The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Well that's pointless since they have already said during the trial that touching the gun wouldn't necessary leave prints or dna. Especially if he was just GOING FOR the gun. Zimmerman wasn't sure if he touched it.

So this is basically wasting time.

reply to post by FlyersFan


It's not just about "WHO STARTED IT" - the altercation didn't occur in a vacuum.

reply to post by FlyersFan


He said he may have touched it but wasn't sure. Also it is VERY unlikely that you would leave dna just briefly touching the gun. Trace dna is possible, but not likely in this scenario.

Also Zimmerman never said Trayvon for certain touched the gun.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


It's about who started it and if he was in fear for his life. You can't disprove he was in fear for his life, and witnesses have said Trayvon was on top, and gun powder and stippling evidence supports Trayvon was on top, so the only thing left is who started it and there is even a little evidence to suggest that was Trayvon too.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by UnBreakable

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by marbles87

 

I personally think that Trayvon seemed so suspicious because he was either casing the area or under the influence of cough syrup which he openly discussed abusing on his facebook page.

I didn't know about the cough syrup. Funny he had Skittles and Arizona Iced Tea on his person. Cough syrup + Skittles + Arizona Iced Tea are used to make a street drug called "Lean". Interesting.

therealrevo.com...

Are you saying he was on it or about to make it? If it's the former, that means George can't even beat up an intoxicated skinny teenager, if it's the latter, what does it have to do with anything?

Well, the autopsy showed he had THZ in his system. If he was high, it would have something to do with it, like making him more agressive to attack GZ as he stated. Maybe the Skittles and Iced Tea were nothing more than to satisfy a case of the munchies.


inamerica.blogs.cnn.com...

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
It's not just about "WHO STARTED IT" - the altercation didn't occur in a vacuum.

If someone starts a series of events that ends in the death of someone, then manslaughter comes in. However, Lead Investigator Serino has testified that Zimmerman following Martin was legal. So yes, we kind of are at the point of 'who started it'. IMHO.

I thought it would be Manslaughter because Zimmermans actions got the events started.
But after hearing Serino, I don't know if Zimmermans actions LEGALLY match Manslaughter level.
Morally ... (which is subjective) ... Zimmerman has a lot to answer for.
Legally ... I think it now comes down to who started the fight.

As I said before ... I'm glad I'm not on the jury.

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Ahhhh ... okay. I didn't get that Zimmerman had said Martin held the gun.
I didn't catch that when the police interviews with him were played.
I can't picture Martin getting a hold of the gun and letting go ..... that doesn't make sense.

Do we have a link to Zimmermans comment that Martin held the gun?
Anyone ....???? I'd like to read it. Thanks ahead of time.

here is the interview with GZ's friend who claimed GZ said that TM grabbed the gun

Originally posted by Minus
here is the interview with GZ's friend who claimed GZ said that TM grabbed the gun

Thanks.

So it wasn't Zimmerrman claiming it. It was Zimmermans friend claiming Zimmerman claimed it. The same friend who wrote a book based on a conversation he had with Zimmerman, and who didn't take notes and who admitted in court during sworn testimony that he could have gotten the facts wrong.. Okay ... got it.

reply to post by FlyersFan




I don't understand most of what this boy on the witness stand is saying... I just keep wondering if his mom knows he's testifying at a trial.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Your welcome

Yes the same best friend who is a police man, and shoud have adviced his best friend to keep the mouth shut - guess he just took advantage of the situation. who need enemies with friends like that

reply to post by IvanAstikov


not if the heart is destroyed and stops blood from flowing,add in that almost all the blood coming out of travon flooding into his collapsed lungs and there was not alot of extra blood to go to the potential bruises on his hand

uk.answers.yahoo.com...

impact bruses(from punches have problems forming when the heart is destroyed,but pressure bruises(like if some one was sitting on your chest) can form if some one keeps all the pooling blood in one area it can look like a bruise but is in fact the blood pooling at the lowest point(gravity and such)

for those interested .... www.wftv.com...
The running blog at this site has a 'vote' for people on the internet to participate in.
.. based on the evidence so far what do you think?
5% dont' know. 15% Guilty. 80% Not Guilty
That is without the defense putting on any of their witness'.

No blood from Zimmerman on the cuffs of Trayvon's sleeves... Hmmm...

Okay .. did this DNA expert fella just say that there was foreign blood on Martins clothing?
Martins ... but there was more blood and it wasn't Martins and it wasn't Zimmermans?
Martin had someone else's blood on his clothing? A third person at the scene?
Or someone else's blood from previous 'scrapes' that Martin had gotten into??

Or did I misunderstand all that? I thought I heard foreign blood .....

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No blood from Zimmerman on the cuffs of Trayvon's sleeves... Hmmm...

The PA already said that the blood, what there was, from Zimmermans broken nose would
have flowed backwards into his sinus' and down his throat. It only started dripping out his
nose forward when he stood up and got off his back.

reply to post by FlyersFan


You misunderstood. He didn't test for Trayvon's blood. There was no foreign DNA on his sleeves/cuffs.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No blood from Zimmerman on the cuffs of Trayvon's sleeves... Hmmm...

Trayvon picked himself clean of all George's dna before he died and threw the evidence on a rooftop.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Okay .... that really made me sit up and pay attention. I thought for a second there that there was a third person involved or something. That would really have shaken things up!

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
It's not just about "WHO STARTED IT" - the altercation didn't occur in a vacuum.

If someone starts a series of events that ends in the death of someone, then manslaughter comes in. However, Lead Investigator Serino has testified that Zimmerman following Martin was legal. So yes, we kind of are at the point of 'who started it'. IMHO.

I thought it would be Manslaughter because Zimmermans actions got the events started.
But after hearing Serino, I don't know if Zimmermans actions LEGALLY match Manslaughter level.
Morally ... (which is subjective) ... Zimmerman has a lot to answer for.
Legally ... I think it now comes down to who started the fight.

As I said before ... I'm glad I'm not on the jury.

actually serino is the detective who initially said zimmerman should be charged with manslaughter. i have always felt that zimmerman should be charged with manslaghter. as a "member" of the neighborhood watch he should have known that he was only supposed to observe and report not follow and disobey a police dispatchers advice not to follow.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
Trayvon picked himself clean of all George's dna before he died and threw the evidence on a rooftop.

I see you are a 'Godfather' fan.


NOTE - not to harp on it ... my question about the third person blood ... the commentators at the website are saying this - The dna analyst found Martin's blood on his hoodie on the lower portion and more blood he could not identify. So it's still kind of tickling my brain.