The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

@BillW,

Zimmerman already told the police he shot Martin.

You should all be watching the trial right now...

They are playing the audio of Zimmerman's first account to the police...this is Zimmerman's "testimony".

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

] The prosecution needs to establish that the amount f rain was sufficient to wash away the blood evidence. I can see the defense making a point of it in their case. There are forensic experts that can analyze this beyond mere blood spatter patterns. If its ignored , its a "wash" for both sides .

I think this has already been proven, the major loss is the ability to have DNA specimens. The presented time lines are gonna be the most conclusive evidence, IMHO.

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
Who will be your first victim ?

Freedom.

Exactly - beautiful response!

2 Replies

@BillW,

David, as Zimmerman, is a wanna be cop; he'll be the judge and executioner - right on the spot!

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Zimmerman already told the police he shot Martin.

as stipulated, yes!

Quote:

David, as Zimmerman, is a wanna be cop; he'll be the judge and executioner - right on the spot!

So true, so true <sigh>

0 Replies

Zimmerman, on the audio now being played in court, is telling the police officer that Martin jumped out of the bushes, where he had been hiding, and confronted him.

Except, there are no bushes in that area..and I think the prosecution already established that.

He also claims Martin had previously circled his car...if that were true, he could have questioned him then about what he was doing in that complex--without getting out of his car.

1 Reply

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

Zimmerman, on the audio now being played in court, is telling the police officer that Martin jumped out of the bushes, where he had been hiding, and confronted him.

Except, there are no bushes in that area..and I think the prosecution already established that.

Okay, this is very interesting. This means the odds of a Zimmerman conviction have just gotten shorter. (I would say from 1:10 to 1:2).

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

The prosecution needs to establish that the amount f rain was sufficient to wash away the blood evidence.

No, it's the defense that needs to establish that, to explain why there was none of Zimmerman's blood on Martin's hands, because the lack of DNA raises questions about Zimmerman's credibility, it doesn't back up his account.

The prosecution has established that Zimmerman's DNA wasn't even under Martin's fingernails, where rain would not significantly affect it. And the rain didn't wash away the blood on Zimmerman--was it selectively raining on Martin, but not Zimmerman? And it wasn't raining hard at that point, it may not have been raining.

Of course, the defense will claim the rain washed things away, they did sloppy police work, etc. because they have to come up with some explanation for the lack of physical evidence, DNA, to support Zimmerman's account. The rain "did it" really isn't very convincing.

You need to watch the trial. You're missing the evidence that's been presented.

The Google map shown in court a little while ago also indicates that Zimmerman was following Martin...

And Zimmerman never identified himself, he never told Martin he was part of a neighborhood watch. That's clear from his own police statement. Why didn't he tell Martin that when Martin asked why he was following him?

1 Reply

@firefly,

True; blood cannot be washed away with water.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

It can be washed away. But the lack of blood/DNA on Martin is a problem for the defense. The prosecution is using the lack of DNA to call Zimmerman's credibility into question.

This case is all about Zimmerman's credibility--and that's why the testimony that's being given in court right now is very important. Zimmerman's credibility will be challenged through his statements to the police, since he probably won't take the stand. And they are starting to do that right now. It's really riveting today, so far. We're hearing Zimmerman, in his own words, describe what happened.

3 Replies

@firefly,

they both need to establish the "rainwash" theory since it goes to motive(defense) and it also goes to show that the theory is ridiculous (Prosecution)

Now--does that mean that the state has a bit of a problem? or are they going to just hold off for the defense? If they do, then the holding back of evidence and witnesses is demonstrated

1 Reply

@firefly,

a Zimmerman lack of credibility would not meet the states burden of proof. since it does not appear that the state has a case it would be stupid to put zimmerman on the stand, they should mount no defense at all.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Not according for forensic police investigations.

Quote:

Luminol
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the barbiturate drug Luminal, see phenobarbital.
Luminol[1]

Luminol (C8H7N3O2) is a versatile chemical that exhibits chemiluminescence, with a striking blue glow, when mixed with an appropriate oxidizing agent. Luminol is a white-to-pale-yellow crystalline solid that is soluble in most polar organic solvents but is insoluble in water.
Luminol is used by forensic investigators to detect trace amounts of blood left at crime scenes, as it reacts with iron found in hemoglobin. It is used by biologists in cellular assays for the detection of copper, iron, and cyanides, as well as of specific proteins by western blot.
Luminol can be sprayed evenly across the area, and trace amounts of an activating oxidant will cause the luminol to emit a blue glow that can be seen in a darkened room. The glow lasts for about 30 seconds, but the effect can be documented by a long-exposure photograph. It is important that the spraying be evenly applied to avoid a biased impression, such as blood traces appearing to be more concentrated in areas that received more spray. The intensity of the glow does not indicate the original amount present but indicates only the distribution of trace amounts of substances left in the area.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

What does the lack of DNA on Martin have to do with motive?

The "rainwash theory" is smoke and mirrors from the defense.

The lack of DNA contradicts, or fails to support, Zimmerman's story of Martin's actions during the actual fight. It's a defense problem.

It's a credibility issue for the defense, regarding self defense. I can't see how it's related to motive. It suggests Zimmerman might not have been truthful in his account of the fight itself.

I can't follow your reasoning, mainly because I don't think you're following the case, or the trial, well.

The state laid out their case in their opening statement, and that's the blueprint they are following--not where you think they should be going.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

YEs but they DIDNT use any luminol ci, you know why?
luminol needs a reaction mode that allows a weak bond between the NH groups of the molecule. Many substances (including concttrete, plant material etc) will SHIFT the wavelength of any substance containing an AMINE or ferric group and give FALSE POSITIVES on shining a light. Luminol is mostly used indoors and on a crime scene surface (not the victim or any plant material chipboard concrete etc.
The stuff you often get from watching CSI is bullshit. They always establish a chain of custody for the use of any substance or chemical at a crime scene(Q was it originally treated as a crime scene on the night?)
I know they cuffed immerman but was this treated as a "castle doctrine" interaction and little additional forensic work was done?

Blood evidence CAN be washed away in a strong acidulous stream of a cold liquid (water) to the extent that it would be invisible to the eye.
I don't see any evidence that the ME crime scene people did spray the area with luminol and a reactant.

3 Replies

@firefly,

Quote:

What does the lack of DNA on Martin have to do with motive?

If asked just backward. what dpes the presence of DNA go to motive? If immerman were being beaten was there a blood spatter from him to Martin?
Zimmerman shot Martin strait in the chest and it was after he was struggling (by witnesses). DNA would help define the proximity and help establish that the shooting was (or was not a panic reaction to Zimmermans own beating).

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I know they cuffed immerman but was this treated as a "castle doctrine" interaction and little additional forensic work was done?

Didn't you hear the testimony of the crime scene investigator? Rolling Eyes

It was treated as a homicide, as any homicide would be treated in terms of forensics at the scene. They didn't automatically believe Zimmerman. They collected evidence for a homicide investigation.

And it's not "castle doctrine" that Zimmerman alleges--it's just self defense.

Quote:

If immerman were being beaten was there a blood spatter from him to Martin?

No, there was no blood/DNA from Zimmerman on Martin--not even under his fingernails or on his clothing, or on his hands.

That's why the lack of such DNA on Martin is a problem for the defense.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Didn't know that; we learn something new almost every day! LOL

0 Replies

@firefly,

As I said, Im not watching . Im reading about it in several news sources .
Im just smiling at how weve got two camps
1Zimmerman should be sent away

2 Zimmerman should be given a medal

Both sides are jumping the gun and playing TV lawyer

4 Replies

The State of Florida vs George Zimmerman: The Trial

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know