legaleagle_45
Silver Member
No it is not agreed. The prosecution made that point in his opening that there were no bruises, was no blood on the kid. You all just continue to deny that fact..
Indeed they did, however the prosecution was careful not to say there were no injuries to to Martin's hands... just no "bruises" and "no blood from Zimmerman"
What they did not report was that Trayvon did have an abrasion on his knuckles indicative of hitting someone or something. Zimmerman had no injury to his knuckles but did have a broken nose and lacerations to the back of his head. If Martin was on top of Zimmerman, it would be unlikely for Martin to get any of Zimmerman's blood on him. If Zimmerman was on top of Martin, and considering that he was bleeding from the nose and the back of the head, it is likely that some of Zimmermand blood would be found on Trayvon.
Further, the back of Zimmerman's jacket was wet and covered with grass as if he was laying on his back. Martin hoody was wet on the front but relatively dry on the back and Martin had grass stains on his knees as well. If Zimmerman was on top of Maritn attacking him, why is the back of Martin's hoody dry, why are there grass stains on his knees and why are ther no injuries to Zimmermands knuckles... no bruising, no abrasion or anything?
This case is not as clear cut as you would make it appear. I think I will wait for all the evidence to come out.