Do you believe everything that Zimmerman’s lawyers say?
IIRC the funeral director confirmed that Martin was shot once in the chest. Of course, he could be part of the cover-up.
But you are correct - it is possible that when the results of the autopsy are made public, it will turn out that Martin was shot five times in the back. Possible, but not (IMO) likely.
Do you think that your discounting of the leaked autopsy results and the account of the funeral director are proof that you are biased against Zimmerman?
we’ve gone over and over and over this.
hypothetically, if zimmerman shot twice, he could have connected on just one of the two shots.
or it could be he fired once and the second sound on the tape was (insert anything you want). which could be what the witnesses heard.
maybe he shot twice but connected once. maybe he shot once and some other loud sound caused the confusion about the second shot.
i just don’t think both the witnesses and the lawyers are being maliciously misleading. i think there’s either 1. some unknown component or 2. some obfuscating extra sound on the tape. all of this “funerary conspiracy” is just strawman nonsense.
Yes we have, and I am surprised you don’t understand yet.
Nobody does. However, if it is established that only one bullet is gone from Zimmerman’s gun, and only one shell casing is found on the scene, and Martin was hit by only one shot, then it is not possible that Zimmerman fired more often than once, and the witnesses’ testimony about how they heard multiple gunshots is wrong, and can be discounted.
You asked this -
I don’t know about you, but I tend to believe accounts when they jibe with the physical evidence, and am skeptical about those accounts when they don’t. As far as can be determined, the accounts that say they heard multiple gunshots have been contradicted by the physical evidence. Therefore, unless further evidence shows up to change things, I disbelieve that Zimmerman fired multiple shots.
As mentioned, Martin’s lawyers account of things can be dismissed almost out of hand. They’re lawyers, it is their ethical duty to represent their clients’ interests as best they can. Casting aspersions on Zimmerman is part of their job.
last i checked all anyone had was the leaky police reports by cops who were deemed rather incompetent and an official statement saying they will not discuss firearm evidence.
yet you’ve gone on and decided and have declared it “evidence.”
of course you had also decided zimmerman was legally privileged to do what he did, but he’s in jail now, so your presumptions haven’t really worked out so far.
all i’ve brought up is the full bore of the available body of evidence, including the phone calls (you’ve not heard) and the evidence (you don’t have) and the witnesses (who’s full testimony you’ve not heard).
if you don’t think it’s worth consideration, don’t.
but until you can provide the OFFICIAL results from the OFFICIAL investigation, STFU about “the evidence” because what you have is “speculation and hearsay,” as and a slipping presumption of innocents.
Shodan it’s completely up to you how to proceed, but I suspect that this poster is playing jr high debate and just yanking people’s chains for entertainment.
Understanding won’t be acknowledged even if it occurs, and conceeding a legitimate point is out of the question, because those things that oocur in a genuine discussion aren’t part of the game being played.