ABC News shows photo of Zimmerman’s head wounds they previously suppressed—isn’t that nice of them?
(Correction: As discussed in an exchange below, we do not know that ABC News had possession of this photograph and was concealing it until now. At the same time, we do know that ABC News was quick to broadcast a grainy, distant police surveillance video of Zimmerman at the police station which apparently showed no marks on his head or face which led millions of people, including conservatives, to believe that Zimmerman was guilty, and only later did ABC broadcast an enhanced version of the video which showed marks on the back of his head. We also know that the police have had this photograph of Zimmerman all along and that the media has not bothered acquiring it and publishing it until now.)
ABC News reports:
A new photograph obtained exclusively by ABC News showing the bloodied back of George Zimmerman’s head, which was apparently taken three minutes after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin, gives possible credence to his claim that Martin had bashed his head against the concrete as Zimmerman fought for his life.
The revelation comes as his attorney and prosecutors prepare for Zimmerman’s bail hearing today, which could result in his being released from a Florida jail. Zimmerman, 28, is being held on charges of second-degree murder for the Feb. 26 shooting of Martin, 17, which could carry a life sentence if he is convicted.Why didn’t ABC News show this photograph several weeks ago, when the Zimmerman/Martin case became a national issue?
The answer lies in the technique of the prevailing left liberalism. The liberal media put out monstrous lies about George Zimmerman, stirring up black America to threats of mass violence and to actual murderous violence against individual white people, as seen in the violent assaults by blacks on whites in Sanford and elsewhere, as when blacks in Sanford pulled a white man out of his car and beat him within an inch of his life. These lies also result in the indictment of Zimmerman for 2nd degree murder. Then, after Zimmerman has been indicted for murder, the liberal media starts to bring out the truth that tends to exonerate Zimmerman and that the media previously suppressed. But will the charges against Zimmerman therefore be dropped? Not necessarily. The same authorities who demanded the criminal indictment of Zimmerman, because otherwise black America would rise up in a nation-wide version of the 1992 Los Angeles riots, will now say that even though there is no basis for the charges against Zimmerman, the trial against him must still go forward and he must be found guilty, because otherwise black America will rise up.
So, first the liberal media through their evil lies create the black rage which requires the persecution and prosecution of Zimmerman, and then when the media admit the exculpatory truth about Zimmerman, it won’t necessarily save him, because the violent black rage created by the white liberals’ lies must still be placated.
If I were a betting man, I’d give odds that the prosecution of George Zimmerman is doomed to fail miserably, if it is foolishly carried forward. I’d bet, after watching the bond hearing, that the judge, if he could have, would have released George Zimmerman then and there, dropping all charges, and admonished the state for wasting the courts time.LA replies:
I note that you are predicting that Zimmerman will be acquitted, meaning that the monstrous Stalin-type trial will go forward, and that only after he and the country are forced through the nightmare of a trial he will be exonerated. That’s not a very hopeful scenario. Justice would mean that he is released now, and that criminal charges and disbarrment proceedings are initiated against Angela (“Nifong”) Corey for using her power as state attorney (an office similar to district attorney) to indict a man for murder on the basis of zero facts and on the basis of palpable lies that go against the known facts.James P. writes:t
Note that the NY Post story reports the words of the charlatan Ben Crump:LA replies:
The NY Post is a lynch mob paper, edited and written by people who write and edit as if they were drunkards. They have zero standards. Their “conservatism” consists of zombie-cons pushing Muslim democratization.Buck replies to LA:
I’m not really predicting anything. I think that the judge and everyone in the court room, and the viewing public, must have realized how hollow the prosecutions case is, and that some kind of accommodation should made, but it may to too late for the state to save face. I don’t know how, at this point, the state can simply drop the charges, but I don’t see how they can possibly be confident of a conviction or even of a strong plea bargaining position, unless they have secret witnesses who will testify that they saw Z stalk M, confront him and kill him, not withstanding all of the facts to the contrary; that he was the aggressor from beginning to end. The public trial and court trial now have a life of their own and will probably go on. I can’t image Z accepting anything other than being found innocent of all charges or the charges being dropped without prejudice. I don’t have any idea how this can end without a trial. But, I don’t think that a trial, even though it would be, as you say, a nightmare for Z and his family and would stir up all kinds of street life, would end badly for Z. What’s done is already done; we’re heading into a hot summer. A trial could very well highlight much of what has been said here; that Z is the real victim of racial hatred, not Trayvon Martin. That’s something to wish for; perhaps a nightmare that we can wake up from feeling somewhat relieved and maybe even slightly hopeful.Clark Coleman writes:
In your entry, you say that ABC News has had this photo for a long time. How do we know that? And if they had it, wouldn’t other news organizations also be able to get it? They claim “new” and obtained “exclusively” by ABC News. My point in sending the story was not to claim a cover-up conspiracy, but just to settle the issue once and for all of whether Zimmerman had cuts on his head.LA replies:
You’re right. I was thinking of the surveillance tape of Zimmerman arriving at the police station shown by ABC, which initially was shown from a distance and all kinds of “intelligent” people said, “See, there are no marks on his head, he wasn’t hurt, he’s guilty,” and then ABC did a enhanced closeup of the same image and the marks on the back Z.’s head became visible. But that surveillance video was not, contrary to my incorrect momentary assumption, the same as this police photo of Z. taken at the crime scene. So I do not know that ABC has had this photo all along. At the same time, wouldn’t it have been very easy for ABC and the rest of the media to get this photo from the police, if they had been interested in the truth? So the substance of my condemnation of ABC and the rest of the media stands.April 21
Jason R. writes:
You write: ‘So I do not know that ABC has had this photo all along. At the same time, wouldn’t it have been very easy for ABC and the rest of the media to get this photo from the police, if they had been interested in the truth? So the substance of my condemnation of ABC and the rest of the media stands.’LA replies:
This is too strange. The person who took the photograph of the wounded Zimmerman at the crime scene was not a police officer, but a civilian witness? It looks like an official evidence photo, with Zimmerman bending his head over while the photo is taken. Why did a civilian take this important evidence shot, and not the police?James P. writes:
You said: “Why did a civilian take this important evidence shot, and not the police”
Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 20, 2012 11:56 AM | Send