Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Change In Zimmerman/Trayvon Witness Stories: Threats From Black Thugs Or Coercion From Law Enforcement
There are only two explanations for the sudden changes in witness statements in the George Zimmerman persecution. It appears that several witnesses have had sudden changes in what they observed that fateful night in Florida.
Orlando Sentinel May 22, 2012 by Rene Stutzman and Jeff Weiner
Evidence released last week in the second-degree-murder case against George Zimmerman shows four key witnesses made major changes in what they say they saw and heard the night he fatally shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford.
Witness 6, presumably "John" went from Trayvon was pounding on Zimmerman to maybe Trayvon was just holding him down.
This witness lived a few feet from where Trayvon and Zimmerman had their fight. On the night of the shooting, he told Serino he saw a black man on top of a lighter-skinned man "just throwing down blows on the guy, MMA-style," a reference to mixed martial arts.
He also said the one calling for help was "the one being beat up," a reference to Zimmerman.
But three weeks later, when he was interviewed by an FDLE agent, the man said he was no longer sure which one called for help.
"I truly can't tell who, after thinking about it, was yelling for help just because it was so dark out on that sidewalk," he said.
He also said he was no longer sure Trayvon was throwing punches. The teenager may have simply been keeping Zimmerman pinned to the ground, he said.
He did not equivocate, though, about who was on top.
"The black guy was on top," he said.
Now it is impossible to mistake holding someone down with someone raining blows on another person in MMA style. That is just not credible.
Then we have Witness 2 who changed her story from seeing two running figures 10 feet apart to one running figure.
A young woman who lives in the Retreat at Twin Lakes community, where Trayvon was shot, was interviewed twice by Sanford police and once by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
She told authorities that she had taken out her contact lenses just before the incident. In her first recorded interview with Sanford police four days after the shooting, she told lead Investigator Chris Serino, "I saw two guys running. Couldn't tell you who was in front, who was behind."
She stepped away from her window, and when she looked again, she "saw a fistfight. Just fists. I don't know who was hitting who."
A week later, she added a detail when talking again to Serino: During the chase, the two figures had been 10 feet apart.
That all changed when she was reinterviewed March 20 by an FDLE agent. That time, she recalled catching a glimpse of just one running figure, she told FDLE Investigator John Batchelor, and she heard the person more than saw him.
Not only does she tell the story of two running people once, she tells it twice, but on the third telling the second figure disappears entirely.
And in all of the statements, the only consistent fact was that the change in story was obtained during questioning by Florida Department of Law Enforcement officers under the direction of the prosecutor, Angela Cory and after threats of rioting and killing by the New Black Panthers Party (NBPP).
While their statements are on video, cold witness statements are not done on video; witnesses are first interviewed to get the story, then they are re-interviewed on camera. There was plenty of time for the FDLE officers to get the witnesses to change their story.
What is obviously not on the Orlando Sentinel story or the videos is the necessary explanation of why the witnesses changed their story. Probably because there is no explanation for going from pounding on someone MMA style to holding them down. Their ain't any explanation for that other than witness tampering.
In any event, an ethical investigator or prosecutor would immediately dismiss all the witnesses who changed their statements in any significant manner. They have just announced to the world that their statements are unreliable and that they either lied initially or are currently lying. They either lied to the Sanford Police Department or to the FDLE. There is no getting around this. This case should never have been brought and it should now be dropped for the most immediate reason, the witnesses are unreliable and may have already committed the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.
That brings us to the reason why these witnesses changed their stories. Are they doing it because of unethical and illegal behavior of the FDLE officers? Such illegal and unethical behavior is not beyond law enforcement, just ask the detectives from the Durham Police Department who accepted repeated lies from Crystal Magnum, the prostitute who lied about being raped by the Duke Lacrosse players. She repeatedly changed her story about the events at the party she stripped at, but the police officers involved did nothing with the obvious lies and presented the same lies as the truth in testimony to a Grand Jury and to various judicial officers. Given the political atmosphere of threats from black thugs like the NBPP and Al Sharpton, that would be no surprise given the Duke Lacrosse incident where black politicians, the NBPP and Al Sharpton were also involved. Threats of violence were openly expressed against the Duke student athletes and the community if something was not done by authorities and the DPD officers obliged by lying and covering up exculpatory evidence. Just as it appears that the FDLE may have influenced witnesses to change their stories. Perhaps these witnesses, like a witness for the defense in the Duke Lacrosse case, had an old criminal case resurrected in order to get a change in their statements.
Or perhaps it was just the plain threats of violence from the black community that got the witnesses to change their story. Perhaps they did not want to have to go into hiding like Zimmerman.
But either way, these witnesses are useless. No ethical prosecutor can use them for anything. Their statements have been tainted.