Said like a true obfuscator.
What you say is not true.
From an article dated March 15, quoting the Chief of Police.
That is what they had at the end of the last investigation, and that is what they had at the start of the new investigation.
The only new evidence that we are aware of, is the suspect statement of girlfriend.
A person should not be charged with a crime unless it is believed by the authorities, and supported by evidence, that they have committed a crime.
In this case what have the authorities already told us?
Oh, that's right!
Mr. Zimmerman provided a statement claiming he acted in self defense which at the time was supported by physical evidence and testimony.
&
"The evidence and testimony we have so far does not establish that Mr. Zimmerman did not act in self defense. We don't have anything to dispute his claim of self-defense, at this point, with the evidence and testimony that we have,"
Unless that evidence changes there is absolutely no reason to charge him, let alone take it to court.
He was not told "not to".
See quotes below.
That is right it is not.
And the screams that can be heard on the 911 recording have been identified by a eye-witness as belonging to Zimmerman.
Whether he did or did not is all speculation at this time.
Mar 22, 2012
Or if you prefer from CNN, March 15, 2012.
No one here is trying to cover anything up. But I would suggest you stop trying to convict a man who did not act in an unlawful manner.
That is not what the Lawyer is claiming.
Using an example to illustrate the severity of what was occurring is not invoking or even claiming he will use the "Shaken Baby Syndrome".