During the time the jury was deliberating, and in anticipation of a possible guilty verdict, I had written a post outlining what was structurally wrong with the basis of the “optics” in the defense case.  It contained, essentially,  two possible issues to think about:

Then, as I was going to delete the post, it occurred to me that even in victory it actually still applies.
Why?
Well the structure of what I had written was about the aspects never presented to the jury.  What I realized in reading it yesterday, was it still applies – only this time with modifications to explain why the viewing public had such a negative outcome to the verdict.
In essence, the same reason(s) the jury could have found George guilty, is the very same reason(s) the public is unable to accept his acquittal.
FIRST: Mark O’Mara spent 4 minutes of silence to prove what exactly?
Sure, the implication was that Trayvon should have made it home;  But he never actually said that directly, instead he just implied it was a possibility.  Which “implies” Trayvon could have hidden around laying in wait for the “creepy ass cracka” to show up.  But again he never actually presented the basis for Trayvon provoking the encounter.
In essence, Mark O’Mara never gave the jury public a single reason “WHY” Trayvon would do that. He never gave, the non-absorbed with minutia public, the complete picture of Trayvon in February 2012.   Consequently, the jury  public had no basis to understand what outlook, or motivations, would have led to Trayvon making the decision that all physical and witness evidence supports.
O’Mara showed the evidence of confrontation, then he showed the evidence of the time Trayvon had to avoid the confrontation. O’Mara even showed the jury a picture of what Trayvon looked like in reality. But he never gave the jury, and subsequently the public, any reason to understand “why” Trayvon would choose to confront George Zimmerman.
In essence he never fully connected the TRUTH of the encounter.
He gave them a solid – what.
He gave them a solid – where.
He gave them a solid – when.
However, by avoiding Trayvon’s character issues he never gave them the full “who”.
And then worse – He NEVER gave them the “WHY”.

The why, or motive, is the key unexplained question.   The “why” is what is causing so many people in the general public, and the media, to disconnect from the very reality that Trayvon initiated the impetus of his own death.
The absence of that “why” explanation, is one of the things the media and consuming public cannot grasp.  It also explains where there is such a thirst amid the traditional, and new media to really understand what Trayvon was all about.    Indeed, they have swamped this very site looking for answers to those why questions.
After everyone listened to the State, and the media, and the Scheme Team, define Trayvon as the Hollister wearing, 7-11 Tea and Skittle child, if they were ever going to understand why George Zimmerman was acquitted they would need to be able to reconcile the why.
Absent of such an understanding/explanation – Riots.
The  jury asked for the evidence again.  A list of evidence. And guess what? It ain’t there.  Nor did the media have any evidence to chew on while the jurors were in deliberations to that affect.    No-one had any explanation because such was never presented to the court of public opinion, or the jury.
It was just too awkward for O’Mara to reconcile himself going there. The political correctness of not defining Trayvon Martin – as the 17 year young man with behavioral issues, led to the only image remaining being the Tea and Skittles 12-year-old.  So George had to be guilty of something.   The halo of saint skittles remained intact.
That missing aspect could also explain why George so wanted to take the stand. No-one, not even his own attorney, was willing to describe the man he met.   The the foul-mouthed, angry, person he encountered – who punched him in the face and broke his nose, just for thinking he was suspicious.  An angry young man.

SECOND: And this is perhaps my own personal frustration.   Mark O’Mara, not the state, but O’Mara himself, called Tracy Martin to the stand to ask the question about the voice on the 911 call from his 3/16/12 hearing at the police station.   Some would say he had to call Tracy because the State would strike the two prior detectives testimonies if he didn’t. Fair enough — regardless.
If the issue of the voice was so keen and distinct to the central tenet of the case, as O’Mara proclaimed ad infinitum; Then why, when Tracy Martin lied, and Mark O’Mara knew Martin lied, why was it O’Mara who was now uncomfortable?   Why didn’t O’Mara just ask Tracy about his own sworn FDLE statement. Example (pivot):

“when you were interviewed on April 2nd 2012, in Fort Lauderdale, you told detective TC O’Steen that you drove Trayvon half-way to Sanford, is that correct”?

Notice what is happening here – O’Mara did not need to directly impeach the witness, truth is on his side, all he needed to do was ask the why questions.
If Tracy admitted to lying to FDLE, then his credibility about the 911 call audio, against the backdrop of the two previous detectives, would stand like a blazing spotlight; And the jury along with  the media and the public could have information to consider the integrity of his testimony.   You can bet it would have run at least one news cycle.
On the other hand, if Tracy stuck to his story about driving Trayvon, as he outlined in the 4/2/12 statement – then Tracy himself has just opened the door for: a) Brandi Greene to be called as an impeachment witness. AND/Or b) The text messages from Trayvon to come in to impeach them both.
[Remember, Brandi was in the police station at the exact time of the statement]
Always ask yourself, what’s the downside to asking “why” questions. Afraid of the truth? Or the political correctness behind the awkward truth?
What lasting image would that leave with the jury about the case and their son, Trayvon. Knowing that Dad and Step-mom have either fabricated lies today in court;  Or they created them last year, around the time of the 911 audio, to FDLE.  Remember, Brandi Green was beside Tracy when he listened to that audio.
Think about it.
That’s really all I’m saying.
Just – Think.About.It.

Not as a deceiver, a worrier, or as a person concerned with the awkward optic of truth searching – but as a truth seeker.
Think about how that would have played with the consuming public, and the regurgitating media.