TM tells RJ on the phone that he “lost” the guy. (Zimmerman’s story corroborated.)
John Good sees the dark-skinned one on top of the light-skinned one. (Zimmerman’s story corroborated.)
Good sees what he describes as “downward motions” from the guy on top. (Zimmerman’s story corroborated.)
Good sees the fight move from the grass to the sidewalk. (Zimmerman’s story corroborated.)
Zimmerman is the only one with verifiable injuries to the face and head. (Zimmerman’s story corroborated.)
Forensics show a close-contact shot to the chest of Martin. (Zimmerman’s story corroborated.)
Earwitnesses continue to hear screams/calls for help AFTER the shot was fired (and this is a crucial point, because IF it’s Trayvon screaming, then he’s still alive and could move his hands to his chest after Zimmerman frisked him, which shoots that point of contention out of the water. IF it’s Zimmerman screaming, then…Zimmerman’s story corroborated.)
Police find grass stains on Zimmerman’s back and Martin’s knees. (Zimmerman’s story corroborated.)
FWIW, I think Trayvon did not die instantly. I am not sure if there was such a determination by the medical examiner.
The lead core of the bullet was found in the pericardial sac behind the right ventricle. The right ventricle is involved in pumping of blood from the heart to the lungs. Two fragments of the bullet jacket were found in the right pleural cavity behind the right lower lobe of his lung.
Trayvon’s lungs were noted by the medical examiner to be collapsed with quite a bit of blood surrounding them (1300ml around the right lung and 1000ml around the left lung). It would take some time with his heart still beating after the shot in order for that much blood to be forced out the wound in his lung and to accumulate to the volume noted.
So I’m not sure if Trayvon could have screamed after the shot was fired, but I do think it took some time for him to bleed out. He might have lost consciousness quite quickly before later dying so perhaps he was not able to scream after being shot.
If the defense was seriously planning on allowing the state to rest and expect the case to be dismissed, they wouldn’t have been whining for a delay like they did yesterday. In fact, they’d be doing the opposite: they’d be doing what they could to help the prosecution get through its witnesses so that on Friday, the entire day could be devoted to sympathetic defense witnesses.
Instead, what we saw was West subjecting the court to Chinese water torture by crossing the DNA analyst for hours and getting zilch out of him that would be helpful to his client. What we also saw was the defense trying to cancel court on Friday, so that they’d “have more time to prepare”. They’ve had all year to prepare, though. That they think so little of the jury’s time and convenience is obvious, but the posture doesn’t suggest confidence. I wouldn’t be surprised if they had fewer than two or three witnesses, not including Zimmerman. And I seriously doubt they will put him up there.
I guess the State took them by surprise by putting up so many of their witnesses, but my God, they should have at least anticipated this.
Missed edit window.
*Wikipedia cites an article with an opinion from Dr. William Anderson a former deputy medical examiner for Orange and Osceola counties. “I think he would have been conscious … for a little time, anyway.” Experts offer competing estimates of 20 seconds to several minutes of consciousness.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to assume that TM could have been conscious for, what, 30 seconds after taking a shot to the heart? Scientifically, people (especially those on drugs) have still continued an attack after being shot in the heart.
The only way TM is immediately incapacitated is if the round hits his CNS. Since the autopsy found that it did not, he was still capable of moving.
Didn’t Zimmerman say something about Martin saying “you got me” or similar, after the shot? Again, not unheard of.
Point is–based on the evidence presented at trial, the substantial parts of Zimmerman’s testimony (in other words, the parts of his story that relate to the attack, the shooting, and the immediate aftermath) have been verified.
I’ll end with this: The photograph of Trayvon Martin the media should have presented, from his own Twitter (NO_LIMIT_NIGGA):
I have no idea if there will be an acquittal or not. Why you doubt my lack of certainty is beyond me, but I’ve maintained this position well before the jury was even seated and the opening statements began.
What I do know is this. With this post alone, you will look like the biggest braying donkey ass on the planet if you’re wrong about the verdict. And if you’re right about the verdict, you will still look like an ass. Just a slightly smaller one.
No, that is not true, she said the exact opposite. She wanted Trayvon to run, he did not.
It is only not in dispute in the sense that “the kid” is not an accurate descriptor of either party here. Martin did not run, based on the evidence we have.
Why are you picking and choosing witnesses, though. John said he say a guy wearing red or white (WTF?) on the bottom, but three others (Mary Cutcher’s roomie, the teacher, and W1) said Zimmerman was on top immediately before and after the shooting. So John is in the minority who said GZ was on top.
Not corroborated,* contradicted*. GZ said he was being punched and head banged. John said he saw none of that going on, just some vague wrestling like positions. He was explicit: these were not punches or strikes being thrown. This contradicts, not supports, GZ.
Again, this contradicts GZ. You are either too biased or ill-informed to see this. GZ said the fight started on the sidewalk and only shifted to the grass at the last seconds. John said the exact opposite happened. (We know the fight ended in the grass because Trayvon’s body was located far from the sidewalk.)
The ME testified that his injuries were very insignificant and thus not consistent with repeated head slamming and punches. So not corroborated at all.
Not corroborated when we look at the blood stains on their clothing and Martin’s hands. There was no GZ blood or DNA on Martin’s undernails despite supposedly coming in contact with bleeding wounds on his face. None of his blood or DNA was found on his hoodie, not even on his sleeves.
This is 100% false. The screaming stopped abruptly when the gun went off and all the witnesses have testified to that. Our own ears can testify to this when listening to the 911 tape.
I’m glad you’ve honed on this detail and called it crucial, because I agree that is crucial. Without the 911 tape, I would see there being room to argue for reasonable doubt. Because we’d have to go off purely what witnesses said they heard about who that voiced belonged to and when it stopped relative to the shooting. The tape allows us to hear for ourselves the effect that bullet had on the voice and the quality of that voice relative to Zimmerman’s flat affect-having “just tell her I shot her” demeanor seconds later.
But why would I look like an ass if I’m right? You’re the one who has ignored factual information about the law from the beginning. You’re the one that filters everything you see and hear through a sieve of Zimmerman-Guilty. You’re the one who has watched the prosecution’s case and believes they’re doing well. This is not a 50-50 shot at this point, yet you continue to hold out desperate hope that somehow Zimmerman will be convicted.
A Zimmerman conviction might validate you. A Zimmerman acquittal only highlights that all along, you knew nothing except what you wanted to believe.
I obviously missed some earlier discussion, but can you explain why you continue to resist the term “kid” applied to Martin? Do you never refer to 17-year-old boys as kids? He was legally a minor. I rarely hear minors referred to as men and women without at least modifying it with the word young. A bunch of 17-year-old people going to high school are never referred to in my experience as a bunch of “high school adults” or “High school men” or “high school men and women”, They are commonly and routinely referred to as “a bunch of high school kids”.
Trayvon Martin was a kid. A high school kid. A minor. Legally a child. There is nothing untrue, Unfair, or inflammatory about using the descriptor “kid” for Trayvon Martin. There was absolutely nothing about him which set him apart from other 17-year-old males who are referred to as kids all the time.
Is it because using the entirely fair and true descriptor of Martin highlights the disparity in their ages, and therefore the fact that legally, morally, ethically, and neurologically, George Zimmerman, At 28 years old, is a fully formed adult human male that is presumably in better control of his behavior than a still developing 17-year-old male?
Obviously you’re not watching the trial. Her testimony is explicit that he ran because she could hear signs of such (his breathing changing, the wind, etc).
I do love when you guys start contesting the incontestable like this. Kind of puts to lie the whole idea that Zimmerman’s actions were justified and Martin was wrong to fear him. Even if was established by God that TM ran away from Zimmerman in fear for his life, it’s obvious you still think Zimmerman was entitled to chase after him some more. Furthermore, it’s obvious you think, regardless of what he actually felt, Martin was not justified in being in fear of Zimmerman.
So why even try to make a big deal about Martin not running? The more you argue that he wasn’t, the more you’re telling us you think it matters.
I reject the description because I reject the bias that it implies, that Martin was somehow less responsible for his own actions that Zimmerman, less capable of violence, and deserving of greater protection than him. It implies that you think that Martin was still the smiling 14 year old in the pictures duplicitously circulated after the shooting.
Martin is no less, or no more, responsible for his own death due to being 17 years old. Zimmerman’s actions are no better or worse, legally or morally, due to that age. It doesn’t affect the case in any way.
Had Martin been 7, or even 14, there might be an argument otherwise. Not with a 17 year old. At that age, I expect one to be legally, morally, ethically, and neurologically in control of their behaviour to the extent that they don’t punch then beat random people, and I expect them to take the consequences if they do.
Your concern with Martin’s ability to control himself is, amusingly enough, an admission that you know he behaved unacceptably, from a legal, moral, ethical, and neurological point of view.
Martin did not run from Zimmerman in fear of his life. If, in a different situation where someone did that, I would have a different opinion of it. I don’t know where you get Zimmerman chasing Martin “some more”, he would’ve had to chase him at all for that to happen, and we know he did not
Martin may have been justified in being in fear of Zimmerman. It’s not unreasonable to be in fear of someone following you. Why does that matter? If you think that simply being in fear of someone following you gives you the right to use force to defend yourself, you’d be sorely mistaken.
It matters simply because it shows that you are factually wrong, and it discredits your reporting of the events and analysis thereof.
I’ll take the explanation that both Zimmerman and Rachel gave, that he did not run but walked faster. Unless you think Martin was lying to his girlfriend, even when she tried to persuade him to run and he refused.
