The Zimmerman Trial

reply to post by IvanAstikov


Of course he was over him. He was shot from below (martin on top of zimmerman) ad his heart stopped almost immediately.

Also you are making stuff up. There is no evidence that Zimmerman actually set down and straddled Martin. Also Martins wole weight did almost certainly fall on Zim as martin was on top when he was shot. The reason Martin was face down was because Zim likely got out from under by pushing martin up and sliding him over, letting him fall face down. Think of how you'd get out from under a heavy wall.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


It indicates that the clothing was anything from 4 inches to 4 ft away from the impact point. How far do you think a hoody can stretch if someone is holding onto it?

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by LeaderOfProgress

 

What facts will be presented?

How about the fact that despite supposedly having cuts on the back of his head and a bleeding nose, and him diving on Trayvon to restrain him, there was none of his dna on Trayvon's hoody? O Mara has gone for the "faulty evidence handling" distraction, but he's going to get schooled over his "selective dna-eating fungi" theory.

I've had my nose broken during a punch and also have hit people in the nose causing bleeding. I'm sure I haven't had the other person's blood on my hands nor bruised knuckles either after these incidents. Also you can slam someone's head on the ground by grabbing their collar or shoulder area and not get blood from the head wounds on you.

Originally posted by ButterCookie

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by Libertygal

 

Originally posted by Libertygal
[That, and the small fact he can't remember from 2 years ago. Hasn't it been just over one.year?
.....
Seems his memory, and that of the media is worse than thought.

Let's see how good your memory is.

What did you eat just one year ago? On July 6, 2012? Do you remember? Is your memory that bad?

Keep in mind the autopsy was performed one day after the shooting, before it was news. In fact, Trayvon Martin was a "John Doe" at the time. And the ME routinely performed autopsies as part of his job. Why SHOULD he remember it any more than you remember what you ate on a particular day one year ago or 6 months ago or even 1 month ago?

You are absolutely right in being fair about his memory of a John Doe 'before it was news'....

so why did they call him as a witness???

Because, he had full notes, pbotos, and recordings of the autopsy to refresh his memory before he testified.


The questions like that posed to me in reply are wholly unfair, except that I do remember much of what I did that day, it was the anniversary of my mothers' death. Totally a coincidence, but because the day had meaning to me, I didn't need notes to remind me, it stood out in it's own significance. Not only that, but because I work a very exact schedule, and work 3 in a row, knowing what days I work, etc., I could lay out, without notes, almost an exact timeline with eerie accuracy not only what I did for that day, but the 6 or so days on either side of it..

But it was a red herring argument. It is not my JOB to remember what I did that day. If it were, however, I would have used and shared my notes with the court, as required by law.

It is not, was not, this M.E.'s first rodeo. He is not a blithering idiot. People are asking you to buy into it, but he is completely aware of court rules and proceedures.

It is as obvious as the nose on your face by watching the first few minutes of his testimony.

For instance, the fact that he spells out particular words proves he has been stopped in prior testimony for clarification due to language.

Secondly, when the questioning began, he was asked a direct question, "How tall was Trayvon Martin?"

Instead of simply answering the question, he replies, "Let me tell you how I performed the autopsy."

The questioner, instead of asking him to answer the question, replies, "Okay."

It was obvious from that moment, he was reading a story. I was shocked it took as long as it did to question him about his "notes". When questioned about the notes, he became hostile. They were his PERSONAL notes.

No... there are no personal notes in an autopsy in court. He knew this. All notes taken are actually considered a part of the record, official use, and belong to the state. Don't believe me? Just look up about the little pocket notebooks cops carry. States evidence, they are warned to NEVER write things in their notes they don't want anyone to see. Cops have lost their jobs over disparaging remarks in their notes.

The M.E. was reading a script. Every time he was asked a question, he would balk at the answer, and just continue his "story".

He couldn't "remember", because this was so out of line, so out of the NORM for how questioning is done, THAT is why he was behaving so oddly. Not only that, but again, the prosecution, along with the judge (who could SEE the friggin notes!!) were in on it!

This trial is a comedy of errors, and ANYONE telling you any different is selling you a bag of goods.

Trust your instincts, and again, if you do not believe me, go find the M.E. testimony in the Casey Anthony trial on youtube, and compare the behavior, structure, and proceedure in how it is handled. That judge was tight, and ran a court with no bias.

The Trayvvon.supporters are obviously going to support this M.E., regardless of his errors, because of course it "supports" their side, but in totality, it makes a joke of the M.E. as well as the prosecution, because anyone can see through the charade.

Only those unfamiliar with court rules and proceedures lack the knowledge to be not only furious about his behavior, but the knowledge to see the people on here again blindly supporting someone, no matter how big an idiot they are, because they just cannot admit the guy was in the tank for the prosecution.

Doing so would cast a shadow of a doubt on Saint Trayvons case, and well, we just cannot have that, can we.

The simple fact of the matter is, the M.E. violated the courts rules and proceedures knowingly, and was reading a script , and pointing that out is framed as making you biased AND racist. See how that works?

IF George is convicted, it will be overturned, guaranteed, based almost soley on tbe errors of the court.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

Of course he was over him. He was shot from below (martin on top of zimmerman) ad his heart stopped almost immediately.

We know the latter, but we don't know the first part. There is no witness to the shooting, and Zimmerman's claims have to be taken with a decent pinch of salt.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

It indicates that the clothing was anything from 4 inches to 4 ft away from the impact point. How far do you think a hoody can stretch if someone is holding onto it?

A gangsta hoodie can stretch up to 4 ft - so this still isnt proof enough, u need to specify yourself alot more please.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


They just said that because they can't say anything is impossible. The gun was against the clothes but had inches between the skin. It would be foolish to think the hoodie would stretch more than a foot.

We all know what it means. Choose denial and the least likely scenario if you wish.

Originally posted by UnBreakable

I've had my nose broken during a punch and also have hit people in the nose causing bleeding. I'm sure I haven't had the other person's blood on my hands nor bruised knuckles either after these incidents. Also you can slam someone's head on the ground by grabbing their collar or shoulder area and not get blood from the head wounds on you.

I don't doubt any of that, but once you are bleeding, if you then reverse the mount on someone, how likely is it that none of your dna would land on the figure below? If he only shook his head to clear his senses a little while checking Trayvon's pockets, or whatever it is he was doing, that's going to throw dna everywhere.

reply to post by Minus


Now that is ridiculous and unlikely. They might have said that but do you guys believe it was stretched that way? If it was stretched that far it would have to be with a free hand andalso there wasn't that much space between thenm whe the shot went off.

Do you guys think they were four feet apart and one of them was still screaming like that? Also before and after the shot someone saw the two people on top of each other.

Seems like any argument flies for the prosecution. Ignore the sensible defense argument but embrace the crazy unlikely prosecutions story.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


Minus seems to think 5ft plus could be possible in a real gangsta hoody, so I'd take it up with her, if I were you.

reply to post by IvanAstikov


It depends on if the blood is flowing or not, and if you are directly over them. There could have been Zimmermas blood all over the grass around the body. Why would he hold his head directly over the body? It'd be more likely the blood would drip onto himself. It's not a all unikely there would be no blood. Als how long after was the blood collected?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


I don't think it was a "gangsta" hoodie. The store video made it look to me like it fit him fairly well and was not loose at all. Do you disagree? Do you really think it was stretched that far?

reply to post by IvanAstikov


We actually do know the first part because testimony and evidence suggests it.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

Seems like any argument flies for the prosecution. Ignore the sensible defense argument but embrace the crazy unlikely prosecutions story.

As crazy and unlikely as the story about a concerned and vigilant citizen who walked past the hiding place of a suspected burglar he'd been keeping an eye on, and got hit, dragged to the floor, mounted mma-style, then beaten bloody and senseless before finally getting hold of his trusty firearm? I bet you think Bonanza was a documentary.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Minus

 

Now that is ridiculous

I agree, but so is it to ignore half evidence just because someone made up his mind dont you think?

Its very har to discuss this trial with someone that isnt objective, not want to view for and against, but only take one sides story and do all in his power to convince us/others thats its the only truth there is.

so why not level it out with an super elastic gangsta hoodie, get what i mean?

Originally posted by Minus

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Minus

 

Now that is ridiculous

I agree, but so is it to ignore half evidence just because someone made up his mind dont you think?

How objective is believing the words of a known killer, who is brazen enough to appear on national tv and tell blatant lies, has kicked at least one dog, has assaulted at least 3 women, one of them sexually, has assaulted a cop who was arresting his friend, and lies about his finances while scamming a gullible public?

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

We actually do know the first part because testimony and evidence suggests it.

I'm sure you remember John Good saying how when he last saw them they had moved so they were lay almost sidelong to the dog path, don't you? And then he went upstairs to get a safer look and heard the shot just before he got to the window, yes? And he looked outside and saw Trayvon lay face down where the EMT found him, right? How do you think Trayvon got where he did if he was shot while still straddling Zimmerman anywhere near the pathway. He couldn't have staggered there as you can see how his legs froze. So, somehow the struggle ended up away from the path again, but if that'd have happened while Z was still on his back and Trayvon astride him, the grass stains on Trayvons pants where his knees were pressing down against the ground would be unmistakeably marked from the wet grass, rather than having a few specks of mud on them.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by IvanAstikov

 

I don't think it was a "gangsta" hoodie. The store video made it look to me like it fit him fairly well and was not loose at all. Do you disagree? Do you really think it was stretched that far?

One thing to keep in mind also, that hoodie, shown in court the way it was, sure flew in the face of the whole 12 year old image. When it was standing in that frame next to the lawyers, it was an obvious display to the watchful (read jury) that have been shielded from the real images of Trayvon, that shirt was not fit for a.small, 12 year old, or a small 17 year old, for that matter.

I see that in itself as a win for the defense, because as far as I saw, the answer the Trayvons' height never was answered, was it?

The M.E. was very good at obfuscating when it came to direct questioning. I did not watch his entire testimony, however, so he may have, at some, actually ANSWERED the damned question.

I do try to keep the jury in mind, though sometimes, it is hard to do. Out of sight, out of mind, and all of that, but I plan on watching the video of his testimony, since I had to sleep for work and missed some, and to do so with the mindset of a juror.

I know my first impression was wow, that shirt is huge, it sure shows his size!

Win.

Originally posted by IvanAstikov

Originally posted by Minus

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
reply to post by Minus

 

Now that is ridiculous

I agree, but so is it to ignore half evidence just because someone made up his mind dont you think?

How objective is believing the words of a known killer, who is brazen enough to appear on national tv and tell blatant lies, has kicked at least one dog, has assaulted at least 3 women, one of them sexually, has assaulted a cop who was arresting his friend, and lies about his finances while scamming a gullible public?

i allready said i wanted this man i jail - even if his story is true, but following the state law he might go free.
But you seem to be on a one man crusade here buddy, come on

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by ButterCookie

 

Misunderstanding, I think. Sorry.

You asked me why they called him as a witness and I was saying that he is what is called an "expert witness" (not that I think he's great or anything, that's just what they're called). I wasn't defending him as an expert, I meant he wasn't called for being an eye-witness, who is someone who SAW something, or can testify to the condition of the body because he saw it. But as an "expert witness" who is someone they call to bring their expertise and professional opinion on the matter.

In other words, he doesn't need to remember anything. That's not why he's there. He's there to give his professional opinion based on the pictures and notes of the case. Even if he didn't perform the autopsy, he could still be called as an expert witness in the case. So, his memory of it is irrelevant.

I hope that's clearer.

edit on 7/6/2013 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)

Yes.

The thing is, he still shouldn't have even been considered as an 'expert' at any rate for the reasons I stated above. He really is not even an 'expert' in his field since he has never done any independent work/ study/ research on the job he performs.