That’s good enough for me. They can end the trial now.
Are you familiar with slim jims? They are thin and flexible to fit past the weather seal. Often made from a thin perhaps one inch wide strip of spring steel. Slightly more effective than a fly swatted as a weapon.
FYI not just for cars. Can also be used to jimmy some older style window locks.
Any chance you could share those “objective facts”, rather than a bit of speculation that’s been discredited by, among others, the prosecution witnesses in this case?
Also, the “objective facts” that show he was lying, and not mistaken or confused, in the event that his account was false?
The fact that the lead investigator doesn’t think Zimmerman was lying is proof that he was lying because, racism. Obvious, not sure why you’d have to even ask. 
RJ also admitted that she couldn’t be sure what actually happened because she wasn’t there (or something to that effect).
They found a slim jim in the bushes near one of the residences. It is not linked to Trayvon to my knowledge.
There are no medical impossibilities in his story.
IIRC it was noted that there was some construction or something going on at the site of where the object was found. I wasn’t listening carefully, but I think that was the gist of the comment that I heard.
A slim jim is specifically designed to break into a car. It has no construction use unless a contractor locks himself out and then he has to be carrying it around.
It was surely tossed into the bushes by a burglar but unless they have Martin’s prints on them or someone saw him carrying it then it shouldn’t be mentioned in court IMO.
Prove it didn’t come from Zimmerman.
Regards,
Shodan
Did you mean construction workers just happened to find it?
If you can’t prove otherwise, Zimmerman used it to inflict injuries on himself so he could murder Martin, and pretend to kill him in self defence.
This this this this.
Thank you. That’s among my bigger irritations with the debate here, people saying what HAS to be determined by the jury one way or another. That’s why I posted all that stuff about inferences and jury instructions in the other thread. Jurors are the ones who get to decide, and they have the legal right (and duty!) to do a whole lotta thinking for themselves about what the evidence does and doesn’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt. It is they who are the potential doubters, they who must decide if they have had something proven to them.
Exactly. This wholesale “X, therefore Y (as described by someone who has almost no credibility and every reason to lie) is the only possible reality that anyone can even consider!” is so tiresome…
Is that anything like…
?
Shouldn’t you leave that for the jury to decide, rather than stating it as fact?
Hypocrite.
I think it isn’t that it has to be considered th only possible reality, but that in th context of the trial it is going to be difficult to prove it isn’t a reasonable possibility. And there lies the problem.
Those attempting to show guilt have to present a pretty air tight case. Those that think there isn’t enough evidence to prove guilt can sit back and poke holes. They don’t need to show proof of innocence. Like the prosecution, those siding that the crime of second degree murder was committed, have an uphill battle in terms of winning the argument.
The first actual MD has testified.
http://www.chron.com/news/crime/article/Medical-examiner-says-Zimmerman-s-injuries-minor-4641973.php
Gee.
I would imagine that the defense might seek to impeach her with some of the information contained at that link.
And – did she actually examine Zimmerman?
From your link:
She didn’t actually examine Zimmerman, only looked at photographs. I thought she did a very good job of keeping O’Mara on his toes. Defense didn’t get into her past at all, likely because attacking her on ‘administrative skills’ vs actual forensic skills probably would look to the jury like they were scared of her testimony.
Was she dismissed as a witness or can the defense call her back?