there might be good reasons for no DNA on the gun, but it's hard to imagine a fight without DNA on the hands and fingernails of the fighter.

This gives me hope that Zim will be seen to be lying.

Where are the fingernails? Deep in the palms of the hand.

Don't put too much stock in the finding of the OP.

We'll see if it matters to a jury.

and slam it on the concrete, You are not going to do it 25-30 times with your fists.

Zimmy's lawyer's made his point.

I don't see the prosecution as having done an effective job, and we still have the entire defense side to hear from.

If that happened. (Doubt it)

You're on the ground, you're trying to keep your head up, and a fist keeps slamming into your face. You're going to hit the back of your head against whatever is under it, right?

hard. A person getting hit numerous times in the face, will have a swollen face, not just a broken nose. You ever seen a professional fight before? Anybody attacking me, I would be using my own hands to defend myself. I'll point it out again, the only use of self defense Zimmerman showed was the use of a gun. That is not very hard to prove either. Nobody saw Zimmerman defending himself other than a gun.

What they did see, was Martin and Zimmerman in close contact with one another. They couldn't see who was holding whom. Zimmerman could have easily held Martin down lying on his back and shot him. Just because Zimmerman had more physical injuries proves nothing about self defense. The most deadliest blow, was the use of a gun. None of Zimmerman's wounds were life threatening. To say this 17 year old boy at 160 pounds was beating a 28, 204 pound man to death is ludicrous. Do you have any history of such a thing? I bet you can't find one account.

is that GZ was somehow required to use only his own fists to defend himself. I doubt the Florida law will be interpreted that way by the jury, especially after his attorney gets through with the defense. I'm sure they have their own medical experts lined up to try to destroy that "insignificant" label that the prosecution tried to hang on GZ's injuries earlier this week.

All they've got to do is come up with reasonable doubt, and they win this case. O'Mara's really been setting his sights on doing whatever is necessary to win, because then his defense team will be worth tens of millions of dollars to the banksters who are watching this case with great interest.

evidence this jury is watching. First of all you are starting with the premise, George Zimmerman had no ill thoughts towards Martin. Anybody in their sane mind can see Zimmerman had hostile thoughts about Martin. Some people already believes this jury is stacked in favor of the defense racially. Like I said, you are trying very hard to justify Zimmerman's innocence.


To continue, regardless of O'Mara's contrived explanations, Zimmerman pursued Martin. Any jury claiming he didn't would be lying to themselves. And anybody claiming you have a right to follow and monitor people for no reason is mistaken. Zimmerman had already been caught in a few lies when he claimed, Martin ran, then he was walking, or he jumped out of the bushes, and then he just came out of the dark. Like I said, it is ridiculous how people supporting Zimmerman are trying to play it off.

The Prosecution should take O'Mara's bluff, to show how violent Zimmerman is. Bring in the assault on a police officer. Bring in his ex, and let her testify, towards his violence. There is also another police report about Zimmerman's altercation with a motorist. There is another report about his aggressive behavior working as a bouncer. His credability needs to be examined.

Now his father is a retired judge, and helped his son out of trouble on a number of occassions. All the incidents, where he got off should be examined. Now it involves murder. This guy shouldn't have been carrying a gun or been on community watch. There are some news articles, that were published, about Zimmerman's relationship with people on community watch and his aggressive behavior. They apparently used anonymous sources, but if I was prosecutors or investigators, I would be trying to find out those sources or calling those journalists to testify. I think those people should come forth. The bottomline, I don't see anything Zimmerman has claimed showing evidence. And I have taken the courses that he took, so I knew from the very beginning he was a liar. His story is pathetic, and so are people believing it.

I don't know any case, where a 17 year old, slim frame, weighing 158 pounds, beating up a 28 year old man, stocky build, weighing 204 pounds. What is on top of it, the guy praticed three days a week in Martial arts, and a long history of aggressive behavior, against a police officer,motorist,ex-wife,and club fights. The aggressive behavior is also with community watch as well as fifty 911 calls. That is definitely a disturbing pattern, of a sick person. The more he gets off, he will do it again. Zimmerman needs to be put away.

with the "punks" remark how GZ felt about TM going into this. What O'Mara will do is justify that suspicion with crime statistics from the neighborhood, testimony from favorable members of the community watch, etc.

It really doesn't matter what GZ thought getting into this, it only matters what was going through his mind when he pulled the trigger, and that is where GZ's legal team will focus as they get into their side of the trial.

Your post reminds me of how the teachers at my grade school decided who was the "guilty" party in a playground fight, they almost always decided that the kid who got the worst of it was more innocent than the other kid.

GZ didn't just say "punks", he said "these punks". The logical conclusion on who "these" meant are the people GZ had called in earlier that ended up being let go. They were overwhelmingly if not exclusively black so his police training told him to profile which is what this shows that he did.

What is going through Zimmerman's mind can only be determined by putting Zimmerman on the stand and there is no way O'Mara is about to do that. Every time the defense tries to do that indirectly the prosecution will say "objection, speculation" so it is not nearly as easy as you suggest. And how do they counter Trayvon's mom breaking down when she testifies that the scream that ended when the gun shot rings out was from Trayvon. Not by putting GZ's dad on the stand -- not when 5 of the 6 women on the jury are mothers. O'Mara can't be that stupid.

Where someone is raising the issue of Zimmerman only being allowed to use his fists to defend himself. If Zimmerman's story can be believed then it was self-defense. As for "reasonable doubt" it is for Zimmerman to prove self-defense and not for the prosecution to prove it was not self-defense.

Frankly, the physical evidence has not been Zimmerman's friend relative to what he told the police so it is hard to square Zimmerman as acting in self-defense but the prosecution has not presented a case to support 2nd degree murder so your reasonable doubt does come into play here and as of now I would say that manslaughter is probably the most that the prosecution can get and the least that the defense can expect. But there is still a ways to go in this trial. The key could be how convincing/adamant Trayvon's mom is when she testifies that it is Trayvon's voice that is heard screaming as the shot rang out. 5 of the 6 women on the jury are mom's so this could be a minefield for the defense, especially if they counter with Zimmerman's dad -- bad karma.

The problem the defense has with their own medical experts is that none of them examined Zimmerman so they can't just look at pictures and make a diagnosis and be credible.

I kid. But I do agree that the defense legal team is interested in showing off their skills and improving their reputations in the legal field.

So you get a few little scratches on your head?????


Are you serious or just ridiculous?

Were TM's hands bruised and scratched up? If so they'd check for DNA in more than just under the fingernails, y'know.

There's still zero evidence of TM attacking GZ...except a repeated liar's word.

Testified that the damage to Zimmerman's nose was consistent with a single blow being struck. There was also a tiny cut on the left little finger of Martin near the knuckle and a small amount of swelling. Nothing on Martin's right hand. It is pretty obvious that after Martin asked Zimmerman "why are you following me" that Zimmerman's answer was unsatisfactory and Martin responded by decking Zimmerman with a single left handed punch and that when Zimmerman's head hit the sidewalk it caused a couple of small abrasions on the back of his head. It is muddy regarding the time that followed up until the shot was fired, which is less than 1 minute. Keep in mind that Zimmerman was 46 pounds heavier than Martin (204 versus 158) so who logically would have a big advantage in a fight.

that GZ was on the ground, and Martin was on top of him, and that there was a struggle that Good described as an MMA "ground and pound". I'm certain that O'Mara has his professional experts lined up to back that up.

You can indeed get into a boxing match with someone and not get your hands bruised and scratched up, it's just perhaps not as likely. The prosecution's ME doesn't match up with the eyewitness testimony, and the jury will have to consider which person had a better idea of what was happening just prior to the gunshot.

Whatever happened after he followed TM in his car, then got out and followed TM on foot, is really his responsibility, right?

Nothing he says excuses that and we would not be discussing the final moments of a young man who was none of Z's business to judge, stalk, confront and kill.

I keep coming back to the media persona of a victim they find acceptable, a young white girl. This would have been and open and shut case, then. Therein lies the racism that some charge in the handling of this case.

And there needs to be, if possible, a rendering in court for the jury to hear, of Z's own background, what he's done but not did time for, what he was charged or what he was not charged with.

He was like a thug, just without a gang. As far as I can tell, he was interested in being a cop to join a gang, but would have disgraced them soon.

Dishonesty might has well have been his middle name, since he never stopped lying through all his media interviews, pleadings in court, and wherever he thought he could get away with it.

He lies so much, it would require a leap of faith to believe his account of this alleged beating (which he set the scene for) no matter how close to the Hollywood script he tried to sell people on earlier.

All of his actions except this final one, is in the public record. Z should be in prison to keep the public safe.

in being a Paul Blart wannabe? Absolutely. I've never denied that. I'm sure even he sees that it would have made a better outcome for him, because even with an acquittal, he'll have a target on his back for the rest of his life.

But that is his concern. The jury's concern is applying Florida law to the facts as they adjudge them to be, without regard for what happens to GZ after the trial, or how the larger community is going to react to their verdict. His lies mean that they simply cannot believe what he says, but there is other evidence that they have to consider, and there's the application of the doctrine of self-defense, as applied under Florida law. Each second of the perception of contact between Zimmerman and Martin had it's own duties and expectations, and shooting someone on top of you is not the very same thing as shooting them from your car.

I expect O'Mara is going to make that point to the jury before the deliberations, and he is going to demonize Trayvon Martin before he gets to that point. We've already seen what he released pre-trial to poison the jury pool, and most recently, he's said that if GZ's school records were to be released, he'd push for TM's to be entered into the record as well. He'll argue (and possibly quite successfully) that if background played into GZ's mindset on that night, it played into TM's, too. That's how he gets it in there, and if he's wrong, then it's at the top of the list for the appeal.

Where GZ shows the spot where they fought? It's a cop interview. He shows where his head hit the concrete once or so, but it's the edge where a sidewalk or something meets grass, and he was able to work his head onto the grass for the other slams of head down. So, that explains just the one or two injuries to back of head.

an ALLEGED 20-30 times, what position can we assume the fingers would be?

The nails are next to the palms. In any case, DNA or not, how do you dismiss the testimony of John Good?

Zimmerman's testimony is that Martin was slamming his head repeatedly into the sidewalk so Martin would have had to be holding Zimmerman's head like a soccer ball so meaning Martin does not have his hands in a fist. Good's testimony conflicts with Zimmerman's own comments recorded by the police. Did Good testify that he heard the scream that ended abruptly when the shot was fired? How well did he describe it and was his testimony consistent with what he told police that night. Oh, either account would have left a good deal of Zimmerman's DNA on Martin's hands and sleeves yet there is none. Accordingly, you discount Good's testimony for the same reason you discount what Zimmerman told police -- the physical evidence does not support what they said. Other witness accounts match up much more closely with the physical evidence and you can be sure that that will weigh on the mind of the jurists when separating the conflicting testimony. You just can't claim Martin was pounding your head into the sidewalk only to find that Martin's prone body was 8 feet from the sidewalk and face down. Now Zimmerman claims that he rolled Martin off of the top of him and got on Martin to pin his hands down. So how did Martin end up face down with his hands under his body. It most likely means that what Zimmerman claims did not happen. In fact the ballistics point to the two being disengaged but still in close proximity at the time the shot was fired allowing Martin to simply fall forward, face down with his hands under him. It is not nearly so much what people say that happened as it is what the physical evidence strongly suggests happens. Zimmerman is simply getting killed by the physical evidence.

Are you kidding?

on his hands? I don't think that the wet grass would wash it all away. It didn't wash Zimmerman's blood away from Martin's jacket or shirt.

if you've ever tried to get a blood stain out of a shirt, it's pretty hard, even using cleaners with the water.)

there would be traces of GZ's DNA embedded within the scarring of martin's hands, you know, if martin actually had scarring on his hands indicative of the beatdown that the defense describes.

the knuckle injury, which was small, but was consistent with TM punching someone.

a smalll bit of blood & something on TM's knuckle, like you'd have if you hit someone.

On the knuckle of Martin's left hand where there was a tiny cut found on the little finger and that is part of the problem for Zimmerman's defense of the rain washed it away.

that TM hit GZ.

left hand if the rain washed it away ?

It is Zimmerman's lawyer that says the rain washed the DNA away. The experts have all indicated that the poor practices by the police at the crime scene degraded the evidence rather than destroying the evidence. Some of that showed up when they found mixed DNA where one was Zimmerman and they could not determine the other person. But the quantity of stains and the limited DNA found does not support a prolonged struggle. Interestingly, Martin's DNA was on one of Zimmerman's sleeve's while Zimmerman's DNA was not found on either of Martin's Sleeve's. Now that could be from Zimmerman wiping blood from his nose on to his sleeve
after the shot was fired but that looks bad for the rain washed the DNA away argument concerning why Zimmerman's DNA was not on Martin's sleeve's if Martin was attempting to smother him as Zimmerman has claimed.

I did attempt to find testimony on where Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin's knuckle and came up empty meaning that I could have heard it from an analysts' speculation instead of testimony.

Zimmerman contracted his bloody nose one would have to surmise that a great deat of Zimmerman's blood would have been deposited in Martins hands and clothing.

The DNA report is readily available. No Zimmerman DNA was found on Martin's hands.

2 hours earlier than your post and right above this I acknowledged that I could not locate the statement in the testimony meaning I must have been listening to speculation from an analyst that ending up not panning out. In fact, as near as I can tell, they only tested objects and fingernail scrapings for DNA -- or perhaps someone else did that so it wasn't in the testimony I read from just this individual.

zimmy's nose and mouth then, with his feet? zimmerman made that claim also you know, yet there was no zimmy dna anywhere on Martin. And what about "repeatedly bashing zimmy's head against concrete"? What did he do that with, his elbows? Maybe he was wearing biodegradable gloves or something on his hands that magically disappear after punching someone 35-40 times, or repeatedly bashing his head 20-30 times, or smothering their nose and mouth?

Your boy is a lying loser who is going to jail.

He's not "my boy". I'm simply pointing out how the defense will deal with the problems brought up by the prosecution's side of the case. I fully expect that O'Mara will give this his all, he knows that if he can win an acquittal, his fees will jump to the tens of millions of dollars, and nervous banksters will gladly pay that.

There are holes in the prosecution's case, and I fully expect that GZ's legal team will exploit every single one of them. If that makes him "my boy" then you've misread my intentions when I posted.

It doesn't add up. Just doesn't.

Nothing much of Zimmermans story adds up as well of much physical evidence .

Are all they performed DNA testing on. Don't know if that is because the police cleaned the two up before attempting DNA samples or what. I'm going back to look at the shape of the stains where both DNA were located. A round shape would indicate the person was on the bottom and an elongated shape would indicate the person was on top. It the shape is neither then it is anybody's guess.

is bringing its A game tomorrow. Sometimes I wonder if they even want to win this.

Supposedly, the fight starts with the Martin kid breaking Zimmerman's nose.

Then, later, before Zimmerman killed him, the Martin kid was supposedly suffocating Zimmerman with both hands.

Zimmerman's DNA was not found on Martin's hands.

Zimmerman's whole story is a series of lies strung together. Hopefully it will convict him.

GZ will look like quite the liar. However, I'm pretty sure O'Mara is aware of his client's limitations and will not call him to testify. All sorts of history can then be brought to bear against him. O'Mara and his legal team are trying to win this thing without George Zimmerman having to testify.

We're about to enter into the defense side of the trial. I predict that on the way to demonizing Trayvon Martin, we will see a LOT of things that will be deeply offensive. To lawyers, the truth is merely a minor obstacle on the way to the result.

The court aired an interview he did about a year ago on Sean Hannity's show and when Hannity asked him if he was aware of the Stand Your Ground law he said he was not. Well today in court, a man testified against Zimmerman saying that he told Zimmerman about the law and that he was WELL aware of it when he shot and killed Trayvon.

Z is a liar when he lied about the money for bail..and he lied about having another passport.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/01/prosecutors-say-zimmerman-hid-second-passport-lied-about-money.html

gave this guy that much money, not knowing if he was guilty or not? I wonder who donated the money to him?

(w/o facts).

But giving $ for a defense is just that, and doesn't mean they necessarily think he's not guilty of murder. Everyone's entitled to a defense, they may think. Esp in high profile cases like this, where there's danger of being railroaded in the media.

Go back and read some of the posts in this forum right after the incident. People calling for him to get the death penalty, or be killed, proclaiming him guilty and racist and a "child murderer," all before the facts were known. If it were you being charged, you definitely would need a good defense in the face of that public sentiment. Everyone is entitled to a defense.

now that I know all the facts or most of them to this case. So you are claiming this guy, whose father is a retired magistrate from Virginia needed money for a defense? His family doesn't appear to be poor to me. Most of his supporters seems to be conservative also, and from their comments, racist. Is Mark O'Mara and his lawyers, mostly conservative? And why did he give this interview to Sean Hannity and Fox News?

Do you jump to the leap, Martin first hit Zimmerman, because there is no evidence to show who attacked whom first. Zimmerman could have came up on Martin by surprise and grabbed him too, while he was speaking to Jenteal. Zimmerman could have also already had his gun drawn and both ended up on the ground scuffling.

I think the prosecution is making a huge mistake giving Zimmerman and his supporters, the argument Zimmerman's injuries indicates he wasn't the aggressor. There is no evidence to say Zimmerman had his gun in his holster. Just because Zimmerman ended up hitting his head on concrete or was lying on his back, doesn't mean Martin was slamming his head. Just because Zimmerman was on his back, doesn't mean Martin had Zimmerman in a grasp either.

Martin could have been trying to get away from Zimmerman, before he was shot. A person fighting for their life, would be doing anything to escape, including punching or hitting someone in the head.

And I can tell you right now, there is no 17, 160 pound year old teenager going to beat me to death, when I'm over 200 pounds. That is why I think Zimmerman's supporters are disingenious and probably stereotyping Trayvon Martin as some super stud. He gets even more stupid, claiming Trayvon told him, something after he murdered him. That kid would have been in extreme pain. As far as I'm concerned, I can see that Zimmerman is a punk and a liar, and he is using race to get off. I wouldn't be playing soft with his defense team either. I would throw the kitchen sink at these clowns. He shouldn't have been allowed to have a gun with his criminal record. The prosecutin should get this man's criminal record in this trial and how he passed a background check. They need to check into the background of his father and if he had any influence.

other thing to be relied on is the testimony of eye witness, phone conversation between the two people involved, time and conditions of physical settings. Well...... plus common sense.

It's highly relevant imo that Zimmerman was accused in the past of assaulting a police officer and assaulting his former girlfriend (and it's relevant that he claimed that he was the victim there too). It's also highly relevant that Zimmerman was fired from a job as a bouncer because he was too violent.

People will say, "Well, then the defense should be able to talk about Martin's history, too." I say, bring it.

That was the reason for the testimony from his Criminal Justice Professor.

The NRA?

Considering the possible damage to Stand Your Ground if he is found guilty. Also, IIRC FOX did some interviews with him and told the audience where they can donate to his defense fund.

The NRA is pretty crass, but I don't see them getting involved in this one. Z is a bit too dirty, even for them.

something about a Stand Your Ground defense being made to the judge after the trial. The defense isn't required to state it in the beginning. Even if the NRA wasn't involved in directly funding the defense, I suppose Hannity asking his followers for donations would be enough.

and another poster downthread just pointed out they may be hinting at it today, so, I suppose it's up in the air.

There are two 'gun rights' groups claiming to have donated:
http://www.mediaite.com/online/gun-groups-seek-to-fund-george-zimmermans-defense/

OF COOOOOOOURSE!

I expect the defense to get SACKED when asked to explain why there's no real physical evidence of Martin putting his hands on Zimmerman to the extent Z believes.

Cop experts on tv said that's shoddy police work and not par for the course for a crime investigation.

As for whether that explains why no dna under fingernails (which I think would be harder to wash off), dunno.

indeed.

Still....I dunno. You dunno. The jury can decide how important that is.

Wash the blood off the sidewalk and Martin's hands (which were actually under him and protected from the rain) and not off of Zimmerman's head, where the blood actually dried on.

I don't know how hard it was raining, or when it stopped. I don't know if there was dna on the back of GZ's head that wasn't washed off. One thing, though.....a cut will continue to bleed. After it's rained on.

They found Zimmerman's DNA all over the place, including Martin's undershirt. Yes, they did find some DNA where the sample size was too small to absolutely determine who's it was as I'm sure 3rd party DNA was also found on each person. And, yes, the police did turn Martin's body over and attempted CPR so his hands were then exposed to the elements but none of that answers why the rain would wash away one persons blood and DNA and not the other. Besides, DNA is hard to wash away because it is microscopic so there would be traces even after someone scrubs and here it was just light rain (according to all reports I have seen). Skin from the hands is the likely source of most of the DNA found rather than blood or hair anyway.

unless it was a deep blood stain that penetrated a lower level that couldn't be scrubbed.)

Try to wash blood off your hands....and then try to wash blood out of a shirt or a piece of drywall. You'll see the difference.

I was just reporting the expert testimony that the rain could have washed the DNA off the hands. Also, the hands weren't bagged, so that would have affected preservation of the hand evidence.

DNA off the hands. Also, the hands not being bagged could've contributed to the lack of DNA.

Just reporting the testimony.

No. Not possible for rain to rinse underneath his fingernails. Quite a leap to say that.

I do know blood leaves a lot of residue on clothing even after washing.
It appears the police had made up their minds without doing a thorough investigation.

of these posters. And on DU, which sucks bigtime.

bit remorseful in that photo.

As far as remorse? He was laughing in the courtroom after watching himself on the Hannity Show video clip and as his old professor was talking. Murder trials are very comedic situations.

The only time he laughed was when his former professor made a little joke, as did the rest of the courtroom.

Up until today Zimmerman's legal team said they were waving a stand your ground defense and instead going with a self-defense defense. Today's testimony sure sounded a lot like they changed course and are now going with a stand your ground defense. Or are they trying to have it both ways.

Also, I'm waiting for a reenactment of the shooting showing the position of the weapon when it was fired and how Zimmerman could have gotten his weapon in that position if they were on the ground with Martin on top. In that position, how could Zimmerman have gotten his gun between Martin's arms and up within about 6-7 inches of Martin's chin. Today we learn that the weapon was touching Martin's hoodie and that Zimmerman's DNA was found on Martin's undershirt. Did Zimmerman at one time pull the hoodie up over Martin's head in order to expose the undershirt to Zimmerman's DNA? Once again, the physical evidence is not Zimmerman's friend.

no TM DNA on the gun = TM didn't grab or touch the gun

no TM DNA under his fingernails = there was no fight and no struggle since the DNA would should GZ clawing to get away from an aggressive TM.

What appears to be developing in a John Wayne Rambo type with an itchy trigger finger going out stalking some kid because GZ didn't feel the kid belonged in the his neighbor. So he stalked, provoked and when the kid turned around, shot him and claimed a fight.

That's really all I need to know.

he is also I am told, a danger to society as his personality will do it again and again

Reminded of Dahmer in some ways, from what I am told.

One of the "experts'" who appear during the breaks or lunch hours when they discuss the case.

I'm sure that George Zimmerman feels totally justified in what he did. In his mind, Trayvon Martin was a "fucking punk" who got what he deserved. I think that this is the belief of all the people defending Zimmerman too.

Happy Fourth of July... They will remain sequestered during the holiday break

The lack of DNA or fingerprints on something means nothing. It is far more difficult to obtain usable DNA or even fingerprints than most people realize.

Now, if the forensics lab found M's DNA, that would be significant, but the lack of it means nothing.

We're left with wondering if Zimmerman is telling the truth or not, and given that he's lied about a lot of other important details, it implies to me that he's lying about this too.

...it really should not hurt him either. A lack of evidence proves nothing, especially when considering something as difficult to find as DNA. Assuming for a minute that we believe the defendant and the victim did actually handle the gun, that does not mean either his DNA or his prints would be on it. Finding clean prints or usuable DNA on an exposed surface would be dumb luck.

Of course, if the lab had found the vic's DNA, I would have to wonder why Z had his gun out in the first place, or why he had one at all.

If not, you have your guilty verdict right there. Otherwise, this doesn't seem significant.