The Official Zimmerman Trial Verdict Thread

What are your Initial Thoughts on the Guilt or Innocence of George Zimmerman?


  • Total voters
    84
Status
Not open for further replies.
sounds to me like that would have shown up in the autopsy -


Marks Of Violence
A murderer will always leave marks of violence on the bodies of their victims, no matter how hard they try to hide it. During an autopsy, these marks may be difficult to find if the murder agent was drugs or poison, but these agents can still be found through blood tests. On the other end of the scale, signs that the victim suffered a violent death are immediately discovered from the external examination.
Choose one of the following topics for more information:

--> Internal/external examinations

--> Bruising

--> Cuts

--> Gunshots

--> Assualt


Internal/External Examinations Top^
During an autopsy, there may be no external signs that the victim suffered from a brain haemorrhage. Brain scans performed during the internal examination are the only way that a coroner can reveal the fatal clots that may have been caused by a blow to the head. Changes in the appearance of skin colour may also lead to solving the crime, as some fatal agents have the ability to change the physical appearance of the body. For example, carbon monoxide poisoning can cause the skin to become pink in colour and smothering and the crushing of the chest can cause can cause pin sized patches of bleeding in the face. When many of these pin sized patches of bleeding occur, it can give the face a blue appearance.

Bruising Top^
Bruising on the skin occurs when the blood vessels are broken by some form of hard and forceful contact with the skin, usually by a blunt object. The shape of the bruise can often reveal which direction the blow was received from and the colour of the bruise can indicate how long ago the injury occurred. As bruising heals, it goes red-purple, to brown, to green and finally to yellow. Bruising is not an accurate way of deciding how the victim met their fate, as interpreting bruising is different in every person, due to the fact that people bruise at different rates and bruising continues for a short while after death. Strangulation around the neck also leaves significant bruising. The hands, cords and ropes usually leave a distinct mark around the neck in the shape of the pattern on the strangling agent. If the strangling agent is very soft material, it may leave little or no marks, but the dissection of the neck area is able to show tissue bruising beneath the skin.

Forensic Science | Marks Of Violence
You're not understanding what I'm saying.....There may not have been enough time for a bruise to appear before he died. Once the heart stops beating, the blood stops circulating and no bruise would appear. If he had lived longer there may have been time for him to bruise up.

Yes, there needs to be time for the damaged flesh to respond to the damage and show it. There will be very little bruising even at the point of bullet entry in a heart shot if the heart stops immediately. If it doesn't and the body stays alive for some time, then the bruising will be far larger.

I understand that, but if Martin was hit in the face by Zimmerman first the capillaries would have immediately broken, and thus would have been found. There was none.
 
Was reading Gretawire on Fox Nation complaining about the Defense team sitting there like "potted plants" and allowing the Prosecution to flat out lie about George Zimmerman's statements the night of the shooting. They "should have been on their feet objecting to facts not in evidence.'

I now think it was a brilliant move to handle it in the Defense closing in which the Prosecution could be painted as the intentional liar instead of Zimmerman. :)
 
I did a screen capture.

whozit_zps464a0241.png

ty sir

Here's a better screen cap for you.

whozit2_zpscab22e4a.png
 
Another callout to Guy for his closing. LOL
 

General consensus of the ladies is that O'Mara is "cute".

I am a pretty good judge of 'cute' and I just don't see it. He is nice looking though not strikingly handsome; he looks pleasant, approachable, and likable which generally is a very good thing in a courtroom. His voice is soothing, not at all annoying or grating as the prosecution team generally is.

The prosecution tactic was to bludgeon the jury with verbal gymnastics. O'Mara is having a matter-of-fact conversation with the jury. Trying to put myself in their position, I can't imagine not finding O'Mara's version of the facts as the more compelling.

he is tall--has good hair--wears his suits well--not too handsome. I keep thinking JFK.

His voice and demeanor---very persuasive.

The yelling/passion--would negatively influence me. CNN had one panel member that thought the prosecution 'did what he needed to do'. fwiw. Tired of trying to speculate on the veracity of panel members--not beyond a reasonable doubt that they are 'performing' at all times.
 
Was reading Gretawire on Fox Nation complaining about the Defense team sitting there like "potted plants" and allowing the Prosecution to flat out lie about George Zimmerman's statements the night of the shooting. They "should have been on their feet objecting to facts not in evidence.'

I now think it was a brilliant move to handle it in the Defense closing in which the Prosecution could be painted as the intentional liar instead of Zimmerman. :)

I watched that segment. Her panel members did counsel her that this would be addressed by O'Mara. 'He is probably watching the show right now--he knows...' cough

I don't think I have ever heard an objection in a closing argument--but then I don't have vast experiences with court procedures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum List

Back
Top