Today we will again be covering the Zimmerman Trial live, all day, with streaming video. Continuing commentary will be posted in the Twitter feed of selected contributors below the first video feed, and breaking news will be added at the bottom of this post.
Live Stream Video
WITH COMMENTARY FROM CHANNEL 9 IN SANFORD
[For live-stream video without commentary, see NBC live feed at bottom of this post.]
Twitter Feed:
(My tweets can be identified as coming from @lawselfdefense, or @lawselfdefense2 if I’m in Twitmo–follow both!.)
Tweets from @LegInsurrection/zimmerman-trial
Live Stream Video Alternative
LIVE-STREAM WITHOUT COMMENTARY FROM NBC
Tuesday, July 9 Commentary
During the lunch recess, or immediately thereafter, we will TRY topost a mid-day update. We’ll then follow up with the usual detailed end-of-day wrap up, including video and embedded Tweets, at the usual time in the evening.
Our end-of-day wrap-up and analysis of yesterday focused on the collapse of the State’s “scream” theory of the case, which imploded with the disclosure that Tracey Martin had initially denied that the screaming on the Lauer 911 recording was that of his son, Trayvon Martin. It also noted that the Court had decided to allow Trayvon Martin’s toxicology report to be allowed into evdience. Also, of course, it contains video of all the other testimony and hearings caught on camera throughout the day. That can be found here:
Implosion: Police Testify Trayvon’s Father Originally Denied Son Was Screaming
This past weekend I posted up an analytical piece of Mark O’Mara’s request for a judgment of acquittal. O’Mara’s motion was well-reasoned and supported by Florida’s case law. It was, of course, doomed to peremptory denial by Judge Nelson. In that piece I’ve linked almost all of the case citations made by O’Mara to full-length copies of the decisions, so you can see the sources for yourselves, if you like (most of the decisions are gratifyingly brief). You can see that here:
Why Zimmerman’s Motion for Acquittal Should Have Been Granted
Last Thursday, July 4, I had posted up a review of the trial to date, with some prognostication of how things may role out in the coming days. To take a look at that, click here:
Zimmerman Trial Review– How We Got Here, And Where We’re Going
For all of our prior coverage on day-to-day events in court, as covered here at Legal Insurrection, click here:
ARCHIVE: Zimmerman Trial LIVE coverage all day, every day
For all of our prior coverage on issues specific to the Law of Self Defense as covered at my own blog, click here:
Law of Self Defense Blog: Zimmerman Trial
(NOTE: If you do wander over to the LOSD blog, be sure to come back to Legal Insurrection to comment, as nearly all my time is spent here for the duration of the trial.)
Andrew F. Branca is an MA lawyer and author of the seminal book “The Law of Self Defense,” now available in its just released 2nd Edition, which shows you how to successfully fight the 20-to-life legal battle everyone faces after defending themselves. Take advantage of the 20% “Zimmerman trial” discount & free shipping (ends when the jury returns a verdict). NRA & IDPA members can also use checkout coupon LOSD2-NRA for an additional 10% off. To do so simply visit the Law of Self Defense blog. (Coupon works ONLY at www.lawofselfdefense.com.)
Note also that “The Law of Self Defense, 2nd Edition” is also available at Amazon.com. They set their own price, and it can vary each day, so you might want to check there to see if they are offering the best deal today.
Many thanks to Professor Jacobson for the invitation to guest-blog on the Zimmerman trial here on Legal Insurrection!
You can follow Andrew on Twitter on @LawSelfDefense (or @LawSelfDefense2 if I’m in Twitmo, follow both!) on Facebook, and at his blog, The Law of Self Defense.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Maybe it’s just me but the defense seems much more focused and organized than the prosecution. Most criminal trials it’s the other way around.
Usually the prosecution uses their witnesses and evidence to put together what they hope is a compelling narrative and the defense tries to poke holes in it to create reasonable doubt.
Here it seems more like the prosecution is trying to poke holes in the defense’s narrative.
I’m talking about from the beginning of the trial.
This Prosecution has been trying to defend the fictional concocted racist Crump/Julison/Jackson narrative.
This prosecution is an example of the new scholarship, or, rather, the breakdown of genuine scholarship.
For instance, previously, the academy held that if your premises are flawed, your conclusion is flawed; therefore, you must abandon the premises and start again.
These days, the academy teaches that if your premises are flawed, it means the other person is wrong/racist/evil and should be attacked while the data is being manipulated to yield the desired outcomes. IOW, the prosecution is as agenda driven as much scholarship today, but the prosecutor will not abandon the field because his cause is “righteous”.
So, we see how deep is the rot in our society today.
I sure hope the animation gets shown to the jury, this will be great.
For the record, I do not watch news on tv, but my husband does and I happened to catch the following…
Bob Beckel was just on Imus (Fox Business News channel) who was talking about how The Five begin their daily show with news on the Zimmerman trial. The first thing he says is that GZ is guilty, and then he goes on to spout complete lies about the trial.
I don’t expect BB to say otherwise; he is a hardcore lefty after all. But it is worth noting just how the trial is being reported in the news. And I doubt Fox is any exception. Anyone else on this subject…?
beleive me, it’s being reported both ways. Anyone can find whatever thy’re looking for to support their expectations of the outcome. For example, this blog is not exactly fair and balanced. 99% of it’s viewers already have decided that Zimmerman is innocent. The JURY will decide that.
And is Legal Insurrection on national TV every hour of the day? Can you point me to one tv station that has shown the evidence, as admitted in court, as objective and true? I haven’t found it and believe me I’ve looked.
can you show me one that hasn’t?
In one case, when the witnesses were asked to identify whose voice was screaming, none of the major media covered Zimmerman’s witnesses, with the sole exception of his mother. They incessantly covered Martin’s mother and father.
I have watched every minute of this trial and have never seen more bias against a defense, either by the court or by the media. It’s like if they can’t ensure a guilty verdict, they will be on record as doing their best to effect one.
I am astounded at your view. As of this moment in the trial, an honest person or one with neutral bias could not render a guilty verdict. That may change, but not possible at this day and hour.
TV is all about opinions, like much of the media. Someone is always going to be disappointed if thy feel their view isn’t adequately expressed. That’s why cable TV with MSNBC, Hannity, Imus, etc. etc, get such huge audiences – people can get their views validated by tuning in those, and tuning out others.
news is suppose to be about FACTS not opinions. Opinions are what comes after one views facts through their prism of bias… filtering out what they doesn’t fit their preconceived notions or ideology.
Hannity, Imus, etc are opinion programs. They are allowed bias. News is not. When Fox ‘News’ reports, it is largely unbiased. The same can not be said of ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, NPR, CNN. Their ‘news’ is always biased. Even Gallup reports Fox News as the number 1 choice.
Sorry, Lori. I hit the down thumb by mistake!
I disagree.
The coverage on ALL the news shows has been horrible.
Even ones that lean toward Zimmerman’s innocence are full of incorrect information.
I am not talking about the interpretation of facts, but simply horribly inaccurate reporting about what was actually said in court.
With out a doubt, most people on this forum believe George should be acquitted, but I would submit it is because we are watching the trial and listening to the actual testimony. It also also because we have the intelligence to understand legal concepts, such as “beyond a reasonable doubt” and whether or not that burden has been met by the state.
Many others, like you, are unable to separate the LAW from your emotions, and that is why you will be disappointed and disgusted when George Zimmerman is acquitted on these charges.
Uh, don’t assume that I do not keep my emotions at the door – Just because I disagree with many of those here that, as you accurately point out, are obviously convinced of george’s innocence.
Sorry, but if at this point in time you think the state has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, you either did not watch the testimony, you are too stupid to understand the testimony and the legal issues involved, or you are deciding the case on emotion rather than law.
I am afraid those are the only options available to you.
the case is not over, and my opinion, like yours, is irrelevant. you can tell me I’m wrong and you’re right till you’re blue in the face, but it’s just not relevant. All of this energy expended here on this site, as well as others is just so that you can find a place to have your views validated? Don’t you get that, or are you too stupid to understand that?
Incorrect.
I do not come here to validate my opinions.
I come here mainly to watch the live feed, but in addition, to have access to lawyers that can clear up some of the finer points in the law that I do not understand. I come here to enhance my knowledge.
What exactly do you come here for???
Fine. Present your case.
You disagree, but don’t of the intellect or the honesty to post anything of substance that can be used for a real discussion. Why? You just come in here to drop your turd in the punchbowl. Why?
You are a sad schmuck…in the Yiddish sense of the word.
It’s not so much we are convinced of his innocence as the prosecution has presented no evidence of his guilt. Given that the prosecution has finished presenting their case that should tell any objective and reasonable observer exactly what is going on here even if they were to have no knowledge of the shenanigans it took to even bring this thing to trial in the first place.
There just isn’t room for an honest difference of opinion because there are no contradictory facts of any significance on which to base a disagreement. We don’t know what happened that night. We just know that the state’s version is baseless and charges should never be brought without evidence.
News organs have always provided opinion. But, journalists used to be taught to separate facts from opinion and to clearly label opinion as such. Hence the introduction of OP Ed pages. This is no longer the case. Now, stories are chosen and written to fit an ideological bent or just personal opinion of the editor and writers. In this particular case, major news organs even went so far as to manufacture evidence that would be inline with their preconceived opinion. Now, shows like The Five, on Fox, are clearly opinion forums, not hard news reports. And, as such, the participants are not held to the strict standards that should govern factual news reports.
This forum is not a “news” organ, though it does provide factual reporting. It is a forum for opinion and should be treated as such. It is up to the visitor to determine the validity of any “facts” presented here.
As to most of the posters here being convinced that GZ is not guilty of the charges leveled against him, you are correct. But, those who believe the opposite are welcome to post here as well. The only requirement being that you are prepared to use facts and logic to support your statements and position. See, one of the reasons why people who believe there is no factual basis for the charges that GZ is facing gravitate to this site, and a couple others, is that the majority of sites discussing this, including the MSM, do not engage in intelligent discourse, but, rather, simply regurgitate what has been spouted on the major news sites, no matter how inaccurate it may be.
He is deciding the case as decided by the progressive fascists. They used this case to scare blacks into voting for Obama in 2012 and that means that Zimmerman is guilty. Facts have nothing to do with it. Zimmerman is just a speed bump on the road to the progressive fascist utopia.
Couldn’t have put it better myself. No seriously, I do not practice law nor will I ever possess the intelligence to do so but just reading the comments (and obviously the main text) on this blog allow me to stay up to date with every aspect of the case. I could never otherwise watch or follow this trial if I had only the mainstream media spin (either side) to rely on.
To be honest, I find much of the legal commentary on this case in the MSM to be completely baffling. One example is lawyers who have claimed that it is a major inconsistency that Zimmerman states in one of his statements that Travon came out from being hidden in the bushes and in another he just came out of the darkness.
In what world do these attorneys practice law? Anyone who has practiced law has seen much larger discrepancies in the statements of persons who pretty much everyone agrees are trying to be truthful. That is why two experienced criminal investigators did not believe this type of discrepancy was significant.
If there is anyone out there who honestly believes that Zimmerman’s statements contain major inconsistency, how about providing a list so that we can evaluate them? I haven’t found any inconsistencies that would make me uncomfortable in making a closing argument. If I missing something, please provide your list so that I can respond to it in the way I think they will be addressed by defense counsel in closing argument.
This highlights your moral bankruptcy and intellectual confusion.
The jury will find him guilty or acquit. He is innocent in fact.
Just as his criminal case jury found to acquit OJ at law, and OJ was absolutely guilty as a matter of fact.
Whatever we may know at the conclusion of this, we know that any notion of justice has not been advanced.
moral bankruptcy? And of what evidence do you offer other than I disagree with you and others? You don’t even know me. You prove my point in that you make huge leaps of judgement based on nothing but your own insulated opinions. bravo. And of course you already know of zimmies innocence, too. Why not dismiss the jury? I mean, after all, ‘rags’ has spoken. lol
You malignant bastard, I read your posts…
To paraphrase Patton.
You happily admitted to trolling this site, moron.
malignant bastard? Rags, you’re letting your emotions get the better of you. Another point confirmed. You’re making this easy for me.
A self-identified troll is not a matter of my judgment.
You told us about your “morality”.
Troll.
Now you want some creds…??? Sorry.
The trial has a live feed. We’ve watched it. We have heard what the jury has heard and seen some of what they’ve seen. Therefore, our opinions are informed.
That’s the difference.
and if anyone has offered evidence of intellectual confusion, or more accurately in your case – intellectual lethargy – it’s you based on your poorly conceived judgements.
‘K. Cite to some.
Mr. Hesperus – Certainly someone with the intellectual capacity you constantly remind us that you possess, with your obvious educational background, could you please refrain from consistently misspelling “Judgment.”
Ain’t no “e” in judgment.
Ragspierre, hesperus is an admitted troll and he will avoid specifics at all costs. There are two types of trolls: (1) those who troll with a strong confidence in the validity of their points and (2) those who do not have this confidence because they know the facts do not completely support their positions. [H]esperus is the second type and this is why he strays, intentionally, from listing specifics. Specifics for him, in this particular context, are his kryptonite. His only purpose is to be certain that the “other guy’s” point of view is heard. Unfortunately, hesperus’s point of view is untenable and, as a result, he does more harm to the particular view he advances rather than helping it.
I’ve been reading these comments for the last few days and I had to chime in. I know A LOT of people like hesperus. In fact, nearly all my friends think like hesperus. The one commonality they share is an inability to narrow down their beliefs regarding this trial to a simple set of facts. But you probably knew this already. It’s quite apparent from hesperus’ commentary. He seems to be a merchant of vagueries and generalizatons. He can only speak in such terms because to do otherwise would threaten his ability to sustain himself on this blog. He’ll not allow himself to be cornered by a set of facts.
hesperus – How does one get into the troll intern program?
Is that you NastyNat?
maybe because the “new” facts coming out were already known by us as we had been looking into this situation for a long time.
some of us have been following this since pretty much week 1 (actual week it happened not when the stories broke) and have looked into the people involved.
You keep saying that the case is not over. In fact, the state’s case is over. The state has completed the presentation of its case in chief and rested. Yes, it can still present a rebuttal case if it chooses, but that is limited to refuting evidence presented in the defense case. The state’s case against Zimmerman IS over — and the state has clearly failed to meet its burden of proof.
But LI isn’t deleting your comments. They are allowing you and other GZ haters to have your say. Whereas my non-confrontational comment (in response to one about “two itty bitty scratches” on GZ’s head) about experiencing an assault similar to GZ’s and how terrifying it is because you don’t know if the next hit will be the last was deleted from the CNN website. Comment after comment reads “comment deleted.” They are actively censoring anything that does not adhere to the narrative they want to present. I realize it’s their website but they shouldn’t have a comments section if they are not going to allow opposing views. The MSM is creating a national echo chamber and is intentionally spreading disinformation. Very sad. And very scary.
My local newspaper changed their commenting system in order to kill the debate and exclude the majority of conservative posters. They killed dissent quite effectively. Stories covering topics that used to have hundreds of comments debating the issue now have less than a dozen, most of which toe the liberal party line.
Miami Herald?
As a liberal, I find that despicable. IMO, the foks who utilize such censorship to silence opposing views, spread disinformation and create a national echo chamber are not liberals: they are totalitarian lackeys.
No exciliado, the Arizona Daily Star. Tucson is, unfortunately, liberal central in AZ. Maybe that’s why it is often referred to as Too Stoned Arizona./ LOL
gxm you say that you are a liberal, yet you are another person who has a mix of views that satisfy the criteria of being conservative or as I prefer “middle of the road”.
Your most welcome comments refer to what the LSM has been doing to shut down our voices.
Beckel is a liar. But what little I have watched of MSNBC shows a lackluster effort to label Zimmerman and spin the facts and general depression about this trial.
Anyone who calls up an escort service for a whore to come to their home while the wife is away ánd pays her with a check is suspect in my book.
Hi, Kitty,
This is kittycat. I saw the Five yesterday, well, the first part anyone. Everyone else on there has common sense and know that Zimmerman is innocent, shouldn’t be on trial. BB makes my blood pressure go up most of the time anyway. He certainly did yesterday, and he didn’t have a good argument on why he thought Zimmerman was guilty.
BB said GZ is a wuss. Seems to me he believes its GZ yelling for help while getting a beat down. What Does that say about SF?
Oh the irony!
Yup. I stopped watching FOX a long time ago. Last time they were useful information brokers was Florida 2000.
Now its all innane Beavis & Butthead chatter with the occasional reference to news. I don’t know who thought “Red Eye” deserved to be transformed into “The Five”, but he’s the Archetype of whats wrong with FOX.
Only show I really enjoyed was Grapevine with Brit Hume. His replacement is okay but just as good as Hume.
That’s a perfect example of why I quit watching Fox News. If I wanted to hear the opinion of a gasbag like Beckel or a moron like Juan Williams or Susan Estrich or Gerraldo or Shepherd Smith… I’d watch MSNBC.
You have to realize that the progressives used this trial for political purposes to convince their base to support the cause. They created a story of an unarmed 12 year old black child returning from buying candy and murdered by a racist white man. This story preyed on the fears of the progressive bases and motivated them to vote for “if I had a son he would look like Trayvon” Obama. This was an evil lie.
Zimmerman is a victim of this evil, a speed bump on the path to victory for the progressives.
The MSM works for the cause and there is nothing that they won’t do to support it. Just consider the lies they spread to further the story they are selling. An edited 911 call, a pictured that hid Zimmerman’s injuries, the pictured of Trayvon as a 12 year old all lies designed to scare their base.
Then the progressives tell of how Zimmerman violated a police order to stay in his car. That he profiled Trayvon hunted him down and shot an unarmed black child because he was angry/racist/wannabee cop/etc.. Obama “If I had a son” tells them that they better vote for him because he’s got their back. This trial furthers that idea because it is the progressives delivering justice to the evil child murderer George Zimmerman.
The MSM news media can’t tell the world that they lied so the continue to pretend Zimmerman is guilty and that is why they are so bad.
I did not expect geeky and cool info on CGI at the George Zimmerman trial. Thanks Defense Team for surprising me (again).
Is that Kenny Rogers or Grizzly Adams sitting on the back row?
That is Bubba B. Bodine, Commander of the National Armed Cracker Riot and Looting Response Unit.
These Crackers are crack marksmen and armed to the hilt. They have spread over all the major cities to protect people and property from attacks after this sham trial is over.
They’ve got ground troops, guerillas, snipers, motorcycle units and pick-up trucks with automatic guns mounted on the back.
I’m going with Captain Wild Bill Wichrowski.
I say she says no, just because that’s what she does. The analyst on wftv said the Daubert Hearing has a much higher standard than the Frye Hearing did. Purpose of that to make sure an expert is really an expert, I suppose?
Looking forward to Andrew’s tweets today. I think my fave from yesterday was this:
“#zimmermantrial Turns out the wheels on the chairs in Sanford PD make a “No” sound when rolled across floor. 8-| lawofselfdefense.com”
Heh.
Andrew is very funny.
Sultan Knish/Daniel Greenfield has an interesting take on this whole travesty.
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2013/07/wrong-side-of-street.html
I am puzzled why this is a Daubert issue. The witness is not presenting the results of any type of scientific test or a scientific opinion. He is more less summarizing the evidence from the defense’s perspective using an animation. If the animation is consistent with a plausible interpretation of the evidence and is helpful for the jury to understand the defense’s theory of how the evidence fits together, I don’t see why it should not be admissible.
I don’t claim any special expertise on the admissibility of animations.
The defense wants to offer the animated video as actual evidence, not just as a demonstrative. So, Daubert to see whether methodology used to create this evidence is valid.
“What is the “Daubert standard” for admissibility of scientific evidence?”
http://is.gd/b3qMSG
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Daubert applies to “scientific” evidence. I think a common sense definition is that scientific evidence is evidence derived from scientific knowledge or techniques.
In what sense does this animation involve scientific knowledge or techniques? I think that it just summarizes evidence from the defenses perspective much in the same way that this is done in closing arguments, except here he is using animation, rather than words.
Is he using “scientific techniques” such as measuring distances shown in photographs, or correlating the timing of the various 911 calls using a stop watch?
In a word, yes. He uses laser mapping, drone photography and other methodologies to get the measurements and topography right and timing methodologies to sync the 911 call with the shot and the actions leading up to the shot and subsequent to the shot based on witness testimony.
I wouldn’t have believed it possible, but this is worse than the DNA testimony.
So prosecution is objecting to defense entering expert computer animation as evidence but believes that entering pure imagination into evidence is just fine.
Scientific evidence that does not support their “narrative”?
Of course they want it out.
Fairy tales that support their “narrative”?
They want it in.
It has been like that from day one.
If they could convince the guys at Pixar Studios to make an animated movie titled “Tiny Little T. against The Big Bad Z”, you can bet they’ll fight tooth and nail to include it as evidence.
MOM – ‘We are getting to the meat of it now.”
At this rate MOM may have to reassess his estimate of what day the defense will finish presenting its case.
Andrew, please do a piece on this and I’ll buy one of your books. Assuming GZ is acquitted, what civil options are available to GZ? Is there any way around sovereign immunity in a civil suit for malicious prosecution where the case is brought for political reasons and is not supported by evidence? Thanks.
Normally that would be a fun weekend project, but I’m not sufficiently familiar with Florida law in that area to give an opinion off the top of my head and with the trial running I don’t have time to research it.
Post-verdict, or maybe during deliberations, I’ll do a “Where do we go from here”-type piece, will cover it then.
If you want, you can buy the book now and I’ll it to you when I’ve covered the topic of interest. http://www.lawofselfdefense.com
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
if/when Crump is called out for his misdeeds would GZ have a claim against his malpractice insurance/ liability policy? (I am not an attorney but a Real Estate Developer who has been around more civil litigation than I wanted to be)
Let’s just put it this way, if Crump is able by some remote possibility to keep his bar license (or regain it after his prison, parole, probation, and/or community service sentence), he won’t be able to afford the liability premium. He may have to resort to working as a ‘talking head’ on MSNBC when Sharpton and Matthews retire.
No attorney-client relationship between Zimmerman and Crump, therefore his malpractice policy not an available source to pay a judgment. This does not mean that GZ can’t sue Crump, it just means there is probably no obligation on the part of his insurance policy to “pay or defend.”
Hope this helps.
That is what I was wondering, GZ wasn’t a client but was harmed by the actions of Crump who was acting as an attorney. Figured Crump has hidden everything away into trusts and would be hard to collect on, so the insurance policy would be easiest to collect on.
Personally I hope GZ goes after TM parents also after he is acquitted since in fact TM was a minor in their care.
If the animation is not allowed, I hope the Defense will post it online.
I’m on vacation, so perhaps this question has been answered and I’ve missed it. Why is this hearing happening now, as opposed to pre-trial? The jury must be furious.
Remember the numerous motions for a continuance made by the defense? Their plainly worded statement to the Court that they were simply not ready for trial?
Remember Nelson denying each and every one of those motions?
That’s why we’re doing this Daubert hearing mid-trial.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Thank you, I feel for the jury.
This is not a legal comment and not sure of the history of this issue in the trial but my take would be that the everyone knew the animation would have to continually be adjusted to reflect testimony presented before its introduction and the decision to fully address it was put off until now.
From the evidence I have heard and observed I believe GZ is not guilty by reason of self-defense. Given that, however, I don’t think the animations have any place in court. No matter what, they are someone’s interpretation of the evidence. That is the job of the jury, not some third party. It is the same reason that a book is almost always better than the movie based on the book. When reading a book you use your own imagination to create the world in which the story is occurring. In a movie, or a graphic animation, someone else is creating that world, but it may not be the world that existed at the time of the crime or incident because no amount of evidence, even videotape, can capture everything that was occurring in that world.
excellent and objective point.
Coming from you that means it’s subjective and and poor.
You could make the same points about photographs or video.
The issue at law is whether it accurately and fairly depicts what it presorts to show.
…purports to show…
Damn-ed spell checker.
your spell checker created a very interesting word 🙂
Keyboard error and spell-checkers always ruin a good post 🙂
Photographs and video, without editing, present a view from the perspective of the recording instrument without interpretation or interpolation. Animations are strictly an interpretation of some evidence. A perfect case in point occurred over the weekend with the unfortunate crash of the B777 at SFO. The animation shown on the CNN website within 24 hours of the crash showed the aircraft’s tail hitting the seawall and then the aircraft spinning on the ground and coming to rest. The cellphone video which showed up shortly later showed a much more dramatic incident where the aircraft hits the seawall, stirs up a tremendous amount of dirt, turn 180 degrees and rises up and then slams down again. If the animation was the only interpretation available it would be difficult to ascertain how so many impact injuries occurred from those who were not impacted immediately by the slamming of the tail into the seawall. In the cellphone video it is obvious how the impact injuries could have occurred because the aircraft slams into the ground as it completes its 180 degree turn.
“Animations are strictly an interpretation of some evidence.”
Some are, to be sure.
I think one would have to see what this presentation shows to know how to evaluate it.
Wouldn’t we?
In the case of the aircrash, the animation is probably more accurate, because it was the tailplane that hit the sea wall after the plane had come in at the wrong angle.
Yes, exactly. The animation purports to shows the evidence from the defense’s perspective. The state will have the opportunity to cross exam to show the jury how its interpretation may differ.
I am not sure, but I suspect that this animation will establish a timeline of how the various phone calls fit together. I think the timing of all these 911 calls, Travon’s calls and Zimmermans calls is difficult to track. If the animation helps to show how they all fit together, and does so accurately, then I think it would be extremely helpful to the jury.
You might be interested in this timeline that I put together of the events with the 911 calls and witness statements integrated into the timeline.
http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/txantimedia-1472782-trayvon-shooting-timeline/
Just think of it as part of the lawyer’s summation that shows graphically what he says happened.
Bob Beckel’s ridiculously disingenuous obfuscations are proof that delusional thinking doesn’t cease simply because one stops snorting coke and drinking scotch for breakfast.
Beckel may be dry, but he clearly isn’t sober.
I speak from experience. Make of that what you will.
Bob Beckel is paid to offer ridiculously disingenuous obfuscations – that’s his job on FOX as token lib. Watch him long enough and you’ll see plenty of instances where he’s spouting the expected drivel but clearly not buying it himself.
I think you hit the nail on the head. It seems that Beckel doesn’t believe half his shtick but keeps it up to generate controversy.
I still think beer and barbecue with Beckel would be a blast–until our wives told us to shut up.
A “Revolutionary Tribunal”, another brilliant take from Victor Davis Hanson.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352873/revolutionary-tribunals-victor-davis-hanson/page/0/1?splash=
VDH is a genius. Try some of his historical texts on ancient Greece. Fascinating stuff. But then I’m a huge military history buff.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Agreed. His and your blogs are a respite from the general lack of perspicacity I encounter in the everyday world. Thanks for your great work!
So Andrew, you must be familiar with Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History ?
Any military history “buff” (or anybody who likes a good story) owes it to themselves to give his podcasts a try.
You’ll wish your high school/college history classes were taught by him.
Never heard of what, usually read my history, but I’ll check it out.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
The advice is good. Hardcore History is pretty compelling. One caveat: It is helpful that you have some understanding of the subject matter and are aware that he presents a liberal’s viewpoint. I have caught Mr. Carlin in some very tortured interpretations of facts.
And he does strive to be fair.
Still, an excellent podcast.
Consistent with VDH’s take is that a certain “game” is being played in at least two ways. I mean “game” in the psychological sense as described by Eric Berne MD in his “Games People Play” book of the mid-1960s.
A game in this sense is an interaction among two or more people (or groups of people) that, beneath its simple, plain purpose on the surface, has a dishonest concealed agenda which provides the ultimate psychological “payoff” to one or more of the parties.
The Game in this GZ/TM incident and trial is the one Berne called, “Let’s You and Him Fight.”
In the micro sense. The friendly young woman Jeantel appears to have been egging TM into taking offense against and turning the tables on the “creepy-ass cracker” who was persistently watching his movements among the buildings. It takes little imagination to see TM being receptive to Jeantel’s desires. His payoff is her approval and hers is reveling in her influence; additionally they both enjoy the prospective cracker-bashing. Instead, he winds up dead and she admits to feeling guilty. Then the larger second game begins…
In the macro sense, the second Game’s players are the politically correct media, race agitators, and public officials whom VDH identifies, who from the first have stirred up a fight between racially-oriented segments in the public vs. the segment that in modern times has become minimally race-conscious.
These aggressive racialists covet the payoff available in bashing the falsely scapegoated cracker factions plus enhancing their self-importance, while the media and public officialdom get the same things plus the satisfaction of stirring up news-dominating trouble with its vote-gaining power and financial benefits.
Althouse has a great blog up about the case…
http://www.althouse.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-zimmerman-trial-needs-to-be-more.html
Ann Althouse is slowly turning into a trainwreck. She stopped comments because she was getting blasted for some of her overwrought postings.
I’ve removed her from my links.
Yah, she trolled her own commenters. Decent and loyal guys who were arguimg that men deserve Reproductive Rights. She mocked and them as whining about paying child support for a baby they would have aborted if they were female.
She got lots of pushback. We respect her intelligence, but we don’t treat her as The Authority simply because she is a law professor. Anyways, she couldn’t defend her behavior so she shut down the comments. She really doesn’t get that, while she starts interesting and provocative topics, the comment section was MORE than 50% of the reason people read her. There were 4-4 commenters on par with Wretchard of Belmont Club, the kind you listen carefully to, even when you disagree, because they have an established pattern of sound reasoned and logical analysis. Those guys are gone now.
I was a veteran there but left a long time ago over her racial blind spot. She finds the most benign statements to be “dog whistles” and treated the n-word as the only racial slur prohibited on her blog (all other racial slurs are allowed).
Its too bad. Was a great blog while it lasted. But Althouse has become the Socialite who thinks she can throw an intersting dinner party with just you and Meade and her.
Althouse with her commenters? Meh.
The commentariat was far more interesting than Althouse herself. Althouse is dead to me.
During the Daubert hearing, will the prosecution contend that Zimmerman was on top and therefore the animation misrepresents the facts? If they do, will the judge disallow his testimony? Or will she rule that the only testimony that have places Martin on top and it is therefore allowed?
Is that a gray tent in that box? Good Lord.
It would take a BIG 17 year old to fill them…
I’ve seen them before, but that may be the first time I’ve actually seen them full face-on.
It took two men from the prosecution team to handle that exhibit.
I was astounded that they introduced it in that form, but the constraints of evidence preservation might have made any other form impossible.
They had to encase it to hide the smell. It was put wet into a plastic bag and it molded. They were hoping the defense didn’t know that and connect it to degraded DNA and shoddy evidence handling. #fail
There’s the framed clothing, soon to be a part of the Smithsonian civil rights museum.
Here’s the prosecution’s animated version of events:
http://bitstrips.com/r/P1T59
What is wrong with you people? PolitiChicks just released its list of “The Hottest Conservative Supermen in America” and William A. Jacobson didn’t get so much as an honorable mention, yet you all go on like nothing in the world has changed.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.
http://politichicks.tv/column/politichicks-picks-the-most-exquisite-men-in-the-conservative-world/
Speaking of hot, there are two very attractive blondes in the gallery today, visible over Don West’s right shoulder.
The legal analysis on this site strikes me as scholarly. Additionally, it seems to me that the prosecution is underprepared and incompetent. I have tried remaining objective while viewing the trial, but it’s hard to consider Zimmerman guilty given how poor a job the prosecution is doing; what I can’t determine is if they’re floundering because of ineptitude or because they simply don’t have a case (or both).
It’s kinda of hard not to flounder when you are trying to manipulate events to fit a preconceived theory. The prosecution is less interested in truth and more interested in agenda.
Dr Di Maio’s experience and credentials are impressive to put it mildly.
Now THIS is an expert…!!!
Di Maio beats Bao and Rao all to bits.
His demeanor will be entirely different under cross, too.
He will NOT be defensive or argumentative, though he will be firm. This guy is a pro.
Doesn’t just sound like AN expert — by the time the defense was done presenting his credentials and experience, one came away with the notion that this guy might be THE foremost expert in the field.
West is getting away with a lot of objectionable questions, including some awful compound questions.
Zimmerman Trial Day 11: Live Video, Analysis of State’s Case & Witnesses
Ummmmm… Shouldn’t that be Analysis of Defense’s Case…?
That’s the only very small nit I can pick with this excellent, informative blogsite. Thanks!
Oops, copy-and-pasted old headline, thanks for pointing out.
–Andrew, @LawSelfDefense
Thank you, Andrew!
Ref’d here from Michael Bane’s blog. Your news, analysis, and forum posters are orders of magnitude above anything else out there. Thanks again.
Bad Faith Bernie D looks like he’s got a bad case of agita contemplating his upcoming attempt to impeach this witness’ testimony on cross exam
Isn’t the criminal attorney’s first axiom that it’s better to beg forgiveness than ask permission?
To most people isn’t the term “criminal attorney” redundant?
Be honest…this is for science.
As was explained early in the run of Breaking Bad:
“You don’t want a criminal lawyer… you want a criminal lawyer.”
The shot was fired 2-4 inches away and not against the body. Discuss how far away was TM’s clothing away from the skin.
Would the clothing be away from his body if he was on the bottom when shot? I think not, so TM was not on the bottom of the scuffle.
Martin was on the top,a s the clothing was hanging away from his chest.
But also, if those sweatshirts were only hanging a few inches from his chest, he had to be a pretty big guy to (almost) fill those huge shirts. If he was a little boy wearing those, they would hang further away.
That is consistent with GZ statement and against the state’s point of view.
Two ways to get a 2-4″ gap between shirt and skin: gravity or having it pulled away by the other combatant.
Yes, but I would expect the evidence to show that the hoodie was being pulled on. IOW, rather than having a simple hole with tearing, you would have an elongation of the fabric indicating that it was distorted at the time the shot was fired.
Could Judge Nelson develop an interest in this case? Some of the expert commentary here suggests that she has made a number of reversible errors. Is it possible that some of her judge friends are politely reminding her that she could be in store for an embarrassment, and therefore is it possible that she is thinking that the best outcome for her would be an acquittal, in which case there will be no appeals and much less intense scrutiny?
Preposterous the notion that Judge Nelson would have any friends.
The more I think about it you may be right. She’d have to be dense not to realize the consequences of her behavior if GZ is found guilty and the verdict is appealed.
wow that was an incredibly weird pause on HLN Dr. Di Marco just turned into an evil snarling beast
I love the comment about basic forensics 101!
That forensics 101 comment was not hyperbole. I’m not a forensic pathologist, I’m not a doctor, but I do love to read. Primarily espionage, but some crime and mystery novels. Everything he’s said about shot distance, and tattooing, and soot marking is stuff that I knew, simply from novels that I’ve read. I could have told you every bit of that, I just can’t do it with the authority that he’s got.
I’m not trying to brag, I’m just saying that when you get right down to it, it’s pretty basic physics how this stuff behaves.
I know it wasn’t hyperbole which is what makes it so beautifully done.
I really enjoy listening to real experts share their expertise in layman terms. There’s something about having the voice of competent expertise lecture us that’s simply riveting. This witness is utterly compelling, and I don’t know how the prosecution has any chance of discrediting him or trying to twist his testimony to back their version.
This isn’t just witness testimony — this is a clinical lecture. Defense is just letting him go, prosecution doesn’t dare pipe up with any objections.
OT (maybe) break in at law firm representing State Department whistleblower. Only material related to case taken:
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2013/07/09/break-in-at-law-firm-representing-state-dept-whistleblower-only-their-case-specifics-taken-shades-of-watergate/
Thugoracy – Obama regime far worse than Watergate on steroids.
The Clintons strike again.
he just ripped the heart out of the state’s case
Well-played.
Daryl Parks: Defense is attacking my partner.
Talk about transference/projection/opposites speech.
Amazing, even an educated professional can’t speak without “dis” and “dat”
The rate of loss will not hold steady as blood pressure goes down. I hope the expert knows that and is just simplifying.
I am 100% certain, nay! 200% certain that this man knows that and is just simplifying.
I got the impression he meant average loss throughout the minute.
Whoever is objecting for this witness for the State must be feeling REALLY beaten down.
The doc is going on WAY too long not to draw an objection for a narrative.
Riveting testimony!
A guy ran 65 feet after his heart was blown away with a shotgun?! Holy crap!
If I shot someone like that and he turned around and started running, I’d be scared!
sounds like the start of every zombie film
See BDLR? What a bleeping smug bastard!
I didn’t read that as smug. I read that as “out of my control” resignation. He objected, it was sustained, West barely rephrased, but BDLR knew it wasn’t worth objecting again.
Giving the devil his due, BDLR’s initial objection was well taken and should have been sustained. The question was leading because it suggested an answer. West on the fly rephrased it by asking the question in a non-leading form, i.e., one which did not suggest the answer. That question was proper.
BDLR is an expert on leading questions since that is the only type of question he knows how to ask.
When is he going to ask about the direction the bullet and powder came from? It looks like the tattoo shows the the gun was shot from below and to the Trayvon’s left. Supports Zimmerman’s statement.
It’s just as likely that Trayvon was twisted forward to his left and be shot straight on and the same result.
He touched on the tendency of right hand shooter to fire offset from the hip
I don’t know if anyone else commented on this already but it looks like TM”s text messages about fighting may be a defense proffer today without jury present b/c state objects to but judge won’t rule until she hears testimony. See 7th paragraph. http://www.talkleft.com/story/2013/7/8/21041/53747/crimenews/Zimmerman-Trial-Toxicology-Report-Is-Admissible
Show trial: a trial of an innocent man made necessary when a political group will exploit an occurrence for advantage and propaganda. Required to avert riots and chaos when a group is provoked by false rhetoric by a presentation of incontrovertible evidence and exhaustive conclusive testimony.
West should have had the photo he wanted slapped into his hand by a good paralegal.
At least, that is my happy fantasy, as a solo practitioner, with a surgical nurse daughter who knows what her surgeon whats before he does.
Well, Rags, I’m not an attorney, so please help me, but those are the state’s exhibits in evidence, and aren’t they maintained by the clerk? I would think that keeping them in order would be her responsibility. That’s what went through my head as he fumbled through them.
Can’t say about this in Florida, but the opposing side never tenders into evidence anything they don’t give to the non-sponsoring attorney as well. In most Texas courts, all exhibits are actually provided to the other side before trial.
External injuries do not show the extent. This comes into play with TM’s hands and for GZ head injuries.
This witness makes Rao and Bao look like blithering idiots. Why would the state call morons to stand if the evidence favored them? Then add in Rachel Jeantel and Selene Bahadoor. Rut Roh .
Of course that is a small hurdle. Boa Roa demonstrated their own incompetence.
What he does do is provide a basic level of information that the jury can understand and is consistent with GZ’s testimony.
Why would the state call morons…?
Because no reputable professional that gives a damn about their credibility and/or reputation would testify to the state’s lies and manipulation?
I am so getting the feeling that after Di Maio we are going to hear the words “Defense rests your honor.”
I don’t think so. They said they’d be done on Wednesday.
I will be pissed if they do that………I want to see Crump called in before this is over
“It’s hard to say definitely.” The Dr. is very careful about what he says and confirms which must impress the jury. Mr. Good testified much in the same manner when he said he saw blows raining down but could not see if they actually impacted.
I feel like I’m back in college, sitting in a lecture. This is relentless expertise.
This guy is killing the State. I almost have to turn away…
Heh!
6 minimum Bernie not 1
Bernie does not look happy.
The only way I can see GZ losing is if the defense atty is part of the RNC. (Relentless pursuit of defeat in the face of impending victory.)
It’s obvious that the prosecution was picked from second string prosecutors. They were set in place to fail. That’s why ALL their witnesses were unbeliveible and bolstered the defewnse’s claims. There never was a viable case. The people behind this farce want an acquittal. They want riots. This trial and the liklyhood of a trial has kept this issue alive in the news for months and would have been forgotten if the media had let it die. This whole farce has worked up the blacks’ feelings of ill usuage to massive proportions. There will be riots because even though it is obvious Zimmerman is innocent they will not believ it because they do not trust whites to do the right thing. This whole trial is a blot on our judicial system. The state of Florida gave in to mob threats. Also, it is reprehnsible for Sanford, the county or the state to demote a career police officer for not going along with this farce against positive proof of no wrongdoing. This is an effort to teach us not to defend ourselves when attacked and HOA watchmen had better not leave their cars for any reason when tracking intruders. This HOA has shown the world they would not back up one of their people for doing his job by giving the psuedo parents money. I say pseudo parents because they have been curiously lacking in that boy’s earliest life. He was raised by other members of the family until age fourteen, then tossed to the father who tossed him to the mother who then tossed him back to the father. Could the boy’s bad behaviour have started befoe age 14. Very likely.
I have contended from the start that when you engage in witch hunts like this you only make future tragedies more likely because all of the wrong lessons are learned. Instead of thugs understanding they can be shot down they are given a martyr to justify their predations.
I’m not sure that first rate prosecutors could win this case. As soon as I saw Rachel Jeantel was the star witness, I was stunned that the state of Florida decided to prosecute. I’m guessing that the reason for prosecuting was to avoid riots and to pander to race baiters. Is it ethical to prosecute a super weak case to avoid riots and pander to the black community? It may not even work. If GZ is acquitted, there may still be riots. I’m hoping not since many people are actually having their eyes opened as to how weak this case against GZ is.
Are any of you who love to speculate about riots giving any consideration to the fact that a whole lot of people have conceal and carry permits in FLA and have a stand your ground law.
I am not sure the locals are blind to what is going on in this trial. I think they will accept the juries verdict.
Bussed in thugs will be obvious aggressors and I doubt that FLA will want to go through another bruising trial – except course the Angela Corey trial.
The most frequent comments that I’m seeing is that if people do decide to riot, they are smart enough in this state to keep it confined to their normal area of operation. If they try to bring it elsewhere, they may be met with resistance.
I remain faithful that there will not be significant rioting in Sanford by natives. I’m not ruling out the bussing in of thugs from Racial Grievance Inc., but I have a higher opinion of the residents.
Nope. These prosecutor attorneys are really that bad. They have a history of over-charging because they like to do deals rather than go to court and show up their poor expertise.
Dr. Di Maio sure does know his stuff. Defense sure did choose the right pathologist.
Bernie is going to have a very difficult time twisting what Dr. DiMaio has testified to on cross. The Dr. is very precise in what he says. I have a feeling from watching Bernie that he will attack the use of the non clinical word “stun”.
Maybe BDLR will refer to it as a ‘F***ing A**hole stun’ ???
Just for the impact of being able to say ‘Pardon my language’ for the 92’nd time ?
I had one, and only one, expert witness, in over 40 years of jury trials, for whom I just put my pen down during the opposition’s cross examination of my witness and hoped that it would go on and on. Every question by the opposition’s attorney was another opportunity for my expert to destroy the opposition’s case. There was no need for me to do any re-direct examination. Perhaps we will see that type of cross-examination performance this afternoon.
I have had only one expert like this testify against one of my clients in over 40 years of trial practice. We settled immediately after his deposition.
I know, right…??? I had a psychologist expert for the other side that was GREAT. He was bullet-proof.
I use him now.
Pick me! Pick me! Forensic Psychologist! Coupons Available!
Dr. Page Hudson, first state medical examiner for NC was that way. Knowledgeable, smart, and unshakable. He was a nightmare for the criminal defense. As one attorney tole me, “Hell you can’t cross examine him – the SOB tells the truth!” You well know when you have a true expert and not just a degree for hire.
Oh, I missed a few minutes because I was on the phone. Are they now at lunch?
Yes, they are at lunch.
Hi, Catherine,
Thanks. When they get back from lunch recess, is the good doctor still going to be on the stand?
Dr. Baden doesn’t hold a candle to this Di Maio IMO.
He’s become nothing but a showboat and that wife of his must get a nice check from CNN.
Actually, he is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_Di_Maio
I’m guessing what GZ was instructed by the judge prior to the testimony of the wonderful doctor was that MOM&West were not going to go after the tox report – at least not with this witnes
Now for some real science:
Las Vegas line – 10:1 for Zimmerman acquittal.
Any line on the post verdict rioting?
Probably lower odds since they know Crackers are riled by this trial (+Obamacare, Shamnesty Bill, IRS, Benghazi and much more) and now they have more guns and ammo than ever before.
Is that the only available action at the Vegas Crime Book?
On CX can they ask Di Maio how much he is being paid?
Yes. This is frequently a problem with good expert witnesses.
This problem can be dealt with during closing arguments. In a jury trial a few years ago I dealt with this problem by asking the jury, during deliberations, to divide up a certain task among the 12 of them and see how long it took them to do it. I urged them to compare the time it took the 12 of them to do that straight-forward task with all of the work that my expert had to do because of the huge amount of paperwork that needed to be reviewed to disprove plaintiff’s argument. Doing that would allow them to see that my expert did not waste any time.
That solution to that problem worked in that trial.
Of course they can ask. I can’t see how that would help the prosecution since most people do believe that when you perform a job, you should receive compensation.
Any educated guesses how much this expert is making? Even a range… $20,000 to $30,000?
So is the Tox / marijuana thing out for good?
The jury knows GZ version of events, his attorneys talk about it every day. But can anyone (please) tell me what the State’s version of events is? They don’t seem to be pushing any particularly DETAILED scenario that I can identify, other than GZ shot an unarmed child after receiving insignificant injuries from someone, maybe not the child.
No, the tox / pot is coming in, just not yet ( maybe not with this witness). The judge even said ‘to not allow it would be reversible error’. It’s part of the autopsy report, it’s in evidence.
Driveby, I soooo agree! For instance, can anyone complete this sentence with a straight face: “The reason that Trayvon Martin was screaming for help for 40 seconds while GZ was sustaining injuries is . . . . ”
I am — how do the British say it? — gobsmacked?
The reason that Trayvon Martin was screaming for help for 40 seconds while GZ was sustaining injuries is dat creepy ass cracker be smackin’ hisself silly. CHILL, BRO! CHILLLLLL! Somebody help this mo’fo!
Having read articles, blogs, and commentary from the left, right, black, white, and points between; the far left, pro-black, white guilt crowd honestly believes that GZ was brandishing his gun and ‘torturing’ poor Master Martin for 40 seconds while TM was crying to his Mommy for help.
I am quite serious.
My God, they have some dumb “analysts” on Fox covering this thing. The one that is Skyping in is just horrific. I am not sure what his qualification is other than having nice hair.
There is a God. Ashleigh Banfield CNN was doing back flips over how spectacular Di Maio and West have been.
Saw BDLR rocking in his chair looking terrified and Mantei sucking his thumb holding his blanky.
Yeas, Mr. BDLR.
You are bald with a very loud voice, but you lack the talent, credibility, intelligence and prestige of Dr. Di Maio.
The state notices superficial similarities, but like the autopsies – they looked at external injuries and did not note the possible INTERNAL differences.
I believe that Dr. DM’s estimates regarding the time until loss of consciousness and the possible time until cardiac death are too narrow.
I agree that 10 to 15 seconds is a reasonable estimate for loss of consciousness following complete cessation of cardiac activity. However, based on Dr. DM’s estimate of blood loss of 15 mL (1 tablespoon) per heartbeat, and a heart rate of 100, the blood loss in 15 seconds is only 375 ML, less than a single unit of blood normally given by blood donors. This would not lead to loss of consciousness. Even the blood loss at one minute, approximately 1500 ML on these assumptions and about one fourth of blood volume, should not yet have led to unconsciousness. Loss of consciousness in 15 Seconds following gunshot injury would require an immediate electrical stoppage of the heart (asystole or ventricular fibrillation), unlikely for right ventricular wounds.
Although 15 mL per second is a reasonable guess for rate of blood loss, it could’ve been either significantly more or significantly less. Normal right ventricular volume in an adult male is approximately 190 mL, of which approximately 100 ML is expelled through the pulmonic valve into the lungs with each heartbeat depending upon ejection fraction. How much of this 100 ML would have escaped through the ventricular puncture warns is difficult to estimate, and would be dependent upon the position, size, and angle of the wound’s with respect to the ventricular wall. Additional complicating factors could include increasing tachycardia as the blood pressure drops, and any Pericardial Tamponade developing.
Depending on the exact rate of blood loss, which could be either greater than or less than 15 mL per heartbeat, cardiac death could have occurred as early as one minute with rapid blood loss, but could have been significantly delayed, even out to 10 minutes or more, if blood loss were slower. I hate to admit it, but on this issue Dr. Bao’s revised 1 to 10 minute estimate may have been the better one.
Extending the time to loss of consciousness beyond 15 seconds is an important point for the defense to make. It would better fit with the scenario of GZ moving TMs arms out, but the arms then found underneath TM. I understand that this longer estimate could be a disadvantage to GZ in a future civil trial, where pain and suffering would be an issue, but extending the time that TM may have been conscious beyond 15 seconds is important to bolstering the version of events as recounted by GZ in this criminal trial, where pain and suffering are not directly at issue.
Wouldn’t you expect the heart rate to be more than 100? After all, he had been engaging in ground and pound for at least 40 seconds at that point. I wouldn’t be surprised to find that his heart rate would have been 150, which would increase the blood loss by a factor of 50%.
He gets a slam in even when mentioning his fee… “not a complicated case.”
Note to self, don’t hit reply, forget about it and then post something else a few minutes later…
There are a LARGE number of variables here. There is the loss of ventricular stretch, loss of contractile force, and depending in where the damage to the right ventricle occurred, loss of cardiac contractility. You are attempting to hyper-analyze a simplified explanation of a very complex topic.
Hemodynamics, cardiology, and their interplay is the stuff careers are made out of.
I have had HUNDREDS of hours of training in the post graduate setting, and I am nowhere near the expert the good Dr is. His testimony is spot on, unless you would prefer that we receive an entire med school lecture on this.
Divemedic is absolutely right. And I take it that the “med school lecture” was a throw-away phrase for emphasis, as this is not the sort of thing covered in med school. Or in cardiology fellowship for that matter (unless maybe you trained in some war-zone like inner city, and even then it’s an emergent matter for the thoracic surgeons to try and fix).
On the clinical cardiology side we tend, correctly or not, to place much more emphasis on understanding the left rather than the right ventricle which tends to get ignored in routine medical education. Basics of cardiac physiology are not all that complicated, but when you throw in bullet wounds I’d place the professional opinion of a forensic pathologist with expertise in gunshot wounds much much higher than the opinion of most MDs, including cardiologists.
“However, based on Dr. DM’s estimate of blood loss of 15 mL (1 tablespoon) per heartbeat, and a heart rate of 100, the blood loss in 15 seconds is only 375 ML, less than a single unit of blood normally given by blood donors. This would not lead to loss of consciousness”
I disagree. Loss of consciousness would occur due to the loss in blood pressure. Keep in mind that while this is approximately the amount of blood a donor gives, a donor usually gives this amount over 5 to 8 minutes or so. Now imagine this same amount being donated in just 10-15 seconds.
You are defining th end point as exsanguination.
The issue may have been blood loss in the myocardium, at which point organized contraction and cardiac output functionally cease to exist.
So, Zimmerman is not likely to confess, huh?
Umm, about the “coupons”..By chance any for say:
http://www.foundshit.com/pictures/world/guinness-beer-trailer.jpg
http://twitchy.com/2013/07/09/illuminati-clothing-brand-calls-for-taking-george-zimmermans-life-cretinous-thugs-echo/
Boycott these vile bastids..
on the phone with a lady?.
oh, please spare me.
TM was on the phone with a 300 pound slab of ghetto attitude
Post of the day, lol!
Bernie puts too much store in DeeDee’s testimony and her alleged phone conversation, for which there is absolutely NO collaborating evidence.
He is good at parsing out the unreasonable basis for some of these questions and correcting the prosecution misrepresenting it.
As Andrew noted, no civil liability in a self defense acquittal.
BDLR implies Zimmerman should have been able to beat Trayvon off with a small flashlight. LOL.
Maybe next time he ought to get a light with a crenulated bezel. You really don’t want to get hit with one of those.
BDLR is just plain stupid. He shows the flashlight and asked Di Maio if it could do some damage. Di Maio agress that it could. But BDLR is not satisfied. He has to have the good Dr. actually handle the flashlight, after which the Dr. amends his opinion; I don’t think that’s substantial enough to do any damage.
BDLR’s biggest problem is a running mouth. He just can’t help himself.
He admitted to being loud before.
…and knocking the witness’ mic far out of place in the process of retrieving the assault flashlight…
Was BDLR really so stupid that he pulled such a stupid stunt?
It sounds like BDLR is trying to create reasonable doubt on Zimmerman’s account.
Is he aware that that’s not his job?
Does he know that his job is to prove his charges beyond reasonable doubt?
I’ve totally noticed this throughout the case. All the trolls seem to fall for this too. They seem to think if there is any doubt in GZs story it means he’s guilty. In reality the state should be telling us what “really” happened and why itvhas to be true. They didn’t even come close to doing that before they rested.
VetHusbandFather sez: “They seem to think if there is any doubt in GZs story it means he’s guilty.”
It’s like arguing with a 9/11 truther. You can disprove one allegation after another, knocking them down like a shooting gallery, but as soon as they come up with one you can’t immediately rebut, they say, “A ha! I told</strong you I was right!"
But in the court of public opinion, he is going to win as long as people can doubt Zimmerman’s story, which is perhaps what this case is about. BDLR’s job is to make a marginally credible case for continuing to believe that GZ is guilty so that the talking heads can continue to rile up the population.
At least this is the best theory I can come up with.
If character and personalities of the lawyers is scored, the defense is making a good impression. They have remained cool, polite and unflappable.
Bernie’s personality, attitude and voice are irritating.
the state just blew the how much are you getting paid issue
Dear Bad Faith Bernie D
your career is over . you will be a pariah amongst men. you will join the ranks of the nifongs in the circle of hell for those bearing false witness.
how much are you getting paid Bernie scumbag?
BDLR may have slow walked some evidence to the defense, but at this point I don’t think his actions have risen (sunk?) the the level of Nifong – who was ultimately disbarred.
Angela Corey gave BDLR and old Greyhound bus and told him to make it fly. I suspect that when he balked at his prospects she pointedly reminded me him that other people had already been demoted over this case.
So, BDLR strapped a pair of wings to his rust bucket and is now flying it off a cliff in the hopes of achieving glide speed.
Is it hot blonde day? Behind defense table far side and then right behind her first row.
be careful that you don’t get the lubricant on your keyboard
I commented on the attractiveness of the gallery earlier. The pretty blonde at the defense table has been there throughout the trial. There is currently an absolutely adorable blonde in the second row near the center aisle, next to Rene. She was in the same spot before lunch, and there also was a knockout blonde in a purple blouse behind her before lunch, but she’s gone or sitting elsewhere now.
The adorable blonde just got up and followed Dr. Di Maio out of the courtroom.
I have a theory that the overlap of OJ supporters (those thinking OJ was framed by racist cops) and Trayvon supporters approaches 90% or more — essentially 99% of blacks and 85% of hardcore leftists — I’m making these percentages up, of course.
Any thoughts on this? Any insights into what makes them tick?
And can the supporters of OJ at least NOW admit that he was guilty of murder?
I watched the OJ trail with the same intensity that I’m following this trial. (I was at home sick during the OJ trial so actually watched the trial.) I believe OJ is innocent. Not only that, I knew who the killer had to be before the trail was concluded. (His son.)
I’m white and conservative, so I screw up all your preconceptions.
People who believe OJ was guilty AND are open-minded, should read Bill Dear’s “OJ Was Guilty, But Not of Murder”.
If you can’t admit there was at least reasonable doubt in that case, then you either didn’t watch it or you’re not open-minded. You choose.
I have recently heard a few opinions from non-black folk in the same direction. That is, it was the son who committed the murders, not OJ.
“$2400.00 it wasn’t a complicated case.”
Not what the prosecutor wanted to hear.
$2400 is a tiny expert-witness fee, for a good witness. He probably has not yet been paid for his time on the witness stand today.
Still… It could have been 10x that, and STILL been a bargain.
Bernie just asked one question too many.
He does that a lot. BDLR is not a skilled cross-examiner.
“He does that a lot. BDLR is not skilled.”
fixed it for ya.
If I were Di Maio, I would be tempted to stop and spell out to BDLR what exactly a forensic pathologist is and what kind of testimony is their expertise. Bernie doesn’t seem to know, asking stupid questions like “you don’t know who pulled the gun” and the like. Playing to the ignorant, (I hope).
Is BDLR pretending to be stupid?
No, right, he is just embarrassing himself one more time.
He is leading the witness into refuting his theory. Maybe he has an alternate personality taking over and working for the defense?
what makes you think he needs to pretend?
BDLR does not seem to understand that he has the burden of proof. All of this “It could have happened this way couldn’t it?” is meaningless. You have to be able to prove it.
Exactly! He’s acting like a defense attorney. Backwards trial.
New theory is Zimmerman beat himself with a tree branch on all sides of his head.
Bernie is getting desperate, pulling at twigs and branches.
Where is the tree branch in the crime scene photos?
(From those tiny saplings?)
If the wood ain’t split, you must acquit!
Like I said, an unnatural talent to embarrass himself.
He got hurt doing gardening. Of course we believe you!
Frigging hilarious!!!!
Apparently someone left a bunch of rakes laying around and Zimmerman was dancing in the dark when…. just a real human tragedy.
Now he is trying to claim Zimmerman got his injuries from bumping into a tree.
MegK,
About BDLR, what will he think of next? He sure is grasping at straws.
I think you meant twigs
Bernie needs to sit down. he’s digging himself a deeper and deeper hole. Reminds me of the goofball kid in school who acts like he knows it all but is a complete doofus.
I am confused. Does the state just need to establish reasonable doubt as to whether GZ committed the crime or not? Because that seems to be what BDLR is trying to establish – that there is reasonable doubt as to whether everything could have happened EXACTLY as GZ described.
No the state needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
If GZ hit TM it left no bruising, which is in line with his being too out of shape to hit hard enough to bruise his own hand.
BDLR needs a course in questioning. He’s clueless. Unbelievable for the lead prosecutor.
LOL. As I was watching his pitiful CX (time delayed out here in the west), I was wondering where he went to law school. There must be some trial ad professors somewhere who are cringing (or else saying to themselves that “clearly Bernie deserved that ‘F’ I gave him!”).
BDLR: “Dr could GZ have pulled TM onto him then shot TM then smashed his head against sidewalk multiple times?
His injuries could have come from a herd of deer that stampeded over him while he was wrestling Trayvon, could they not?
Damn, this prosecutor is one nasty jerk. I wonder if his cold and smarmy manner is a turn-off to the female jurors?
Does anyone else think this is turning into a South Park episode? BDLR reminds me of Cartman trying to prosecute someone.
Can’t wait t watch it.
I am surprised it is not out yet.
I just noticed your avatar… LOL!
Oh I can’t wait for that episode. I hope they do it. They are good at barbecuing consecrated bovines.
Long silence…..
He thinks he broke the case.
Oh my God!
There will be books written about this.
How to lose a case 101
How to make a fool of yourself for dummies
Manual of ineffective prosecution