Forensic expert: Trayvon Martin shot leaning over George Zimmerman

but is Martin was getting off him he the evidence would fit it.

If Martin was leaning over getting in his face ( he was taller) the evidence would fit that too
 
evince said:
but is Martin was getting off him he the evidence would fit it.

If Martin was leaning over getting in his face ( he was taller) the evidence would fit that too
Click to expand...

I thought you were going in the direction that Martin was on the bottom when shot?

There is plenty of evidence that they were on the ground fighting. It is pretty conclusive and definitely compelling.
 
If the jury follows the law, Zimmerman will be found not guilty.

If they follow their hart and justice I suspect they will find him guilty of manslaughter.
 
Jarod said:
If the jury follows the law, Zimmerman will be found not guilty.

If they follow their hart and justice I suspect they will find him guilty of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The law, especially the statute I quoted, says he could easily be found guilty of manslaughter.
 
Professor Baxter said:
I disagree. The law, especially the statute I quoted, says he could easily be found guilty of manslaughter.
Click to expand...

I agree that he COULD be, that is why the Judge did not take the case out of the hands of a jury and enter a JOA. But to me the evidence is clear, I admit I haven't seen all of the evidence, that the State has failed to prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of great bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a very hard thing to prove, but its the law here in Florida.
 
evince said:
leaning into someone is not being on top.

getting off someone is not consistant with that person making you fear for your life
Click to expand...

Um... we are talking about when he was shot. He was shot when the two were on the ground. Thus if he was leaning into him, it had to be when he was on top. Otherwise it makes no sense based on the facts of the case.

The second argument is a valid question. If he were getting off and then Zimmerman reached for his gun and shot him, that might make sense. But given the proximity of the shot and the angle, the forensics do not support that.
 
I just pointed out to you that that evcidence is NOT conclusive that trayvon was straddling Zimmy.


a hoodie is designed to be lose fitting.


that "expert" is a hired hand of the defense team
 
Pete Campbell said:
I already explained this above, and o'mara pointed it out in re-direct. Zimmerman claimed he had his nose covered at some point in the altercation. That does not mean trayvons hand was dragged through blood. Zimmerman could very well have not been bleeding at that point. That and the rain. Absence of blood is not something that makes zimmermans story inconsistent.
Click to expand...

It can't be dismissed that easily, sorry. Injured noses bleed a lot. It wasn't raining that hard. I don't believe O'Mara's version, now if I was a jurist I would just have to convince my fellow jurist, and as women I would ask them to remember how it was when their children got a bloody nose, how you alwys think the injury is worse because there is so much blood.

See how that is how it works in these type of cases. It is all I what the jury believes.
 
Jarod said:
I agree that he COULD be, that is why the Judge did not take the case out of the hands of a jury and enter a JOA. But to me the evidence is clear, I admit I haven't seen all of the evidence, that the State has failed to prove that Zimmerman was not in fear of great bodily harm beyond a reasonable doubt. Its a very hard thing to prove, but its the law here in Florida.
Click to expand...

The thing you all forget, the jury may not believe Zimmerman.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top