HaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHaHa
That literally made me laugh out loud. How many law books have you read cover to cover?
You said the only reasonable inference that can be drawn from the 3 pieces of evidence you mentioned (Zimmerman’s injuries, Martin’s autopsy, witness statements) is that Martin inflicted those injuries. But this is false. The injuries themselves could have been incurred if Zimmerman fell and hit his head on something in the process of pursuing his victim. The autopsy evidence and the witness statements actually support this theory more than the “Martin did it!” theory, because none of Zimmerman’s DNA found on Martin outer clothing or under his fingernails, and none of the witnesses said they saw Martin punching or slamming Zimmerman’s head.
Hit the back of his head and his face? That’s quite a fall!
Do you have a cite that the autopsy included looking for DNA under Martin’s fingernails?
Witness 11 heard “scuffling”.
Witness 6 saw two individuals “struggling or wrestling”. And, “the person on top [Martin] either forcefully holding the person on the bottom down, or hitting the person on the bottom.”
Just for thoroughness…
Witness 6 also saw the fight moving to the sidewalk, and at that moment he decided that the fight was “intensifying”, so he went inside to call 911.
Sound familiar? It should, because it matches Zimmerman’s account.
“Crazy mental gymnastics”, indeed. Your theory requires Zimmerman injuring the back of his head and his face, then getting into a fight where he has a person atop him on a sidewalk, in which no injuries are inflicted.
So? if it supports one theory more, that means it supports both theories, so Zimmerman can’t be convicted on this evidence.
Here’s the live feed for today’s hearing. Apparently there’s a secret witness who saw the whole encounter and will corroborate Zimmerman’s version of events. The witness was kept secret for protection against the zealots who want Zimmerman to be guilty.
Yes, there was a witness who saw the whole thing. Zimmerman. All the other witness and physical evidence matches his testimony or is neutral. None of it contradicts it. In order to cast doubt there has to be evidence that contradicts it. What-if’s cannot be introduced.
There are three witnesses who can partially or wholly corroborate Zimmerman’s account of things, according to todays. hearing. Unfortunately, for them, the judge ruled they couldn’t remain unknown. Let’s hope they will remain safe.
In the news items today there is no mention of the “seeing the whole encounter” thing. Where did you see that?
It was rainy and it was dark. Slick surfaces everywhere. There were trees, signs, sprinkler heads, and other pointy objects in the environment.
If you seriously can’t see how easy it would have been for Zimmerman to have slipped and clunked his head against something, then you’re not really thinking.
It’s in discovery and I’m not going to waste my time pouring through documents to find something you already should have knowledge about, since you’re bold enough to be arguing about this case.
The state analyzed Martin’s fingernail clippings and found no Zimmerman residue (DNA or blood) on them.
This only tells us that the two were scuffling. Zimmerman’s injuries could have been inflicted before or after the scuffling took place, and they could have been inflicted during the scuffling if Zimmerman collided against something incidentally. “Scuffling” doesn’t prove Martin was the source of Zimmerman’s injuries.
Witness 6 did not say he saw Martin punching or slamming Zimmerman’s head on the ground. His “or” statements make it clear he wasn’t sure what he saw. The two nicks on the back of Zimmerman’s head are not obviously connected to what he saw. Just like the other witness, his statement confirms there was a physical altercation. It’s not strong enough evidence to preclude all explanations except Martin inflicting injury to Zimmerman.
If you’re suggesting that Zimmerman slipped and fell in such a way to get two cuts on the back of his head, two black eyes, a broken nose, and back injury, well, all I can say is I find that highly unlikely. It might be physically possible to fall in such a way, but it would be an extraordinary event.
I gave you the courtesy of linking to Martin’s knee grass stains, but sure, get on your high horse.
All explanations? No, but it’s the only reasonable explanation. The alternative is that a fight went on at length and left no injuries to either party, moments after one party suffered wounds to his face and head in an unrelated happenstance, and that the other party had a scrape on his knuckle from some unrelated incident.
And again, Zimmerman being injured after the fight makes no sense at all. There simply wasn’t time.
Can you describe, in your own words, the burden of proof that the prosecution has?
Because in light of the approximately one billion times it’s been mentioned, this statement is frankly mind-boggling.
Why do you think “…to preclude all explanations except Martin inflicting injury to Zimmerman…” is the correct standard?
Doesn’t even have to be that. Suppose there are TEN reasonable explanations, and only one of them involves Martin inflicting injury to Zimmerman.
What happens then, you with the face?
Seriously: tell us what you believe the prosecution has to prove, and to what level. Do you even know?
Right, but the specific claim I made that she’s responding to is that the only reasonable inference to be made from Zimmerman’s injuries, Martin’s autopsy, and the witness statements is that Martin inflicted Zimmerman’s injuries.
He slipped, broke his nose, blackened both his eyes, and had at least two injuries each to his forehead and the back of his head, and then got up, chased Martin down and shot him, whilst presumably also injuring Martin’s hand in a way consistent with him hitting someone, then rubbed Martin’s knees in the grass to make it look like he’d been on top in the struggle? That’s your theory?
And did all that with the witnesses somehow all missing it, or lying about it later, don’t forget. Yours is not a theory any reasonable person could believe, let alone one that excludes any other reasonable scenario.
And yes, I’ve added bits to what you said, as they would be necessary to account for everything.
Unless you can prove that the DNA was not there, rather than that they did not look for it, you can’t prove that he did not inflict the injuries. As you can’t even be bothered to cite it, I doubt you have any idea whether they looked or not (they didn’t).
No, it doesn’t. However, that’s not relevant. You need to prove Martin did not inflict them, and what you are doing has nothing to do with that. At the moment, you are doing the job of the defence for them, by demonstrating that we do not know exactly what happened.
There was a physical altercation, and we don’t know what happened in it? So, Martin might have acted in such a way that Zimmerman could legally kill him? Not guilty.
Do you understand this yet?
I don’t think anyone is contesting that it’s impossible that Zimmerman’s injuries could have been obtained in that fashion. However, we cannot assume that is what happened just because it’s possible.
Can you not see that, based on the currently available evidence, it is more likely that Martin inflicted those injuries?
Injuries obtained as a result of a fight are almost always the liability of the person who initiated the combat. It does not matter if it’s “incidental” or not. If you hit someone and they stumble back and fall through a glass table, you are liable for all of the injuries caused from your initial contact.
Further, if that person has a brain aneurysm three days later and dies, you can be charged in the death of that person if it’s determined that his condition was caused by the altercation.
Lastly, even IF Martin did not intend to break his nose and hit his head on concrete, those two injuries alone can easily produce intense fear. As someone who has practiced martial arts for many years, I can tell you that even in controlled situations and with protective gear, getting mounted and being hit in the face produces panic and fear very quickly.
[QUOTE=you with the face]
This only tells us that the two were scuffling. Zimmerman’s injuries could have been inflicted before or after the scuffling took place
[/QUOTE]
The point is that Zimmerman’s injuries could have been inflicted by Martin before the scuffling took place. That is a reasonable interpretation of the evidence - more so, certainly, than these wild gyrations that Zimmerman must have gone thru in order to gash the back of his head, and break his nose and blacken his eyes without getting any stains on his knees.
But let’s pretend that Zimmerman pinwheeling across the subdivision like a runaway Frisbee, and Martin punching him in the face, are equally plausible scenarios.
This means that Zimmerman is not guilty. Because the prosecution has to prove their side, and the defense doesn’t.
Are you ever going to get that?
Regards,
Shodan
To this, even if it was tested for and not found, that’s not proof that Martin didn’t strike Zimmerman. It is is entirely possible to strike someone without getting their DNA under your fingernails.
The presence of DNA there would prove contact between Martin’s hands and Zimmerman, but the absence of it cannot disprove contact.
Good point. Again, it seems ywtfis doing the defence’s work for them.
They must prove 2nd degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because Human Action posted this:
(bolding mine)
If what I posted sounds extreme, it’s only because I’m responding to someone who keeps making extreme declarative statements about inferences.
Lol. Zimmerman said his face was covered with blood during the fight and claimed the kid was grabbing his head and slamming it with force. Let us also not forget about the alleged smothering attempt. Martin’s hands would’ve touched Zimmerman’s mouth and bleeding nose if this were true, and yet no blood, spit, snot, or skin cells wound up under his fingernails.
You claim this is entirely possible. What makes you qualified to say this? Do you know how much shedded DNA the average person has sitting on their face at any given moment? Do you know the sensitivity of the DNA tests used by the State lab? Do you know how many people get involved in attacks like this and manage to test negative for DNA/blood?
How could you possible know it is “entirely possible” for this forsensic finding to match up with Zimmerman’s story? What are your qualifications?