Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bao's ineffectiveness went beyond language/cultural difficulties and preparation.
The state brought in another medical 'expert' witness, ME Valerie Rao. The state lost anyway.
You ignore the defense's main witness, Di Maio, who imo was far more convincing than Rao or Bao.
I'd forgotten about Rao. Yes, the prosecution did have her, and her testimony was good but not enough. Thanks for reminding me. Bao knew what he wanted to say but was atrocious on the stand.
As for DiMaio, I didn't ignore him. I was addressing the prosecution's medical testimony, and he wasn't a prosecution witness. If you want to discuss defense medical witnesses, well, DiMiao is easy to take down, but the prosecution apparently didn't know how to do it, so the key parts of his testimony went unchallenged. DiMaio is a professional expert witness. He knows exactly how to tailor what he presents and leave out what might hurt the people paying him. Any good expert witness learns this, but DiMaio uses it extensively when he's called to EW on a case where the forensic evidence goes against the side he's on. The key with him is to know what he's leaving out and why he's doing so. When prosecutors are onto his style, it is truly fun to watch the great man squirm and go down. Alas, it didn't happen here, and it so easily could and should have. So, he ended up being a strong point for the defense.
I'd heard pre-trial that Bernie de la Rionda was supposed to have a good reputation,, but I have to say I was not impressed with his performance in this case, and I really wanted to be. It would have also helped the prosecution if basic mistakes weren't made up front with scene processing, LEOs taking the defendant's word for things, a ****-poor "reenactment," and so on. They were handicapped going in, and they blew it at trial.
Why should anyone respond to conspiracy theory? It's completely irrelevant. Zimmerman was found not guilty of murder by a jury of his peers and the Obama Administration has cleared him of any hate crime.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I asked you a bunch of questions to try to get your explanations for why certain injuries weren't present on Zimmerman, and rather than trying to explain how they could be absent, you make a claim that asking you questions is a conspiracy theory and the lack of these key findings is irrelevant to George's credibility. That's quite amusing.
Quote:
Now, I'm going to ask you, because in 50 years of medical practice I've never seen this miracle, and I think it should be written up in the medical history books. How was Trayvon Martin able to pound Zimmerman's face repeatedly without leaving obvious bruising over bony prominences? Was he hitting Zimmerman with cotton balls or a wet noodle? Is it some kind of new blow that doesn't even leave red spots immediately after the event, let alone obvious bruising?
How was he able to grab Zimmerman's wet, bald head forcibly enough to move it against Zimmerman's will and slam it around without also leaving finger grip marks or bruising where he grabbed and held?
How was he able to obstruct Zimmerman's airway with forcible downward pressure, with Zimmerman struggling underneath that downward pressure to get free and call for help, and not cause any laceration of Zimmerman's gums or lips from their being squashed against his teeth? How come there was no swelling or bruising of this area from even blunt tissue damage, assuming he managed it all without causing any shear or pressure lacerations?
Please tell me where in the above you see a conspiracy? I personally only see a defendant who lied.
Still waiting for your explanation for how George's story could be true and all of the above expected physical evidence totally absent from his body.
2. Contrary to your believing those such as myself "had our opinion formed" by those headlines, you are wrong, at least in my case. I needed to hear the entire story, and after putting it together logically and including being a good judge of character, my decision was established by this:
Are you talking about the legal verdict or are you engaging in general discussion? If you're talking about the legal issues, your claim to being "a good judge of character" is, to put it bluntly, worthless. That would not even be allowed as testimony in a court of law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by In2itive_1
*One following another due to making immediate and unjust judgements.
*His Police calls, what was said, how GZ sounded during.
*His not stopping when asked "not to follow", obviously to me, still stalking.
*What was recorded on T's phone, prior to it being dropped.
*That it was a short time from when the confrontation began, until T was shot.
*Evidence: T's body found in unlikely spot, no DNA found on either to corroborate story.
*Z's wounds deemed "surface abrasions", not admitted to a hospital, despite what he claimed.
*Seeing the reenactment with investigators, how Z stumbled in recreating his story.
*Hearing Z's further story alterations.
*That Z had prior bouts of violence (and since, which is WHY this topic began).
Again, as you did six pages ago in post 1390, you say there was no DNA found. Again I link you to the DNA report that indicates otherwise:
And again I ask what point you're trying to make with this "no DNA" claim.
Most of the rest of this is just speculation on your part. Fine, I guess, if you want to just offer a general opinion, but if you're talking about legal issues, it's not evidence. This kind of speculation would not even make into a court of law as testimony.
Pedro, thanks for offering the hypothetical scenario about the pizza delivery. In the past I've thought of a similar scenario but never have had occasion to describe it here. The scenario you describe points to a consideration about the law regarding self-defense. I'm talking specifically about the part of self-defense law that says if you're not actually attacked, then only the imminent threat of attack legally justifies the use of force.
My version of Pedro's scenario is a visitor to the complex, having trouble finding the address he's looking for, so he's riding along slowly, trying to read house numbers in the dark. He's on the phone with the person he's planning to visit, trying to get some assistance on figuring out his location. He also keeps looking toward the guy out walking along, thinking of pulling up and asking him directions.
Up to this point, the lost visitor would look exactly the same as GZ looked while following TM in his car. The similarity would continue at the point where GZ got out on foot. The lost visitor might be getting out to walk up close to a house to see the number, or might even see TM go running off and jog after him briefly, wanting to get his attention so he could ask him directions.
As to what happened after that in the actual incident, you have to look to the evidence. I'm not going to go into that here, because the point of my response to PedroM's post has to do with what I wrote above, about the requirement that a threat of attack be clearly imminent before the law allows force in self-defense.
Neither Pedro's hypothetical nor mine is the way this encounter happened, but either hypothetical scenario shows why it makes sense for the law to limit the use of force to an actual attack or an imminent threat: The further you are from an actual attack, the more room there is for misinterpretation of the other person's actions. It's disturbing to think that TM would have done the same thing if in fact GZ had been a lost visitor or a pizza guy.
Your claim that Pedro can't prove some version that would make GZ innocent may be worth making if you just want a general discussion of guilt or innocence. If you're talking about the law, you've got a problem: burden of proof. There actually is plenty of evidence to indicate one plausible scenario about how it all adds up, but even if there were not, GZ would not have had to prove that it happened in some way that would make him innocent. The prosecution would have had to prove that it did not.
You have NO proof that what ZimmerBoy said was TRUE , however you have a lot of proof as to his
bald face lies....now don't you????????
And for the million and oneth time. Zimmerman says he was walking back to his truck when he was confronted. (He is lying). He turned down that sidewalk to confront Martin when he saw him. What happened after that no one knows until they started fighting. No one knows how the fight started and how long it lasted until Martin got the upper hand . . .
It appears Martin made a "bad choice" by winning the a fight that he didn't provoke. Zimmerman tried to bully Martin and he got slugged for it. And instead of taking his beating like a man he did what he did.
Million and oneth time or not, just as it was back in the very, very, very early pages of the thread when you described this scenario, you still have not explained how you know that GZ confronted TM, or that there was some drawn-out fight, with TM eventually getting the upper hand. Evidence points more toward a sudden attack by TM.
Well exactly.
It is not always the size of the dog in the fight, it is the size of the fight in the dog. This coming from a guy who is big and can handle myself.
Even a fat slob (picture a mobster looking thug) who knows how to push his weight around can be formidable. Yet another guy might crumble if you barely touch the guy. The same is true of guys who are muscle bound and can bench a ton of weight. Yet get into a fight with them, and they might start to cry when you knock them on their rear.
Also, before MMA had weight classes(which was insane but fun to watch), you had things like this happen at 1:25 in this compellation video;
Bottom line is that being big and strong is an advantage over a smaller person, IF you have the ability to fight, and you have heart. Otherwise a smaller guy can win the fight with the aforementioned no matter how big the guy is!
Funny how ZimmerBoy was taught how to fight by studying MMA for a solid year...and TM had NO Combat Fighting Training....Now Isn't It???????
If Martin attacked Zimmerman, which the evidence does support, Zimmerman had the right to defend himself.
There is no evidence whatsoever that supports Martin having attacked Zimmerman. There certainly is evidence that Zimmerman chased after Martin as the aggressor; who initiated the physical confrontation is unknown.
Um, well . . . Kokonutty, if you'll take a moment to look at post 1463, just four posts above your post that I'm quoting here, you'll see where Pedro outlines the evidence of which you claim there is none whatsoever. Pedro does not go into deep analysis of the evidence, but he presents a tidy summary, enough to show that such evidence does exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
If Zimmerman attacked Martin, Martin had the right to defend himself.
Fine as a general statement about who has the right of self-defense in an altercation, but you yourself said in the boldfaced segment above that "who initiated the physical confrontation is unknown."
Quote:
Originally Posted by kokonutty
Do you not understand that Zimmerman's story is not evidence and is a creation of a man who had killed a teenager and was trying to get his bacon out of the fire? Credibility: zero.
So now I read a bit more and see that you did quote post 1463. Of course the evidence PedroM summed up in that post said nothing about Zimmerman's claims, but talked about witnesses and physical evidence. So why do respond as if he had simply said, well this was Zimmerman's story?
Um, well . . . Kokonutty, if you'll take a moment to look at post 1463, just four posts above your post that I'm quoting here, you'll see where Pedro outlines the evidence of which you claim there is none whatsoever. Pedro does not go into deep analysis of the evidence, but he presents a tidy summary, enough to show that such evidence does exist.
Fine as a general statement about who has the right of self-defense in an altercation, but you yourself said in the boldfaced segment above that "who initiated the physical confrontation is unknown."
So now I read a bit more and see that you did quote post 1463. Of course the evidence PedroM summed up in that post said nothing about Zimmerman's claims, but talked about witnesses and physical evidence. So why do respond as if he had simply said, well this was Zimmerman's story?
Pedro offered no evidence that Martin attacked Zimmerman; you haven't either. My hypothetical "if Zimmerman attacked Martin..." was simply a transposition of the names in the hypothetical posed by Martinez to prove the point that no one knows who attacked whom. Except Zimmerman, and he's not talking.
If you have evidence that I am wrong, please put it forth here and now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
