Zimmerman

[BIG_MIKE2005]

There's no evidence that has been presented at trial to indicate that.
You don't know what precipitated the fight.
And you say my mind is made up.

Was there a single witness who testified to Zimmerman attacking Martin? All evidence provided points straight to Martin being the aggressor. Not Zimmerman.

 

[B Gordon]

There's no evidence that has been presented at trial to indicate that.
You don't know what precipitated the fight.
And you say my mind is made up.

I would disagree with that statement.
There is some evidence, specifically what injuries (other than the gun shot wound) each person sustained.
Who had head injuries?
Who had hand injuries?
Who had grass stains on the back of his clothing indicating he was laying with his back on the grass?
What scenerio are the injuries consistent with?

At least in my mind, the person who throws the first punch is going to get some knuckle scrapes or injuries if he is hitting the other person in the head. The person getting hit will sustain injuries to the head. If the body is hit then often there are often no visual injuries until bruising or internal injury occurs.

Another thought.
If Zimmerman did instigate the confrontation, why would he allow Martin to close in and take him to the ground? If he already had his gun drawn, it seems much more likely that neither would have had secondary wounds because Zimmerman would have shot Martin from a few feet away. If Martin had seen a gun in Zimmerman's hand and been stupid enough to close in and grapple with Zimmerman over the firearm rather than turning and running away, he would probably have focused on the weapon and keeping it pointed away from him rather than simply hitting and punching Zimmerman into submission as indicated by the closest witness.

For me the blood on the back of the head is a distratction rather than evidence.
How long after the confrontation were the pictures taken?
Was Zimmerman sitting with his head tilted forward a bit while looking at the grass and contempating what had just happened? That would properly explain the blood drip pattern.

 

[Hobbes]

Was there a single witness who testified to Zimmerman attacking Martin? All evidence provided points straight to Martin being the aggressor. Not Zimmerman.

There is no evidence in the trial who was the aggressor.
There is only the statements made by the defendant to the police.

If a defendant's statements are evidence then OJ had evidence that he was innocent too.

 

[B Gordon]

There is no evidence in the trial who was the aggressor.
There is only the statements made by the defendant to the police.

If a defendant's statements are evidence then OJ had evidence that he was innocent too.

A defendant's statements ARE evidence and WILL be used against them at a trial if any or the other evidence contridicts the defendants statement.

They tell you that when reading you the Miranda rights.

 

[Hobbes]

I would disagree with that statement.
There is some evidence, specifically what injuries (other than the gun shot wound) each person sustained.
Who had head injuries?
Who had hand injuries?
Who had grass stains on the back of his clothing indicating he was laying with his back on the grass?
What scenerio are the injuries consistent with?

At least in my mind, the person who throws the first punch is going to get some knuckle scrapes or injuries if he is hitting the other person in the head. The person getting hit will sustain injuries to the head. If the body is hit then often there are often no visual injuries until bruising or internal injury occurs.

Another thought.
If Zimmerman did instigate the confrontation, why would he allow Martin to close in and take him to the ground? If he already had his gun drawn, it seems much more likely that neither would have had secondary wounds because Zimmerman would have shot Martin from a few feet away. If Martin had seen a gun in Zimmerman's hand and been stupid enough to close in and grapple with Zimmerman over the firearm rather than turning and running away, he would probably have focused on the weapon and keeping it pointed away from him rather than simply hitting and punching Zimmerman into submission as indicated by the closest witness.

For me the blood on the back of the head is a distratction rather than evidence.
How long after the confrontation were the pictures taken?
Was Zimmerman sitting with his head tilted forward a bit while looking at the grass and contempating what had just happened? That would properly explain the blood drip pattern.

That's not evidence of who started the fight; It's evidence who was losing the fight.

 

[caojyn]

Either way he's toast, I give him less than a year; shived in prison, killed on the street, or by his own hand

 

[BIG_MIKE2005]

I would disagree with that statement.
There is some evidence, specifically what injuries (other than the gun shot wound) each person sustained.
Who had head injuries?
Who had hand injuries?
Who had grass stains on the back of his clothing indicating he was laying with his back on the grass?
What scenerio are the injuries consistent with?

At least in my mind, the person who throws the first punch is going to get some knuckle scrapes or injuries if he is hitting the other person in the head. The person getting hit will sustain injuries to the head. If the body is hit then often there are often no visual injuries until bruising or internal injury occurs.

Another thought.
If Zimmerman did instigate the confrontation, why would he allow Martin to close in and take him to the ground? If he already had his gun drawn, it seems much more likely that neither would have had secondary wounds because Zimmerman would have shot Martin from a few feet away. If Martin had seen a gun in Zimmerman's hand and been stupid enough to close in and grapple with Zimmerman over the firearm rather than turning and running away, he would probably have focused on the weapon and keeping it pointed away from him rather than simply hitting and punching Zimmerman into submission as indicated by the closest witness.

For me the blood on the back of the head is a distratction rather than evidence.
How long after the confrontation were the pictures taken?
Was Zimmerman sitting with his head tilted forward a bit while looking at the grass and contempating what had just happened? That would properly explain the blood drip pattern.

Exactly. I have also seen blood run down towards the neck when someone was on their back as well. It's called gravity. This was not a long drawn out fight either & if Zimmerman stood or sat up right after the cuts opened on his head then the blood would of course run down, just like in the pictures.

People are just grabbing at straws now because everyone knows he will most likely be found not guilty. No one wants to talk about the person being indicted right now over false information which lead to him being arrested in the first place. That alone should be enough for a mistrial honestly. Everything the prosecution has done so far is a out right attempt to nail him to the wall to please the community.

 

[0311]

[Broken External Image]

All this fussin' an fatten! Yall just need to remember what 0311 sed! President Obama awt not to never have waded into this! At that point Mr. Zimmerman, Mr. George Zimmeran warnt gonna git a fair trial!

 

[B Gordon]

That's not evidence of who started the fight; It's evidence who was losing the fight.

EXACTLY, it is evidence of a fight, which is consistent with the statements given to police by Zimmerman, the individual with injuries indicating he was the person getting beat upon.
The physical evidence is consistent with Martin hitting Zimmerman repeatedly, not with Zimmerman hitting Martin.

 

[Hobbes]

I'm beginning to see why Casey Anthony was acquitted.

There was evidence(her story) that she didn't do it.
And since her dead daughter couldn't testify otherwise, well......