Nothing I’ve seen from O’Mara indicates they are planning to run with this narrative. Remember his previous comments about Zimmerman’s response to Martin:
There would be no reason for him to mention this supposed broken nose if they were planning on making this case be about Martin’s alleged threat to kill.
Which would kind of suggest that if there had been any kind of backstage shenanigans to help her concoct a tale that made TM look good, she wouldn’t last long trying to conceal it.
So, you can look at her as dumb but probably honest, but trying to paint her as dumb AND scheming isn’t going to play well with a jury.
Actually, I never watch any of those cop tv shows. Are you trying to tell me that a decent forensic scientist couldn’t establish a way to tell approximately how long clothing had been in contact with wet grass with any reliability?
O’Mara doesn’t have to argue anything. The evidence shows Martin was on top beating Zimmerman. There is no conjecture on who could best the other in a fight.
I’ll dismiss it as hearsay if it’s hearsay. I’ll give reliable character evidence the consideration it deserves, which is likely to be none in this particular case. That someone is, or was, a violent thug has no effect on the likelihood of them being sucker punched.
I will continue to believe what the evidence shows, which is that Zimmerman was on the losing end of the fight. I’ve not seen any conclusive evidence of who started the fight, therefore I shall continue to regard it as unproven that Zimmerman started it.
Not that who started the fight appears to be relevant to the murder charge.
The jury don’t have to make a decision on whether he was right to shoot. They need to make a decision on whether Zimmerman is proven beyond reasonable doubt to have been wrong to shoot.
I want to add to this. Conjecture about who would win in a fair fight may well be irrelevant. We know Martin got Zimmerman to the ground, and was on top of him, continuing to fight. Whether he got in that position by being a better fighter or by sucker punching him is irrelevant. Claiming Martin couldn’t have done so is foolish in the extreme, because he did do so.
Well Zimmerman might have slipped on a banana peel which any forensic scientist could analyze for signs of a grassy knoll conspiracy.
or they could just ask the witnesses who looked out their window when the fight started and called the cops and then we can then hear the screaming and time it. A forensic scientist would then recreate the amount of time it took to move from the window to the phone and dial and add the 2 together.
But your idea is better because it requires a time machine to go back and examine the clothes (and moisture content in the grass) in retrospect.
We don’t know any such thing. We have witnesses who saw 2 people on the ground, one atop of the other, but none of them claim to have seen any blows thrown from what I’ve read. Perhaps you can refresh my memory with the specific quotes?
Again, you have even less proof of this than you do of Z’s sudden ability to make every move count, when for the previous minute or so he was as helpless as a seal pup against a man with a club.
that’s where deductive reasoning comes in. You can tell who was on top and who got their head punched and beat on the cement by looking at the evidence.
Again, that’s where deductive reasoning comes in. If Zimmerman COULD have stopped the beating earlier, he would have.
Yep. I expect them to do all that.
There’d be no time-machine needed if the SPD hadn’t just accepted Z’s words and they’d treated the scene as a potential murder incident until further clarification.
No, as I didn’t claim any witness had stated that. I can, however, refresh your memory of the fact that Zimmerman had several injuries to his face and head, and Martin had one to his hand, and the fact that the witnesses either claim Martin was on top, or do not claim to have seen who was on top.
I didn’t claim either of these things either. At least partly because, were I to use hyperbole, I’d use much less ridiculous examples.
Of course he would.
Until Z was reminded by TM that he had a gun, it sounds like Z was twiddling his thumbs waiting for inspiration to strike, or for one of TM’s blows to jog his memory, if we are to believe his account of events when they hit the ground.
Conveniently, Z fails to mention how TM was able to get astride him so easily.
After he did his dying swan staggering routine from the T to where he fell, did he lie there arms open wide, begging TM to dive on him? Was he too stunned to defend himself adequately from TM’s bone-breaking fists? If so, why would TM decide to get up close and personal when he could have just stomped Z into the pavement?
How you can believe Z was in a desperate struggle for his life, and him not leave a single significant mark on his opponent, is puzzling, to put it mildly.
Why do you think the guy who’d just been punched in the face hard enough to break his nose and knock him to the ground was stunned? It’s eminently believable he wasn’t able to fight back straight away.
Z’s injuries are evidence that TM couldn’t slam a man’s head against concrete with the intent of causing serious harm if his life depended on it, and unknown to him, it did.
Would a walrus have been more apt?
Why do you believe the guy being accused of second degree murder when he says he was punched in the face hard enough to break his nose?
There is no independent evidence at all which confirms such a thing, so why would you prefer to believe that over, say, it happened as a result of a collision of heads?
Aside from the fact that they may not watch CSI they did treat it as a potential murder incident. Evidence was gathered, Zimmerman was interviewed extensively and it was all turned over to a lawyer who did not see a case.
His nose was bleeding at the scene which indicated that he was punched by Zimmerman. This is consistent with his account of Zimmerman striking him.
It’s consistent with him bleeding at the scene. It is no clear indication of how it happened and your repeating it doesn’t make it more true.