Could have also been grabbing Zimmerman’s shirt(as opposed to his face) and shoving him up and down - possibly without the intent of hitting Zimmerman’s head on the pavement, but was a consequence none the less.
To add to the confusion, the evidence sat in a locker for a month before being tested, giving DNA time to degrade.
Even the full frontal pic of him at the station looks nothing like that car pic.
Folks have jumped to the conclusion that the prosecution is cherry picking evidence by not including the color photo. But honestly, I suspect the last thing the defense wants is for the public to look too hard at these pics.
It’s also possible that Martin slammed his head using telekinetic powers.
Since Zimmerman claims the kid grabbed his head and slammed it repeatedly into the sidewalk, entertaining alternative theories like telekinesis and shirt-shoves doesn’t really get us anywhere, now does it?
Was Crump responsible for this?
:rolleyes:
With the way the dogs were frothing at the mouth, you’d have thought they would tested sooner.
Doubtful. When something is wet, mold and mildew can form and degrade DNA. It should have been tested earlier. Another problem you havee is that they gave Martin CPR, which they obviously should haver, but it adds contamination.
To expand slightly on this – there is no denial of due process rights when the prosecution does not provide material that is known to the defense and available to the defense by the exercise of due diligence (subpoena or deposition). Discovery is not a substitute for investigation.
By taking the time to post in IMHO it would seem that Betenoire39 thinks their opinion matters. Or at least wants it known. I’m curious what their opinion is with regard to those likely responses.
I made no comment with regard to what the state is or is not capable of. Interesting that you thought I did.
Since you are offering your opinion, do I take that to mean that you are a criminologist? Or should I simply suspect that your defence of Betenoire39 is self serving?
Often. I’ve found that snow and a rag work surprisingly well when I am in the field. Of course my expectations of cleanliness may differ from yours.
We know the entire hand was tested?
Regardless, I am sure it would not fly.
Often points that don’t amount to much alone are brought up as part of a larger cumulative argument.
I was just speculating.
Forgive us.., we were still playing the ‘George Zimmerman is a liar, evidence is irrelevant, he is a liar so burn him at the stake’ game.
You’re right, it was wrong of me to make stuff up.
Incidentally, Crump’s response to the photo was that Trayvon was just defending himself, standing his ground,so Crump’s not denying the validity of the photo.
Incidentally, Crump’s response to the photo was that Trayvon was just standing his ground, having every right to be there, so Crump isn’t denying the validity of the photo.
I question whether he even noticed the difference in the nose, OR if he’s just not confident enough to query it’s validity.
FYI, What does “validity of the photo” mean?
That doesn’t mean Zimmerman wasn’t still in the wrong and shouldn’t be held accountable for setting the stage to the event.
Furthermore, that doesn’t mean that other things happened that night which would further put nails in Zimmerman’s metaphorical coffin and case.
I agree with Crump: Martin was defending himself against Zimmerman. If Martin gave him that injury, then that’s what it is–what struck me was how LITTLE damage Martin inflicted on Zimmerman.
I don’t know. Maybe youwiththeface can respond to that as they are the one that called shenanigans.
Did you intend the case to also be metaphorical? 
Relative to Zimmerman’s account? Or did you mean to imply that Martin should have been capable of much more physical violence?
HAHAHA. If you only understood the use of the term “if”. “IF” is used to say that a particular thing can or will happen only after something else happens or becomes true. So the answer to your question is, “No”.
If Crump refuses to turn over the original recording to the SPD or SA, then nothing on it can be presented in court. The recording won’t be considered as evidence by the court.
Crump is hiding something from investigators. The recording he supplied doesn’t cover the time frame of the conversation and he refuses to supply the original recording. Crump is making it quite public that he doesn’t trust the SPD. If Crump doesn’t trust the SPD, what will the jury think about any evidence the police present against GZ? Crump is hurting his own case, if he has any, against the PD and GZ. Which is fine by me.
Crump also claimed witness 8 was a minor (16) which affords her extra protections during depositions. Apparently witness 8 is an adult (18) and doesn’t get those extras. Deedee can always testify in court which means she can be cross-examined in court. That spectical should be worth the price of admission all by itself.
In what specific way do you believe the young woman’s testimony will be a “spectical [sic]?”
LOL.
FYI ??? What does validity mean ???
Is the photo valid? Has the photo been photoshopped? Were the first two photos an attempt to lessen or weaken the defense’s claim that GZ was, in fact, attacked.?
If you, or Crump, or the prosecution believe that something else happened that night, all you have to do is prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, in court, that something else happened that night or that GZ’s version could not have happened.
Let me get this straight - the anti-Zimmerman crowd is, in all seriousness, arguing that the Sanford police department photoshopped the picture they took of Zimmerman before placing it into evidence? Really?