The Zimmerman Trial

The expert's testimony that the gun was fired 2-4 inches away disproves the notion that Trayvon was shot 'as he approached him' or that Zimmerman was chasing him and shot him.

This is very important because Trayvon supporters have long been under the notion that Zimmerman aimed and shot him while 'chasing him- out if ill-will/spite/hatred.

Nancy Grace is going to have a complete meltdown tonight... should be fun to watch

Originally posted by FlyersFan
IMPORTANT TESTIMONY -

This doctor witness now says that there are at least six identifiable head injuries to Zimmerman.
He has also said that blows may not leave marks, so there may be many more.

SIX identifiable impacts to the head. Zimmerman has his head beaten on.
This forensic evidence is matching Zimmermans testimony about the fight.


LUNCH RECESS

edit on 7/9/2013 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)

I have to agree. Great witness for the Defense, but in my mind it doesn't do much in terms of anything I have wondered about.

We knew Zimmerman was in a fight. We knew he got the worst of it. I think many of us have accepted/suspected that Trayvon was on top. I have never really questioned Zimmerman's account of the actual fight, I questioned just how it started. Which unfortunately this witness can't tell us.

That being said, his testimony really does support Zimmerman's account of the physical fight as well as the moment the trigger was pulled. As I said in a few post a long time ago, I am very interested in knowing what the Jury instruction is.

On another note: Now that the toxicology report is going to be entered into evidence, when no one thought it would be, does anyone want to retract the biased Judge remarks? You have to admit, that ruling was certainly not bias against the Defense.

Edit to add: The Prosecution can kiss any chance of Murder 2 out the window. This witness destroys that charge, which I have always claimed was over reaching to begin with. To me this was never murder. I have never believed Zimmerman ever intended to kill anyone that evening.

eta: spelling and stuff

Originally posted by MrWendal
Now that the toxicology report is going to be entered into evidence, when no one thought it would be, does anyone want to retract the biased Judge remarks? You have to admit, that ruling was certainly not bias against the Defense.

I think the judge knew she really didn't have a choice.
EVERY talking head legal eagle on the news was saying she made a mistake.
EVERY talking head legal eagle on the news was saying that she opened herself up for reversal.

She probably went home and watched the TV news overnight and saw that she had to change it.
IMHO. (That's my guess ... no proof of course)

On another note: Now that the toxicology report is going to be entered into evidence, when no one thought it would be, does anyone want to retract the biased Judge remarks? You have to admit, that ruling was certainly not bias against the Defense.

Didn't someone post info that denying that could cause legal problems down the road. She may have done it because of future implications.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
I think the judge knew she really didn't have a choice.
EVERY talking head legal eagle on the news was saying she made a mistake.
EVERY talking head legal eagle on the news was saying that she opened herself up for reversal.

She probably went home and watched the TV news overnight and saw that she had to change it.
IMHO. (That's my guess ... no proof of course)

Judges always have a choice. How many times have seen some seriously outrageous decisions made by Judges? I am not saying you're wrong, but I can't say you are right either.

I don't know what the talking heads have been saying lately. I have only been watching testimony- for the exception of yesterday, I missed it all.

For me, without being too specific, the toxicology report doesn't mean too much. The amount of Americans who have used that particular drug at some point in time is massive, and I am pretty sure most of us know that it does not cause people to become violent, if anything it is typically just the opposite.

CROSS EXAM of the Gun injury expert ...

Prosecution .... your testimony is only of the actual fatal shot .... you are not saying that what Zimmerman said is accurate .... you don't know who threw the first punch ....

Doctor says he focused on Zimmermans statement to check against the forensics.
He didn't check the other statements of the other statements. 'it's not his job'.

The prosecution - Zimmerman has a bias and a self interest not to tell the truth, right?
Prosecution says that Zimmerman was 'armed' with a flashlight.
(guess that means all of us with flashlights in our cars are now armed and dangerous :shk: )

Prosecution brings in that the expert shot up animals in experiments.
(prosecution is going for the all female jury not to like little animals being shot by this man)

Prosecution brings up that this witness testified in the Drew Peterson case and Spector cases.
Both were for the defense of those. Witness gets $400 an hour to testify.

COMMENT on the live steam blog mentions that the prosecution is being passive/aggressive.
(I've gotta agree)

reply to post by MrWendal


You have to remember people have different reactions to drugs, The guy who was eating the homeless mans face in Florida only had thc in his system.

MORE CROSS EXAM OF DEFENSE WITNESS (gun shot wound expert)

No question that Martin was shot in the heart. Questions the truth of the statement that if the heart stops then the person can still move 10-15 seconds afterwards.

Witness says he can't testify about who was screaming for help. He says he can't testify about how Zimmerman took the gun from the holster. He's only here to testify about the gun wound.

Witness says that the shot couldn't have been with them standing next to each other because the shirt wasn't 'hanging down'. The gun powder tattoo and the holes in the shirt show that Martin was absolutely OVER Zimmerman.

The physical evidence is consistant with Martin being over Zimmerman.

Prosecution is trying to ask the witness if Zimmermans wounds could come from bumping into tree branches. (man .. this is really lame on their part ! )

Originally posted by MrWendal
I am pretty sure most of us know that it does not cause people to become violent, if anything it is typically just the opposite.

I agree. I've not heard of anything violent from that.
At this point I think this case is a done deal anyways.
The prosecution is trying to say Zimmerman got his injuries from running into trees or something.

Ugh....

This is driving me nuts!

I know the prosecutor is trying to trip up this witness, but crap he's acting obtuse.

I decided to watch today and now I'm going to have to cut it off and just to back to following you all's updates.

This prosecutor is completely annoying.

ps... all those providing updates, you all are awesome! Thank you!!!

WITNESS is now kind of chuckling at the questions asked by the prosecution.
The prosecution is asking outlandish speculation questions.
Witness now states that Zimmerman could have hit Martin and not had bruises on his own knuckles.
Witness complains about record keeping of doctors and PA's ...

Fire rescue report put Zimmerman at 'just fine' after the incident (in regards to his health)
Glasgow Scale put him at a 15 .. which is dazed and confused .. but healthy.

Witness again states that the fractured nose of Zimmerman was probably reset by the
Emergency personnel right after the fight.

PROSECUTION just said 'what happens when you put a hand over Zimmermans bloody face?'
Witness ... you get blood on it.
PROSECUTION just said blood would go down the throat and make it difficult to swallow or speak.
Witness ... yes depending on how much blood there is.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Yes I am watching that. Some of these questions are just beyond dumb. I can't stand this bald headed prosecutor. He just comes off as such a swarmy bastard.

He did start out strong, well as strong as he could, by pointing out that all the witness can testify to is the moment of the shot being fired. Not who started the fight, who said what, or who was screaming. After that, it just got stupid.

I have not seen the prosecution suggest that GZ and TM were standing up, I have never seen any suggestion the GZ chased him and shot from any type of upright position, I have never seen any thing that suggested that Zimmerman punched first or even put up much of a fight and that line of questioning was just insulting to the intelligence.

It was so bad and so ridiculous that I put on my tin foil hat and had to wonder if they are trying to throw this case. None of those questions made any sense and certainly were not suggested in the opening statements. If anything, it seems that they are ignoring their opening statement altogether. That line of questioning was just that stupid. Much like the focus on GZ injuries... are they trying to suggest Trayvon never hit him? It just makes no sense. Tree branches? Makes no sense.

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by MrWendal

 

You have to remember people have different reactions to drugs, The guy who was eating the homeless mans face in Florida only had thc in his system.

He(the face eating guy) had THC in his system but they do not test for the chemicals found in K2, Spice and all the other 'incense' that is an epidemic in Florida. TM may have had some of that in his system but it is NEVER tested for. Just speculation, but to say he only had THC in his system isn't quite accurate. They only found THC in his system.

For a side note, incense(K2, spice, ect..) that is made to be an intoxicant and is an epidemic for young men Martin's age. The media calls it a 'marijuana substitute' and the sellers often market as a legal alternative to MJ. Both or way off the mark, that stuff is on the same level as crack. I've seen how bad it effects users and the effects of MJ vs smokable incense are astronomical. I do applaud(rare for me) Florida and the FEDs push to make that stuff and analogs to it illegal and shame on MSM to try to compare something that effects someone like crack to a harmless plant.

www.northescambia.com...

DEFENSE recross on expert -
Witness again says that the forensic evidence matches Zimmermans account.
Witness again says that forensics should be considered more reliable than witness accounts.
Witness states that eyewitness' at crime scenes often get their accounts wrong
so he doesn't base his opinion on them but instead on forensics.

Sanford Florida City City Manager, Norton Bonaparte - Defense Witness.

Defense is asking how the 911 tapes were played for the Martin family.
Answer - from a computer (I think that's what he said)
Asked how many times the tape was played.
Answer - he doesn't recall
Asked if the police were involved in playing the tapes for the 'witness' (Martin family).
Answer ... no.
Asked if any consideration was given to the concept of recording the Martins (witness') hearing the tape.
Answer - 'no'.

Witness says 'I do not recall' a few times and seems defensive.
(he doesn't look or sound like he wants to be talking to the defense)


PROSECUTION ...same witness

Prosecution says 'it was the decent thing to do to play it for the family before releasing to the public'.
Answer - yes.

END OF WITNESS ...

NBC News is reporting that the Defense is not going to bring Martins toxicology report into court.
The defense has this in the bag at this point, so no point in bringing in Martins drug use, because
then the prosecution can bring in Zimmermans prescriptions ....

reply to post by FlyersFan


If he is basing his opinion on the forensics available, they are the same forensics that the defence is trying to say was all done wrong(apart from the bits that help them), so, garbage in, garbage out. Either the forensic evidence is credible, or it isn't.

I think the ME did a good job even though hes a hired gun - he destroyd the prosecution, very powerfull. And the prosecuters recross didnt had any special effect,