No doubt that she has to retract her statements. She first spoke her heart and what she knows is true and now is speaking what she is being told. It is all a set up.
One, she read from a prepared statement.
Two, she later said her words were taken out of context (how...they were her own words she thought about and prepared).
Three, she was "lawyered up" to retract her statement as it was detrimental to her case.
I'm sure she, being the mother of the slain kid, has NO knowledge of what happened.
I'm sure she was never given any information by the authorities pertaining the evidence and the latest findings in trying to figure out what happened with her son that night...they just told her to go home and watch the news like the rest of America.
When she said that, I believe that she felt that it wasn't premeditated and that he didn't PLAN to kill her son but once the scuffle started, he did shoot his gun to kill him.
That's what I think as well.
It wasn't like Zimmerman went out looking to kill the kid but he did pull the trigger intending to kill him.
If she was told something by the police it is still second hand information.
Information from someone who also was not present at the time of the shooting.
I doubt that investigators provide updates related to an ongoing investigation to a single individual that they are not willing to share with the public - because as soon as they do they have in effect just shared it with the public.
Why does everyone want to jump to their conclusion without the facts?
But the police didn't charge based on Trayvon's mother's beliefs but instead the evidence.
I don't know what the evidence is so we will have to see if these were trumped up charges or not.
I'm not jumping to conclusions, I'm forming an opinion based upon the few facts we do know.
Being an eyewitness is not needed to prove anything one way or the other (apparently based on him being charged with 2nd degree...when the only eyewitnesses confirmed Zimmerman's story).
Actually you did jump to the conclusion that the mother was told something by the police that would cause her to say the it was either "an accident" or "cold blooded murder" since she said both things.
We don't know what, if anything, the police said to her.
And yes, an eye witness would be needed to determine certain elements of the case - for instance did Zimmerman or Martin start the altercation that ended in Martin being shot?
IMO I think that Florida (once again) has over charged the one that is accused. Just like last year with the woman that killed her little girl. The verdict didn’t say we believe she is innocent, it said we believe that the State failed to prove its case.
I think the State has put into motion the probability of a not guilty verdict. Did he kill the boy, sure he did. Did he commit 2nd degree murder? By the very definition of the charge, and based upon what we are being told about the facts at this point, I don’t think so.