Did O’Mara blow it?

A reader suggests that Zimmerman’s “sorry” statement has ensured the case will go to trial. In his “sorry” to Martin’s parents, Zimmerman said he thought Martin was only a little bit younger than he himself (late twenties), but that in his 911 call on the night of the shooting, Zimmerman accurately described Martin as in his late teens. Thus Z. has raised a question about his own credibility, which, despite the absence of evidence showing he attacked Martin, ensures a trial.

The reader continues:

After Mark O’Mara became Zimmerman’s attorney, I saw an article in which O’Mara was quoted as saying he would “build” a defense for Zimmerman; he (O’Mara) also said something like, “I’m a defense attorney; that’s what I do. I think I’m pretty good at it.”

Many persons think they’re pretty good at things they’re not good at, Mr. O’Mara. What was the point of having your client respond, in that courtroom, to the pointless questions posed by Martin’s mother in a television interview? (“Did you know how young my son was? Did you know he wasn’t armed?”—or whatever was her exact wording.) Apart from the fact that Zimmerman’s in-court “apology” was out of order and should not have been allowed by the judge, O’Mara is a fool.

I said harsh things about O’Mara based on his first statements after he became Z.’s attorney. I thought he came across like a fool. In his subsequent appearances he seemed to be more effective, and many have praised him, and I realized that my earlier dismissal of him was too abrupt. But the reader has now again raised the question of O’Mara’s basic prudence and competence.
- end of initial entry -

April 23

Matt writes:

Given that Zimmerman spoke to the police for hours on end with no attorney present on two separate occasions, I personally doubt that his brief testimony at the bond hearing made any difference to the likelihood of going to trial. I do expect (though I could
be wrong) that the prosecution’s entire case, such as it is, will rest on picking apart Zimmerman’s statements.

On the specific statement about Zimmerman’s impression of Martin’s age, it isn’t unreasonable for one’s impression of another man to be “late teens” when seen from a distance in the dark while it is raining, yet to have an entirely different impression as that man is repeatedly pounding one’s head into the sidewalk. There is no inconsistency in actual reality as lived by a real man on a dark and stormy night. There is only inconsistency in the minds of those who are so desperate to grasp at straws that they will treat every human statement as existing in some ideal static Platonic mathematical reality from which “gotcha’s” can be mined like little nuggets of hope for the liberal narrative. Look for lots of that to come, if the judge doesn’t (as he should) throw this out before trial.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 22, 2012 08:09 PM | Send