Martin too, from his street fighting hobby.
Because what he says matches the physical evidence. He says Zimmerman was on top, there are grass stains on Martin’s knees and police officer testified that Zimmerman’s back was wet and had grass on it. He says Martin was beating up Zimmerman, and Zimmerman has the injuries to show it.
Now let me ask you a sincere question. Why do you choose to believe a witness who, in addition to claiming that Zimmerman was on top, also claims, vehemently, and under cross examination, that:
- she heard three shots
- that she saw Zimmerman shoot Martin while Martin was lying on his stomach on the ground
- and, hilariously, that she was interviewed at the scene by a female officer named Serena (no such officer in Sanford PD of course)
So - why do you choose to believe her in spite of her testimony directly contradicting reality? Sincere question.
I know. Of course, Martin was just making “downward movements”, not any punches. Zimmerman, at the time, was busy injuring himself.
You’re welcome?
How long must blood flow continue after an injury for bruising to form?
Hypothetically, if I punch a brick wall but then sustain a fatal injury moments later will bruising be seen in my fingers?
I assume that in my hypothetical that any abrasion or fracture would be apparent but that bruising would take some time (fractions of a second? a few seconds? a minute? I’m not sure how long…) of continued blood flow before bruising would be seen.
I highly doubt that.
If George had left his problem-solver at home, he never would have gotten out of his truck in the first place.
I don’t even know who you’re referring to. I don’t necessarily believe 100% of what any of the witnesses have said. But where their stories agree with one another, I tend think it’s more likely true than not.
The majority of the witnesses agree on the following:
-
the fight wasn’t stationary nor purely physical; it traveled quickly and there were words exchanged
-
it took place mostly on the grass not the sidewalk
-
if there was a ground struggle, it did not constitute the majority of the conflict; there was a standing component
-
the man on top when the gun went off was the survivor, not the deceased
-
there was no punches or head-slamming going on; whatever physical altercation there was, it was of the wrestling/restraining/arm-flailing type
Believe it or not, John is agreement with most of the above. The only difference is that he said Martin was the one on top, not GZ. But logic dictates if he is the only one saying this, then he is probably mistaken. When you factor in the MMA thing, that makes this possibility even likelier.
To partially answer my own question, " No distinct signs of inflammation. Histological distinction between antemortem and postmortem skin wounds not possible " for wounds sustained less than 4 hours before death. That is a statement about a particular type of microscopically observable phenomena.
Cite:
Per Table 5 of this this journal article:
J Clin Pathol 2001;54:348-355 doi:10.1136/jcp.54.5.348
Interpreting bruises at necropsy
Assuming Trayvon Martin did punch George Zimmerman (and I am not sure he did) then it seems that based upon what we know of the timeline that microscopic evidence of bruising would not have been visible.
Other general factors to consider when evaluating bruising include the which part of the body is affected, whether the skin in that area is over bony structure or soft tissue, and how much subcutaneous fat is in that body part.
More vascular areas bruise more easily. Skin over soft body tissue bruises more easily. And skin over areas with more subcutaneous fat bruise more easily.
Typically I would assume skin of the hands would be quite vascular, mostly over bony structure, and have little subcutaneous fat. That sounds like one factor that would tend toward easier bruising and two that would not.
Bear in mind that Zimmerman did survive the fight, and as has been pointed out here (as evidence of his guilt, actually), Zimmerman’s hands had no bruising, scrapes, or defensive wounds, as photographs have attested. If he was on top of Martin throwing MMA blows, it strains credulity that both a) Martin would have no signs of it and b) Zimmerman would show no signs of it.
You know where I stand overall, but even I think that John has just done the same thing that I did: answered the questions like Heinlein’s “Fair Witness” - assume nothing, speak specifically and precisely answer the questions that are asked, add nothing, and only ever say what you really know. (Heinlein’s “Fair Witness”, when asked the color of a house on the hill, replied: “The side facing me appears to be white.” Love that. ) “Downward motions” because he didn’t see the fists land, but it is entirely reasonable to think that there were punches.
This also goes to the proof or lack thereof of whether Zimmerman landed any blows on Martin. If he didn’t’ break the skin, there wouldn’t be any evidence because Martin be all dead and stuff.
This only matters if we assume there were blows being thrown. No one–not even John Good–has claimed to see blows (i.e. punching and hitting). No head slamming either.
Wouldn’t it be something else if Zimmerman went to MMA practice the day of the shooting and hurt his head there? This would explain why the wounds were fresh enough to bleed during the fight, but not so fresh that they required dressing. Not that this would stop people from declaring the existence of reasonable doubt, but still, that would be another interesting twist in this saga. I guess we’ll just have to wait until next week to see what is revealed.
If you don’t, seems that you haven’t watched the witnesses’ testimony in the trial - the witnesses whom you claim “outnumber” John Goode. The testimony I am referring to is from the witness whom you call “the teacher”. It is funny that you have no idea what she testified to, yet you claim that you believe her.
If there were punches, there would no reason not to say that. Taking artistic license with such a straightforward act of violence doesn’t make sense to me. To me, “downward motions” suggest pinning and restraining were occurring. If someone was determined to make wrestling seem more dramatic than it was, you would expect them to liken it to something like MMA. Especially if that someone is sympathetic to the guy claiming self defense.
I just told you I don’t believe 100% of what any of the witnesses have said. I believe her just like I believe John.
Except nothing that John said contradicts reality. Things that Surdyka (“the teacher”) insisted on just couldn’t happen the way she claimed them. She was testifying about some other universe, where Zimmerman shot Martin three times in his back.
It seems rather likely that they were, considering Good’s testimony and Zimmerman’s injuries. Are you suggesting Zimmerman was placing Martin in some sort of a grapple, or what?
That sure would; and if evidence of that exists, it would be pretty huge.
It would be nice for your side if witnesses could be impeached for innocently mistaking an echo for multiple gunshots, but most people are intelligent enough to see this faulty conclusion as immaterial to her credibility on details relevant to Zimmerman’s guilt.
It seems probable that he was. All the witnesses so far are saying they saw a fight with no punching, hitting, or head-slamming. So that leaves us with either grabbing or…nothing. Perhaps just two guys standing out there in the dark. With one held at gun point. Either one fits the evidence.
If such evidence came to light (for instance, an instructor testified that Zimmerman fell in the ring during practice and hurt himself hours before the shooting), would you support 2nd degree murder conviction then? Or would you still be insisting that there is reasonable doubt?
That would be the only piece of evidence so far in the entire trial that would point toward Zimmerman being dishonest about his account of the incident.
In this narrative, how does Zimmerman get his injuries?
Hmmmm. Assuming that the instructor or whomever was able to attest that Zimmerman cut his head and got a broken nose and black eyes (and better yet, prove it with a recording, or perhaps a store’s surveillance camera showing Zimmerman with the injuries beforehand, as I would be a bit suspicious of a witness that only emerged now and had no proof of their claim)…I’ll have to think about how it fits in with the rest of the evidence before I can assert whether reasonable doubt still exists.