Interesting testimony from the medical examiner today. Rao said the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were NOT consistent with being repeatedly slammed onto concrete. She said his head MAY have hit concrete once or twice, and his injuries could have been caused by one blow to the face, not multiple blows. She also said his injuries were small and insignificant and required only bandaids.

Also, the latent print analyst said no useable fingerprint was recovered from Zimm's gun which could contradict his claim that Martin grabbed his gun.

Serino, a detective with the Sanford Dept. said there WAS evidence that Zimm was still following Martin after the non-emergency operator told him not to. And Serino said red flags were raised for him when Zimmerman didn’t know the names of the streets in his neighborhood, because there are only three.

Serino said also there was no evidence that Martin was committing a crime that evening, and no evidence that he was armed.

The next move is to determine admissiblity of evidence - Zimm was interested in the criminal justice field having completed course work pursuing a criminal justice degree, and having had his application to become a police officer rejected. Prosecutors argued the evidence is relevant because it shows Zimm wanted to catch the bad guys and it may show he knew what to say when law enforcement arrived on the scene.

Good wrap up of today's events. Detective Serino also said Zimmerman's injuries were insignificant. It's also been reported that there was no blood on the pavement, and none of Trayvon Martin's DNA was on Zimmerman.

Yesterday, Zimmerman was quoted as saying Trayvon Martin was trying to choke him or smother him. How can someone scream for help, when another person has his hands around your neck or mouth and nose?

Serino, after hearing Zimmerman's story, wanted to arrest him soon after the shooting, but the Seminole County prosecutor said no. It wasn't until a few weeks later, after several protests, that Gov Scott appointed Duval County Prosecutor Angela Corey to look at the case. She took it to the Grand Jury and got Zimmerman charged with second degree murder.

Correct either way. But in both cases the result is the same

It makes you wonder how good (or bad) the initial investigation was, and what, if any, critical evidence was missed. Just sounds very sloppy to me.

I agree it was a sloppy investigation, probably done by not the best police force on the planet. So we have to listen to what everyone says and hope that justice comes from the truth and not which attorney pulls the best trick out of their hat.

in my humble opinion I think that this case should have been a stand your ground case. If it had not been for the race baiters there would have been no trial. That's what stand your ground was designed to do. Zimmerman has been financially destroyed and he and his family are in constant fear of their lives. It should never have gone this far.

Just my opinion.

Yes, hopefully the jury can overlook courtroom theatrics and focus on the evidence presented, and let the trail of evidence lead them to a logical conclusion.

If Zimmerman had been black, I don't believe we would of even seen charges. In fact, had they both been white I don't believe there would of been any charges either. It's like you said, if not for the outsiders, this case would of never been brought. It's showing by what the prosecution is putting on. It seems most witnesses are being turned into defense witnesses. Last night on CNN one of the experts, defense attorney Mark Garigos, said he though the prosecutors were so bad that they looked like they were throwing the case.


/

Geragos should know. With the exception of Susan McDougal, I don't think he ever won a case.

And fellow analyst Jeffrey Toobin called Geragos' throw-the-case comment "absurd."

Have not watched the trial or discussions thereof...HOWEVER...

I agree with your early premise. This case is 100 percent POLITICAL. The participants and their skin color made it that way.

This does not get beyond the 6:00 news if not for the intervention of those who use these sad cases to make political points. Once over, no matter the outcome, they will create more tension and wait for the next situation that can be used to stir certain folks to action (posting, doing whatever the TV host or editorial writer tells them to do)

Why do supposed "thinkers" not check facts on how this case made it this far, and then make a decision on their own, NOT about innocence or guilt but on how they are being used.

This may be true, or it may not be true, or it may be partially true. But we cannot forget that someone ended up DEAD!!!

I have deliberately not commented on this thread because all our speculations, personal views, opinions mean nothing in light of the legalities that must be followed in the courtroom. And there is a lot that no one will ever know that insider know--and have known for a long time....

I caught some of it this afternoon. Interesting stuff - forensics, DNA, gun shot residue .................

It depends on whether your jury are educated enough to understand what the forensic evidence really means, and how much they believe the State's experts.

I think that the point is that people get killed every day. Many of them by violence at the hand of another. Why is this case all over the national news? Why is it being broadcast live every day when none of the thousands of other cases are not?