Piers Morgan interviewed crime writer Patricia Cornwell as to how critical forensics — such as bullet distance and trajectory — will be.
Since no one, except perhaps the investigators, has that evidence so far, anyone who is speculating on what happend is just speculating.
The transcript is here, and includes a segment with Alan Dershowitz for which I have not been able to find a video.
ALAN DERSHOWITZ, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: ….
And remember, there are really two versions of what happened here and they’re both rather extreme….
But when the forensics come out finally, and when the autopsy comes out, we’ll find it’s a much more nuanced case. And it will turn largely on who hit the first blow. And since there are no real witnesses to that, there may, inevitably, be reasonable doubt under Florida law.
* * *
PATRICIA CORNWELL, BESTSELLING AUTHOR: That’s exactly right and Mr. Dershowitz is exactly right. What we’re waiting for now is what did the medical examiner really find? What is the trajectory of the bullet? Was it a contact wound? Was it a slightly distant wound? Is the location of the wound consistent with the handedness of the shooter and what he says about where he was positioned at the time of the shooting? Such as if he says he was on his back or they were standing up or who knows what?
But there’s — in addition, the gun. Does it have Trayvon’s DNA on it? Does it have his fingerprints on it, on it or the holster that might indicate he was grabbing for it? What’s on the — the iced tea bottle? What’s on the cell phone? For example, maybe there was some sort of struggle. The alleged wound to the back of the head. How do we know that wasn’t caused by maybe somebody who was frightened and hit somebody with their phone because it’s all they’ve got in the hand or a bottle. Those should be checked for DNA, for evidence. The clothing should be checked for trace evidence.
This is a rare bit of media sanity in otherwise insane coverage.