what are you talking about? Of course he thought Martin might be a burglar. That’s why he called the police. Martin was standing in the rain on the property of a house that was recently burglarized.
I don’t have time to read the article, but is he accusing the SPD of being racist?
If he was on the right-winger bandwagon, he would have blamed the EVENTUAL arrest on race politics–those of Sharpton et al. I mean, he’s basically saying the delay in arrest wasn’t due to the apparent lack of probable cause, which is what I had assumed it was. This is a departure from the script!
I can’t tell if O’Mara is a good lawyer just speaking the truth, or if he’s a bad lawyer who doesn’t know what he’s supposed to say. Either way, Zimmerman should think about getting a new one.
From the Huffington Post: Mark O'Mara, George Zimmerman Attorney: Race Is Not The 'Elephant In The Room' In Trayvon Martin Case | HuffPost Voices
In other words, O’Mara is trying to deflect accusations of racial bias against Zimmerman by pointing fingers at the Sanford PD. If I didn’t know any better, I’d think Rev Jackson had blogged this. I hope Zimmerman does not get a new lawyer, because O’Mara is the prosecution’s best friend.
The reason for Martin’s running away appeared to be because he saw Zimmerman was on the phone, perhaps reporting him. When Zimmerman allegedly reached for his cellphone, he was attacked.
Same here. When it first hit the news it was little baby Martin on his way to Disney World when evil Zimmerman gunned him down.
I hear you ywtf. but there are shades of truth in what O’Mara said.
I don’t have a problem with him, as he’s doing his job.
Magiver and Steophan, this is the clearest understanding I have of your opinions now.
But my question to you two is this: what **exactly **changed your opinions?
Because for me, it was the opposite. At first, I thought not much of it but as more information came out, I became outraged.
So then, may I ask the two of you: Do you think Zimmerman can be charged with manslaughter and not second-degree murder? Do you think the prosecution can build up a case for that? Or is it your positions that the prosecution has NOTHING?
Also, just on a side note, my hunch is that the medical examiner picked up on something else (besides the gunshot) that also led him to conclude it was a homicide (as written on the autopsy). I could be wrong, but I think so. I think that edema is going to be important. No one is really talking about this, but I think this will come into play.
I am REALLY curious about what the Medical Examiner has to say.
I am really curious about what ballistics have to say too.
My gut is that the bulk of the case rests on those two things (as well as Dee dee’s testimony).
I am also theorizing that there was more evidence in those 911 tapes–enhanced audio for example.
Carry on 
I read the autopsy again.
I missed yet another piece:
(page 129 of 183 evidence dump)
“The brain weighs 1400 grams and presents moderate congestion of the leptomeninges”.
How did Martin get this injury?
I completely missed this detail.
Also, has Martin’s cell phone been analyzed for blood?
The short answer is that the various pieces of evidence coincide with his account. This doesn’t mean “prove” his account. It means “coincides” with his account. None of it disproves what he says. To understand this one must understand that what he says in any one interview is not to be taken literally. But taken as a group they should be looked at for variations such as “hit” versus “kicked”. This is different than “hit” versus “punched” which are variations of the same thing described with similar words.
Ok. I get it.
But this is where I disagree with you.
Let me ask you a couple questions, and I want an honest answer.
What do you make of Martin’s brain injuries? And he DID have brain injuries. I had to read the report again to find the second ME observation.
**
What is striking me as odd is the following: shouldn’t Zimmerman have been the one with these injuries rather than Martin?**
I had to “double back” and reread that statement about the “moderate congestion of the leptomeninges”.
I am going to start a thread to see if a medical professional can respond, but I really need some clarification.
I am really starting to believe Zimmerman smothered Martin.
Positional Asphyxia
I answered this before. There are no external head injuries of any kind listed in the autopsy.
**
Well Zimmerman wasn’t given an autopsy for starters. His injuries didn’t require a medical scan. All his known injuries will be introduced in court as it relates to the case. They will show that he was struck multiple times which is consistent with his previous statements.
that sounds like a logical thing to do before you come to another conclusion. I don’t see how he smothered Martin without leaving marks and none were listed in the autopsy. I’m guessing Martin wasn’t breathing too well after he was shot.
Magiver, I am trying to be nice and patient with you.
Your last statement of “I’m guessing Martin wasn’t breathing too well after he was shot.” is utterly ridiculous.
I asked you “What do you make of Martin’s brain injuries?”.
You responded "I answered this before. There are no external head injuries of any kind listed in the autopsy. "
Your answer makes no sense.
I asked specifically about the** BRAIN INJURIES, WHICH WERE CLEARLY LISTED ON THE AUTOPSY. CLEARLY.**
Why would you then tell me about no external head injuries?
**It doesn’t follow, unless you assume that a brain injury WOULD HAVE to have an external injury associated with it. **
I will argue that that does not have to be true.
Moderate congestion of the leptomeninges can occur without external marks.
I am going to give you a link..the report will be a little graphic.
Please read it thoroughly.
It is from** The American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology**.
If you read the first couple pages carefully, it talks about law enforcement holds and the injuries that can result–like the one Martin had.
This has further swayed my opinion about Zimmerman.
That guy MUST be locked up.
Well that’s mighty swell of you.
What it means is that the internal injuries were not likely the result of external injuries.
it follows that Zimmerman didn’t create the injury other than the trauma associated with a gunshot at close range.
OK, I read your cite. Where in the autopsy does it mention positional asphyxia? You’ve completely lost me here. I see the case study of involving severe congestion of the leptomeninges and the victim showed external trauma. Don’t you think the autopsy would mention signs of trauma by external sources if this were the case?
Well that’s mighty swell of you.
both his lungs are collapsed. Why would you think he didn’t have difficulty breathing after the damage of the bullet.
What it means is that the internal injuries were not likely the result of external injuries.
it follows that Zimmerman didn’t create the injury other than the trauma associated with a gunshot at close range.
OK, I read your cite. Where in the autopsy does it mention positional asphyxia? You’ve completely lost me here. I see the case study of involving severe congestion of the leptomeninges and the victim showed external trauma. Don’t you think the autopsy would mention signs of trauma by external sources if this were the case?
Magiver,
I think you missed it.
Let me quote:
“It is clear, therefore, that positional asphyxia can occur
in various ways, some of which are better defined and more
easily characterized from a pathophysiologic perspective
(such as the head-down position), whereas in others, the
forced position of the head, neck, or rib cage in restricted
spaces can trigger asphyxiating mechanisms (blocking of the
respiratory orifices, atypical compression of the neck, com-
pression or immobilization of the thorax).
These complex situations in which it is difficult, if not
impossible, to identify the precise mode of asphyxiation can
be included among cases of positional asphyxia in the widest
sense of the term.
In certain cases, these situations belong to the forensic
medicine field: accidents at work, sports accidents, and death
by torture or as a result of kidnapping. Often the cause of
death in such cases is difficult to diagnose because of the
paucity and aspecificity of the anatomic-pathologic findings.”
Also:
“It is clear, therefore, that positional asphyxia can occur
in various ways, some of which are better defined and more
easily characterized from a pathophysiologic perspective
(such as the head-down position), whereas in others, the
forced position of the head, neck, or rib cage in restricted
spaces can trigger asphyxiating mechanisms (blocking of the
respiratory orifices, atypical compression of the neck, com-
pression or immobilization of the thorax).
These complex situations in which it is difficult, if not
impossible, to identify the precise mode of asphyxiation can
be included among cases of positional asphyxia in the widest
sense of the term.
In certain cases, these situations belong to the forensic
medicine field: accidents at work, sports accidents, and death
by torture or as a result of kidnapping. Often the cause of
death in such cases is difficult to diagnose because of the
paucity and aspecificity of the anatomic-pathologic findings.”
Now magiver, what type of brain injury did both of the case study have?
I will let you see what I am implying here.
I will wait.
more:
There are also other possible causes of asphyxiation:
physiologic positions (seated, lying down) when, for extrinsic
reasons (placing of the body, limbs being tied) or intrinsic
reasons (effect of drugs or alcohol), the position of certain
parts of the body (for example, hyperflexion of the neck or
trunk) impedes breathing. In this context, attention has been
drawn to a coerced prone position with the wrists and ankles
tied behind the back (“hog-tied restraint”), a maneuver that
was used by the American police force to restrain subjects
offering resistance and facilitate their custody and transport.2
betenoire39, when do you believe the gunshot happened? Before or after the asphyxiation?
A few things. Firstly, a clearer understanding of Florida law, and what is allowed there, and in what circumstances, as it’s fairly unusual. Please note I’m not taking a position in this thread on whether it’s a good law (but that’s a potentially interesting discussion), but I am fully of the opinion that Zimmerman should be judged solely on whether his conduct was in accordance with this law, not with anyone’s personal morality or opinion of what the law should be.
Secondly, revelations about Zimmerman’s character, which make it impossible for me to believe that this was a racially inspired killing, which for me utterly discredits all the early reporting and protests.
Thirdly, enough of the physical and witness evidence supports Zimmerman’s version of the events to guarantee reasonable doubt that he’s guilty. It’s my opinion more generally that presumption of innocence should be not just a legal standard, but a general standard for living - although there are circumstances that would make that tricky. That’s probably a discussion for another thread.
Fourthly, I find it far more plausible that a pissed off teenager would launch an unprovoked attack on someone than that anyone would call the police, then murder someone seconds before they show up.
This gets to the heart of my problem with you, frankly. You are making judgements based on your outrage, not on what actually happened.
I consider this whole situation a tragedy. If Martin was an innocent who was murdered, he’s lost his life, and his family have had their lives ruined. Even if he was not and, as I believe, was responsible for the situation, neither he nor his family deserved what happened, and their suffering is not minimised - indeed, the family’s may be greater in this case. Added to that, Zimmerman’s life and his family’s will be, if not ruined, damaged in ways that no innocent’s should.
I do not believe that the prosecution can prove he committed any crime, based on the evidence available. You are speculating that there will be additional evidence that will prove him guilty. That may be so (although I honestly doubt it), and if it appears I’ll change my view, but until it does, I’ll base my view on what is actually there.
They will have to explain why it isn’t in their report.
The reports are in the public domain. Almost all the evidence has to be released - another quirk of Florida law. If they contradict their statements in court, they will have a lot of explaining to do. If they add to them, the defence can legitimately ask why they didn’t put it in the reports at the time, and why their testimony now is more reliable than the reports in the past. These aren’t impossible things to explain, but there’s no way it’ll be the slam dunk you expect.
My feeling is that DeeDee’s testimony will be, at least in part, inadmissible, and that the fact that she waited several weeks to contact the police, and contacted the Martin family lawyer first, will be used against her by the defence. I consider her testimony to be the least reliable witness statement out there, and I’ll automatically dismiss things like “she heard Zimmerman push Martin” as impossible.
The tapes have been extensively analysed. What do you expect to come up that hasn’t already?
[/QUOTE]
What’s ridiculous about thinking someone shot through the lungs wouldn’t be breathing well? It seems a reasonable assumption to me.
The existence of those injuries is not proof that Zimmerman caused them. Without external injuries that could have caused the brain injuries, there’s no way to know whether Zimmerman caused them.
Ah, reasonable doubt. If anyone were trying to prove that Zimmerman absolutely could not have caused these injuries, you’d have done a grand job of helping them. However, it’s irrelevant.
What evidence is there that Zimmerman used such a hold on Martin?
Nonsense. You have added no evidence that Zimmerman did anything to Martin. All you’ve done is say that, if something happened for which we have no evidence, these brain injuries could occur.
Show that the injuries could not result from the shooting, and that Zimmerman acted in a way to cause them, *and *that said action was not in reasonable self defence, and you’d have the beginnings of a case. You’ve, as yet, done none of those things.
That it’s possible these things occurred doesn’t make it certain that they did - another fallacy you and others who want Zimmerman locked up keep making - and you may not convict him unless things are certain (to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt).