In his closing argument, Mark O’Mara told the all female Jury not to use their common sense; not to think; not to pay attention to the circumstances, even though the case against his client from the very inception was based on “circumstantial evidence,” and that they should come back with a verdict of “totally innocent for his client.”

The State’s Case against George Zimmerman for the murder of the teenager, Trayvon Martin, was always based on “circumstantial evidence,” and the definitions of circumstantial evidence are;

“Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the Judge or Jury might infer occurrence of the fact in dispute.”

“Evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute.”

What is in dispute is not whether or not George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin or who was responsible for the deadly pursuit, but rather, “George Zimmerman’s varying accounts as to why he shot and killed the teenager.”

From George Zimmerman’s 911 call we actually know that George Zimmerman targeted Trayvon Martin as a “suspect who was up to no good; we know factually that the 911 operator told him not to follow the teenager; we know factually that he lied about not knowing the name of the street where he lived for four years and was the Captain of the Neighborhood Watch; we know that there are only three streets; we know that George Zimmerman has given at least five versions of what happened when he shot Trayvon Martin.”

We also know factually from the 911 call and George Zimmerman’s own words that he, George Zimmerman felt that Trayvon Martin was up to no good; we also know from Zimmerman’s own words that he Zimmerman, stated that “they always get away; we also know from the 911 call that Zimmerman told the 911 Operator that Trayvon Martin was running away; we know that Zimmerman got out of his vehicle.

All of the above are not in dispute and the only thing that is in dispute is that there was a confrontation and Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin.

This brings me back to why “Women” should be very upset with Defense Attorney Mark O’Mara!”

O’Mara told the all female Jury that “there is no evidence in this case; that the State did not provide any evidence; that the deceased teenager used concrete as a weapon; that his client was the victim and I could go on, but I think by now you would have gotten the idea of where I am going.

O’Mara’s phantasmagoric rationales and internecine assumptions of what transpired during the confrontation doesn’t make Trayvon Martin any less dead, and it is my belief that the Jury will take into consideration the totality of all of the circumstances and find George Zimmerman guilty of Second Degree Murder.

Attorney Mark O’Mara is a reprobate for attempting to blame the 17 year old deceased teenager for his own death, in order to vindicate his parasitic client!

Follow me and 900,000 others on Twitter @sheriffali

This entry was posted on July 13, 2013 at 10:54 am and is filed under Uncategorized with tags Blaming the Victim, current-events, Dead Teenager, deadly pursuit, George Zimmerman, George Zimmerman Trial, Justice for whom?, Mark O'Mara, neighborhood watch, Politics, Reprobate, society, Trayvon Martin. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.