Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
I have never said Zimmerman should have been arrested. I, unlike you, don't profess to know the facts in this case. I have said that numerous times. I don't know whether Corey looked at different information than the previous State's attorney. She referenced new information but we don't know what that is. We also don't know if this information was obtained at her behest because it was not obtained beforehand.
As an aside, a prosecutor would never publically say the police did a poor job unless he/she wanted Defendant's counsel's opening statement to be "even the State's attorney believes the police did a poor job investigating."
I have said from the start that the poor investigation could actually hurt Zimmerman. For example, the 13 year old boy who said he witnessed the incident and supported Zimmerman's version at first. His story has changed. A written statement would have been helpful to the defense. Why did they not obtain a statement from Martin's girfriend at the start? Same with ballistics.
I have found that initial statements are far more accurate than those given weeks later, for obvious reasons.
If you want to discuss this, please reply all and address the post rather than take a statement out of context, otherwise I probably wont' respond.
Djbrow,
I never indicated or said you thought Zimmerman should be arrested.
Nor did I take any statement of yours out of context.
I do agree that she wouldn't say they investigators did a poor job, but there is a pretty big leap from that to the effusive praise she engaged in.
I'm still baffled by your insistence that you know no ballistic examinations were conducted.
Similarly, you've stated several times the investigation was not a good one. I'm just wondering what, factually, can have you reach that conclusion.
Finally, Corey has to have some "new" evidence. Or this is a pretty gross violation of her office.
We'll get a glimpse at the Arthur hearing...