…resumes:

Unlike Zimmerman’s account, the accounts of the prosecution witnesses would change, abruptly and dramatically, and certainly not to Zimmerman’s benefit.

Following opening statements, the prosecution normally produces a succession of fact witnesses, people that can testify to the facts — the evidence — necessary to establish the elements of the offense and to prove that the defendant committed it. Their ultimate job is to leave no room for reasonable doubt. In this case, the prosecution must also prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman did not act in self-defense.

But this is the George Zimmerman prosecution: a backwards case where the roles of the prosecution and defense are reversed.

Normally, prosecutors are careful to fully question each prosecution witness to obtain all of the evidence their testimony can produce. They do this so that the defense is not able to reveal previously undisclosed evidence, which tends to suggest prosecutorial concealment. But during the first week of this case, the prosecution established a pattern of asking only the bare minimum of their witnesses. In virtually every case, defense cross-examination reveals a great deal the prosecutors avoided bringing to light, and that information either fully supports George’s Zimmerman’s unchanging account, casts doubt on the “narrative” — which is actually the prosecution’s case — or both.

This bizarre turn of events has caused the prosecutors, particularly Bernie de la Rionda, to engage in the spectacle of aggressively cross-examining their own witnesses, trying to get them to mischaracterize, ignore, disown, or soft-pedal their testimony.

Another and disturbing pattern established by prosecution witnesses is that of changing their testimony in significant and ethically questionable ways. A number of prosecution witnesses have testified to important changes in their prior testimony they never before mentioned — not in multiple law enforcement interviews or depositions. This directly suggests that they’ve not only been coached, but perhaps that the subornation of perjury is involved.

Why is this not prosecutorial misconduct?

When you consider the millions of human lives (and particularly how many of them were of minorities, particularly blacks) have been snuffed out in the past forty years by the “pro-choice” movement, this image seems somewhat appropriate. A century later, the “progressives” remain objectively eugenicist. Stand with Wendy, indeed.

[Via Twitchy]

They never had a case for Murder Two:

Jonathan Good, one of Zimmerman’s neighbors, testified that he saw Martin straddling Zimmerman in a “ground and pound” position and appeared to be punching him as Zimmerman yelled for help.

This isn’t true, though:

But Good also undermined Zimmerman’s claim that Martin pounded his head into the pavement.

“I couldn’t see that,” he said under cross-examination.

He didn’t say it didn’t happen — he just said he couldn’t see it. That’s of evidence against it — it’s just the absence of evidence for it. And his physical injuries are sufficient evidence for it.

This was never anything but a political show trial. And now they’ve established the predicate for the race riots (and perhaps Zimmerman lynching, as so many were threatening on Twitter yesterday) to come.

[Update early evening]

Why, yes. the Zimmerman trial is a racial circus.

An opinion:

A strong and perhaps unimpeachable case can be made that never in our lifetimes have so many lies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations been told by so many politicians and officials from so many levels of government to so many people on so many significant issues in such a concentrated period of time as in any random month in the last twelve.

It certainly seems that way.

But it’s in Canada.

As one of those abused notes, this is why we have a Second Amendment.