what do I know?
Kidding aside, I’m surprised that no background about Martin has been allowed. Or maybe I’m not surprised at all seeing as how this was supposed to be a show trial to appease the liberal media and prevent mob violence instigated by the usual suspects and abetted by the President’s minions. Letting the jury know that Martin was looking for a fight and started it. I know that previous criminal background often isn’t allowed because it’s technically irrelevant to the facts of the case at hand, so maybe all those lovely texts about violence and guns and whatnot amount to the same thing.
In the end, it all depends on how much white guilt, anti-gun sentiment, and concern about the racial angle the jury has. Even though they’ve been sequestered, they’d have had to be living under a rock before the trial not to know that there’s a huge amount of public pressure for a conviction, regardless of the facts. I’m sure it would be sexist to pursue this line of thinking further.
Thank you for linking to some of the “reports” I had made as the case has progressed – just my quick stabs at things, but I reckon I was giving more info than the entire BBC US staff of many dozens have provided. during the trial.
There is one other piece I did a few days ago but I can’t find it – it linked to a very thorough Daily Mail (Yes the despised Daily Mail) article a few days ago that shamed the lack of reporting by the BBC :
Complete with REALISTIC photos of Zimmerman and his injuries and of “Little Angel” Trayvon Martin
One problem of the trial is that the defence has not been allowed (by rules of evidence) to present any sort of clear picture of who the Little Angel really was. Here’s my summary :
1 His father had deserted many years ago – and the tearful mother had kicked him out as being uncontrollable. She had hardly any part of his upbringing – but has been raking in money in victimhood tours of America and London.
2 His school covered up the fact he had been found with stolen goods and a burglary instrument. He was suspended from the school.
3 The Little Scrote was about 6 foot, very fit – and indulged in quite a lot of street or playground fighting. He was far fitter and stronger – and more naturally violent – than Zimmerman. Was proud of it – lots of tweets which the judge did not allow as evidence on the ridiculous notion that someone else might have been using his phone.
4 He was into drugs – and it looks as though he had just been buying some of the ingredients that night
5 There had been multiple incidents of local burglaries by some black youths. One very bad incident was where a friend of Zimmerman was at home with her baby son when 2 black youths broke in, stole stuff – and actually came up to the bedroom where she was cowering with her baby, shook the doorhandle.
6 I would not be surprised if Little Scrote was one of the youths that had been burgling. He needed money for his drug habit.. That is a supposition, of course – but far more rational than any of the guff the prosecution has tried to advance about Zimmerman.
7 On the night in question Zimmerman saw what turned out to be Little Scrote behaving suspiciously – not walking purposefully home that dark and rainy night, but wandering in between houses. Zimmerman reported this to the non-emergency line of the police. Zimmerman was a member of his Neighbourhood Watch.
8 Everything kicked off when Little Scrote challenged Zimmerman – “you got a problem” and immediately punched Zimmerman in the nose, breaking his nose and knocking him down.
9 Little Scrote then straddled Zimmerman on the ground and was trying to punch his lights out – “You gonna die you M…F….” And banging Zimmerman’s head on a concrete path.
10 After screaming for help for 30 to 40 seconds – which an ex-policeman said would have felt like a lifetime to the victim being bashed – and in fear of his life, Zimmerman eventually drew his licenced gun and shot Little Scrote, once. He did not even know that the shot had killed him.
11 Corroborating evidence – there was only one eye-witness, who said it was definitely Little Scrote on top – “grounding and pounding” – and Zimmerman screaming for help. Mud/grass on Little Scrote’s knees but none on his back. Lots of head bruising and blood on Zimmerman, no damage to Little Scrote except bruised knuckles and the single bullet wound.
The prosecution’s case has been a mess. Their witnesses have been either unreliable, wierd – ot have totally confirmed Zimmerman’s case that he was acting in self-defence which is a total defence to either 2nd degree murder or the lesser included charge of manslaughter. The defence case has been put far more capably – maybe because they have a real and consistent case and some exceptionally compelling witnesses.
But the whole matter is overcast by racist bias. A kind of reverse of “To Kill A Mockingbird”. Corrupt politicians from Obama downwards looking for a conviction against “Whitey” – hello? Zimmerman is Hispanic !. The case should never have been brought,, and it was allowed to go to trial when the prosecution had hidden or denied evidence that the defence should have been given, etc etc etc. Throw in an incompetent and biased judge, and you have a real kangaroo court. All very sad.
BUT – it has been covered on TV so people can finally SEE what it is all about. And there are blogs such as LegalInsurrection giving expert coverage that trashes the Narrative the liberal US media – and the BBC – has supported “against all the facts and evidence”.
The defence puts its final argument tomorrow, a quick further argument by the prosecution and then the jury will be out tomorrow afternoon after the judge has instructed them in the relevant law on the matter.
The outcome from this jury – which has been kept in isolation ? On the facts and the evidence it should be an immediate and total acquittal IMHO. And thereafter the judge deserves reprimanding, and some of the lawyers behind the prosecution should be investigated and if necessary disbarred.
But there is a risk after all the racist fuss over more than a year that the jury will go for a “compromise” of manslaughter. I can’t see how they could do this – self-defence if it applies to the murder rap also applies to manslaughter. But the prosecution has been saying “forget the facts – this was all Zimmerman’s fault, he deserves to be punished somehow”. A manslaughter conviction would mean 30 years – the jury is not told this – so effectively death by the bruthas in prison.
But there look to be ample grounds for appeal – and lots to appeal about simply in terms of the way the case has been handled.
There might be a hung jury – but somehow I doubt this, just a 6-woman jury.
Whatever happens, Zimmerman and his family are under threats of violence forever. Little Scrotes failure of a mother and father are raking in the cash – they have trademarked his name ! – and the race hustlers will be egging on race riots. And much of this is because the media – including the BBC – failed from the outset to give a clear picture of what had actually happened, what a wannabee gangsta Little Scrote was, what a decent and caring man George Zimmerman is.
All very very sad for America – but then Obama loved to stir this in election year to help secure his base, and the media just went along with him.
How the BBC makes me sick – this is a man’s life at stake here, but they don’t care.
All the BBC cares about is the larger Narrative of racial prejudice and oppression in the US. Honest reporting of facts and the basic job of informing their audience don’t enter into it. I’d wager there isn’t a single BBC employee who gives a damn about reporting the story honestly and fully, based on the bare facts. The big picture issue of Race In America was always what the media and the President wanted this story to represent, and we’re shortly going to see the fruits of their labors. And the biggest media organization on the planet will play right along.
After following the trial from many US sources of all spectrums, I did courteously email the BBC news department after the trial had been running for some time and asked why had their coverage of this story suddenly ceased. I wrote that to me, it looked like censorship by omission because the trial was not going the way their previous write-ups had suggested.
As you can probably guess, I am still awaiting any response.
Another solid report in the despised Daily Mail. Just one Mail journalist doing more work than dozens of BBC US staff.
And the Mail journalist does not give an Orlando byline – maybe she is doing it all from London ? I wouldn’t be surprised – as George Preiser often says, most of the BBC’s “work” in the US could be done by competent aggregation of US news sources and blogs. The trial is on TV and is being streamed on several blogs, and most of the clips of evidence are being posted straight on to YouTube.
It is stunning just how deficient the current BBC story is when compared to the very comprehensive and detailed Daily Mail report. The BBC is just a dumbed down story. Shameful for the a ‘world class’ organisation.
Where the case stands after the main prosecution sum-up yesterday :
I have little doubt Mark O’Mara for the defence will tear it to shreds this morning. Starts at 2pm our time – can be seen live on the LegalInsurection website from about 1.45pm.
Plus there is continuous commenting there.
I’ve been reading the updates on Fox (I know, I know, fair and balanced to the left means fascist supremacists). they have been quite even handed in their assessments and have given a good daily summary of the evidence.
To me its the forensics which appear to show Martin was the aggressor. The damage and powder burns on the front of his clothing which evidence shows was hanging down a couple of inches. Bruising to Martin’s knuckles and the damage to Zimmerman’s face and the back of his head.
The police investigated in the first instance and decided based on the evidence showing that Zimmerman’s account of what occurred together with the statement of the sole eye witness was what probably occurred.
The fact that it has reached trial at all shows how twisted politics is, the Obamessiah saying that if he had a son he would look like Trayvon was one of the most disgusting things any leader of a Western nation has ever said IMO. Imagine if a white leader had said such a thing about a white guy if the positions had been reversed. the bloody BBC would have been leading the calls for impeachment.
More disgusting than that is the fact that – yes, this is documented, not fantasist supposition by a crypto-racist – the President sent the Department of Justice to aid, abet, and help organize the protests which ultimately led to Zimmerman’s arrest and this show trial. They forced the head cop who initially declined to arrest him based on the obvious evidence to resign, and soon enough the city of Sanford did a 180 and the path we’re on now was set.
How’s that hopey-changey stuff workin’ out for ya now, BBC? Oh, that’s right: this is exactly the kind of emotion-over-reason, forget-the-rule-of-law-if-it-makes-us-feel-good action you like.
BlogSpot now in the Telegraph highlighting the blatant bias if this keeps up the beeb may actually have to at least give a nod to some of the issues in dispute at least before discounting them
Tim Stanley has his own biases, and a couple are on display in his post. Unfortunately, when speaking of media bias, he doesn’t mention the BBC specifically, so there’s no need for them to acknowledge anything. Stanley also seems to think Zimmerman is guilty of, at least, manslaughter, and that we’re still in Mississippi 1963.
I saw his documentary on how US TV shows have influenced public opinion on the issues of homosexual marriage and racism over the years, and he remained convinced that the US is still completely racially divided. Blacks go to prison disproportionately these days because of the ridiculous, draconian drug laws (plus the three-strikes law), and the self-perpetuating broken family syndrome. One can make the case that the latter is partially the result of more than a century of racist oppression, but the drug laws weren’t designed specifically to put black young men in jail, and it’s wrong for Stanley to act as if that’s the case. He’s as bad as the BBC here. They’ll find mostly comfort and support of their opinions in his post.
The BBC has put up a report on the defense closing statement in the Zimmerman trial. Just as I said above, it’s all about emotion, and the prosecution’s rebuttal is playing that for all it’s worth.
Also just as I said in the main post, the BBC is fixated (David Willis’ inset “At The Scene”) on the so-called larger issue of racial justice. Plus the BBC/far-Left pet issues of gun control and racial profiling. The BBC report itself naturally plays it as it being only Zimmerman’s defense that there was a fight, even though nobody is disputing this fact. The fight happened, BBC. The only point of contention is who started it. Stop misleading your audience, and stop acting as if the rule of law should be supplanted occasionally to punish the sons for the sins of the fathers. I know that’s what your beloved Obamessiah likes, but it’s hardly impartial journalism.
Even though this is allegedly a report about the defense statement, there’s more time spent on the prosecution’s side. Good thing you haven’t reported what’s really gone on in the trial, otherwise people might be wondering if maybe Zimmerman isn’t a cold-blooded murderer, right, BBC?
Bonus: Mark Mardell’s video report which is mostly tugging heart-strings about racial injustice has been brought back from the archives. Amusingly, this is the one time the BBC has ever shown a picture of Travyon in a hoodie. It’s not quite the gangsta stuff we’ve seen elsewhere (no golden grill or anything), but it’s still a bit of a shock to see that photo and then hear the President say that if He had a son, he’d look like that. Oops. Still, it’s not like the BBC has ever allowed you to know about Martin’s checkered recent past. Don’t want you to think he was anything other than the most innocent of angels, right, BBC?
The main point the BBC is trying to make, though, is that there is much racial injustice in the US, and only a conviction will begin the healing process. They just can’t wait for the riots. Sexy stories, plenty of hand-wringing from on high, with lots of eyeballs and page views. Ka-ching! I think, though, the Beeboids will be sorely disappointed because this show trial is most likely going to have the “correct” outcome. Not the right one, but the “correct” one.
I hope I’m wrong about all of it, because neither a conviction nor the race riots will do anything to help heal the racial divisions which have been inflamed by the media and the President. An acquittal won’t, either, but at least an innocent man won’t be going to prison just to appease historical grievances.
What if Zimmerman is acquitted? Riots, violence? Suppose Obama goes for a Federal prosecution? How will the Beeb handle it?
The Beeboids will love it. Lots of sexy footage, endless opportunities for hand-wringing, emotional outbursts, and scolding millions of people for their innate racism, endless praise for The Obamessiah for seeking justice and trying to heal the nation, and lots of page views for their advertisers on the US and international versions of the website. Best of all, the Beeboids well get to feel superior to us.
It would be a heaven-sent story for them.
The link to the BBC article has gone ‘404 – Page Not Found’ so I haven’t been able to read it. I’ll comment about something in their previous article.
Martin’s parents told the court the voice heard screaming for help on an emergency call during the fight was their son’s.
The investigating detective said that Teyvon’s father,Tracy Martin, listened to the tape and told him that it was not Treyvon screaming. A second officer was witness to this. Martin denied this, claiming that at that time he said he coudn’t tell who it was.
When the race-hustlers moved in, Martin became sure it was Treyvon. His lawyer, Benjamin Crump, explained that after listening to a cleaned up version of tape he was now sure. The only problem is there is no cleaned up version – there is only the original tape. Furthermore, there may be video of TV interview out there where Martin again stated it is not Treyvon on the tape..
And where is BBC-Democrat reporting on Hasan-Fort Hood trial?
‘JihadWatch’ has this:-
“Fort Hood jihad mass murderer: ‘I can’t take any pride in wearing this uniform, it represents an enemy of Islam'”
“The more Hasan talks, the more he discredits the government’s willful ignorance regarding his jihadist motivations. ”
Oh, dear. He’s not saying his religion directed him to kill, is he? Don’t tell Dez.
I kept wondering about the fact that only six jurors would decide the fate of George Zimmerman and today looked it up.
I’m now wondering if this selection of only six, who in this case turn out to be an all female jury, will possibly go against Zimmerman? I’m thinking that if a few men had been on the jury perhaps they might have more considered the death of a possible young criminal instead of the death of “a child”.
As I said in an earlier post, I have followed this case with some interest from many US sources. Whichever way it goes I suspect there are quite a few well known facts about the “victim” just waiting to be published when it is all over. Facts which the BBC will do their very best to hide.
It’s only six jurors because it’s not a “capital murder” (i.e. no death penalty) case. Florida law doesn’t require the full 12 for a lesser charge. All-female jury, female judge, draw your own conclusions. And I think we pretty much know all the facts we need to know about the victim.
Protesters are starting to assemble outside the Sanford courthouse. Naturally, the Occupiers – darlings of the BBC – are planning some love-for-humanity action as well. Anyone care to wager whether or not the BBC has contacted them already?
Zimmerman has clearly failed to prove his innocence. I can’t believe all the racists on this site believe that its the prosecutions job to prove his guilt, what kind of backward legal system do they think America has?
On a more serious note, the judge here is obviously in the tank for the prosecution, to the extent that serious questions need to be asked about direct political influence that has been applied to her. One of the more egregious actions was when she repeatedly asked Zimmerman if he was going to take the stand, over the objections of his lawyers. This was presumably playing to the gallery, though its not clear if the jury was present at the time (if so, this is almost certainly grounds for a mistrial on its own).
Another significant element is the judge’s ruling on the inadmissability of phone texts from Martin’s phone (which paint a picture of a gangsta wannabe) on the grounds that we can’t be sure that he sent them(!) On any rational level, if there is a question about such evidence, it can be raised through cross-examination (e.g. of recipients of the text messages).
Any reasonable review of the evidence would lead a judge to direct the jury to a ‘not-guilty’ verdict in this case; the prosecution has not provided a case for a guilty verdict, and most of their witnesses’ testimony in fact serves to exonerate Zimmerman.
In fact, the trial has shown exactly why the police initially freed Zimmerman without charge – there is simply nothing to support anything except the claim of self-defence that Zimmerman made. By not reporting on this, the BBC (along with the majority of the mainstream liberal US press) misses the real story here – the deliberate use of this case to cynically promote Obama’s flagging re-election campaign at a critical point, race-relations consequences be damned.
You have it exactly right – both as to what justice requires – proof beyond reasonable doubt, and how the trial process has been denying proper justice and full evidence for George Zimmerman.
The excellent LegalInsurrection website gives a full account of the defence final case, with links to video of every part of it. I watched most of it live – but I will watch it again during today. It was a superb example of calm and reasoned argument. A forensic classic. Reviewing all the evidence, describing in full everything that is known by corroborated evidence to have happened that night, referring to ALL the witnesses. And stating what justice and the law requires, clearly and properly – burden of proof, what self-defence means, what reasonable doubt means etc.
There is also a description with video links to the prosecution’s rebuttal of the defence – a shambling histrionic appeal to emotion and supposition, sidestepping most of the evidence, and advancing tendentious ideas of “let’s be fair to Little Angel Trayvon”.
The prosecution has been truly shameful in this case – in its suppression of evidence, in apparent tampering with witness evidence, in failing to call all the witnesses they should call, and especially in pushing false notions of what justice means.
In a TV interview last night Mark O’Mara the lead defence counsel said that many young black men face this sort of prosecution in Florida and have very poor legal defence because they have to rely on young inexperienced public defenders – the dock brief system of Rumpole. They are railroaded by blatantly cherry-picking prosecutors like those in this case. But in this case – the very competent defence has tried to block this railroading.
The jury has adjourned until 9am this morning – 2pm UK time.
We might actually see a possible answer to this case. If acquitted , Zim will face death threats, the BBC will rail about the US being a racist country and with the liberal media, Piers Morgan and the left celebs, take sides with the rioters. But if found guilty, the incompetence of the judge, rejection of evidence that would have supported the defence, will provide grounds for an appeal. Zim will go down and be locked away to liberal satisfaction, and following an appeal can be quietly released sometime after the racist President has left the White House for retirement in Hawaii.
In today’s BBC story (13 July), headlined George Zimmerman case goes to jury, it still says it is a murder trial and that “Mr Zimmerman could be acquitted, or convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter.”
Are they out-of-touch or is a murder verdict still an option?
Murder 2 is still on the jury’s verdict sheet, as well as manslaughter
The video the BBC don’t want you to see.
… and every time George Zimmerman recounted to the police what had happened, his story was consistent. When challenged by the lead investigator “Ah, we have a video of what happened” Zimmerman said “Thank God”.
The lead investigator decided there was no case against Zimmerman – as did the then police chief. But as you know, the race hustlers and the politicians sacked the police chief, put the lead investigator on traffic duties and brought a corrupt prosecution. All aided and abetted by liars in the media like the BBC.
So an acquital it is, US justice working properly, though the time spent in jury deliberation did seem excessive – it appears that they may have been considering manslaughter (a query was made back to the judge to clarify this charge, but eventually seems not to have led anywhere).
The BBC meanwhile continues its liberal agenda – http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23304198
“Our correspondent said the case brought into sharp relief some of the most divisive issues in the United States: race, gun control and equal justice under the law.”
Whats omitted here is that today in the US, its is blacks who are first among equals – this case was brought to trial at the behest of a deeply corrupt and racist political institution spearheaded by one of the most divisive presidents America has ever had, and who acted without any regard for the Constitution or even common decency when he crow-barred himself into the middle of this situation in order to reinvigorate his at the time flagging re-election campaign.
“Under the state’s controversial “stand your ground” law, the use of lethal force is allowed if a person feels seriously under threat.”
This is bullshit. Lethal force can be legitimate in self-defence even in the absence of stand your ground; the only thing that stand your ground says is that you do not have a legal duty to flee in order to invoke self-defence. In this particular case, all the evidence suggests that Zimmerman could not have fled in any case – he was stalked by Martin, who suckerpunched him to the ground, straddled him, and then proceeded to wail on him ‘mixed martial arts style’ in the words of an eye witness who testified at the trial.
According to Zimmerman’s statements to the police, he only fired his gun when Martin noticed he was wearing it and started reaching for it himself.
“Mr Zimmerman telephoned police to report a suspicious person, then left his vehicle in apparent pursuit of the teenager.
Shortly afterwards, Martin was found dead, shot in the chest. ”
This is such a one-sided summary of what happened that it beggars belief. All the facts put to the court suggest that far from Zimmerman stalking Martin (as implied in this piece of drivel from the BBC) he was in fact walking back to his vehicle and away from Martin. Martin meanwhile, had every chance to leave, but appears to have decided to stalk Zimmerman instead (if you follow the timeline and content of his call to his girlfriend) and ambush him as described above.
“This case has re-energised the movement to end racial profiling in the United States,” Roslyn M Brock, chairwoman of the NAACP, said in a statement”
Ironically, the biggest beneficiaries of racial profiling in America are its law abiding black population. What the BBC doesn’t tell you is that whilst the (disproportionately large proportion of) black criminals suffer from racial profiling, their victims are also usually black (however, due to the sheer volume of crime committed by black young men, they end up disproportionately targeting all other ethnicities too). Many black people are in fact in favor of laws that allow police to keep the criminal elements in their communities at bay, but the problem is that such overt ‘profiling’ doesn’t fit the tabula rasa narrative that underpins liberal thinking about race.
As you say – Little Angel Trayvon is KNOWN from phone recordings to have had 4 minutes to walk the 400 yards to his home. He was NOT being “stalked” by George Zimmerman.
Rather than going home, the aggressive young thug doublked back in the darkness and – as you say – jumped Zimmerman.
This is an appalling BBC report. It flies in the face of 2 weeks of evidence.
If what I just saw on Sky is any guide, the media cover is going to follow certain paths, with inevitable reactions from those fed by it and guided to react to what they think is reporting but is in fact opinion and advocacy padded out with tantalising snippets that appeal to the editor and the ‘best’ (ie: most extreme) soundbites that tickle the producers’ fancies.
One hopes the BBC may see the verdict as a wake up call & opportunity for professional reflection.
George Zimmerman ‘not guilty’ of Trayvon Martin murder
Why are the BBC using quotation marks for not guilty?
The BBC uses ‘quotes’ to add tonality, but will claim they are merely referring to what a person has said.
On their FaceBook coverage it’s spinning out of control.
One presumes many who haunt these pages will be spending the day tasking them on some I am seeing.
Though arguing points of order here may seem as critical to a few.
‘tonality’ ? Why not the word ‘murder’ ?
The verdict wasn’t a quote. It was statement of fact.
BBC-NUJ online headline on ‘Home’ page:-
“US jury acquits on black teen death”
“‘Dead man walking’: America erupts as George Zimmerman is found NOT GUILTY of the murder or manslaughter of Trayvon Martin in race case that divided a nation.”
Well done to the jury for listening to the evidence and returning the only verdict compatible with that evidence.
The Twitterati are very angry about the verdict. And why wouldn’t they be? They’ve been told for a long time by the hustlers and their helpers in the leftist media that Zimmerman was gulity. Some were angry before the verdict was in.
If they don’t kill Zimmerman Ima kill me a cracka—
ザック·スレーターエクストラオーディナリ (@ZackSlaterExe) June 26, 2013
This Zimmerman shit so AGGY just lock his ass up cause if they don’t imma kill a white person and they better let me go—
his main bishhhhh ❤✌ (@carlise_) June 27, 2013
If #Zimmerman get off ima shoot the first #hispanic/white i see—
Vonni Versace (@Dat_Nigga_Vonni) June 27, 2013
If Zimmerman get off, Ima go kill a white boy and use the same story he did…—
FuckYourFeelings.Com (@BihhImaBadAhh) June 27, 2013
Watching the Zimmerman Trial. If he don’t get life ill kill him myself—
Love (@ItaliannDoll) June 26, 2013
If #zimmerman get off ima kill him myself since no one wanna take care of his Mexican burrito eatin ass—
PWOODS #C3E #LAD (@ImdatniggaPWood) June 26, 2013
Every single one of these tweets would be considered criminal in the UK, and probably the same applies in the US (as far as I know, death threats are not constitutionally protected speech [technically they class as assault I think], but I could be wrong on this).
Imagine for a second the same tweets with the races reversed – the twitterer would barely have time to hit send before SWAT was massing at his door.