What does lying have to do with guilt or innocence? I don't understand your correlation to whether Martin lies or not. Martin could be the biggest liar on the planet but it doesn't make him guilty. The same with Zimmerman. What we do know is that he was into fighting, whether organized or not, leading up to the incident.
It isn't whether he got injured. It is whether the fight was such that he had a reasonable fear for his life. Generally, when the fight is such to present the possibility of death, there would be blood splatter, skin or hair from the victim on the assailant. If that is absent here, it shoots a huge hole in Zimmerman's story. If the jury, based on the physical evidence, does not believe Zimmerman's story, his defense fails. Then all they are left with is that he admittedly shot Martin.
I wouldn't be surprised if he hit himself a few times to embellish the "attack." He's a liar. That has been proven.
"He was able to do all that damage without getting any blood or skin or hair of Zimmerman on him. That's talent!" You were insinuating that Martin didn't do "all that damage" to Zimmerman. I know it was a dumb statement but respond to it anyway.
Obviously, I'm not a forensics expert either, I just read a couple of articles. At the time, Zimmerman's hair was buzzed quite short, so it should not be a surprise that they found none of his hair on Martin. But, I think the article was arguing that Martin would not be able to grab Zimmerman's head by his hair to slam it into the ground, so he'd have to grip him by the head. And that would likely result in skin cells under his nails or on his clothes. I have no idea whether that's credible or not. But, I think the lack of evidence can be somewhat persuasive. It won't just be the testimony of the forensics guy who took the report for the police. I'd think they'd have an expert witness in forensics argue that the results are inconsistent with the story. So then the evidence is the expert testimony more than the absence of evidence. At the same time, several of the particular tests I read about (and sorry, I don't want to find them again) just didn't have enough DNA to be conclusive either way. So, the forensics might be shaky. However, as I understand it, Zimmerman has to prove his self-defense, not just create reasonable doubt. It would have been better for him if the police could find his blood all over Martin, but that didn't happen.
Imagining myself in that situation, I feel my hands clutching his ears and the pad of my thumb pressing hard on his cheeks... but who's to say. More importantly there is a witness that saw Martin on top of Zimmerman.
Perhaps one punch to the nose led to Zimmerman falling back and hitting his head on the ground. I've only seen one cut on the back of his head which could just be from falling back. Somehow the defense is turning that into "Martin slamming Zimm's head on the concrete". Maybe they were tangled at the time Martin landed the punch to the nose, and Zimm pulled him down with him as he was falling back from the punch and their combined weight made Zimm hit his head on the concrete. Neighbor hears commotion and looks out to see Martin on top of Zimm. Again, defense turns it into "slamming Zimm's head on the ground" and they have a witness that puts Martin on top of Zimm. Regarding the lack of blood on Martin's hands...I'm not sure. Would one single punch to the nose result in blood? Not if it started bleeding after the punch, IMO.
I was commenting on the apparent fact that Martin had no DNA from Zimmerman anywhere on him, which is completely inconsistent with committing an assault that is likely to result in a risk of death. I figured you'd know that, but you may actually be that dense.
how he got his injuries really only matters if Martin did it by starting the fight. If forensic evidence makes it unlikely that Martin caused the injuries, that's all that needs to be known at this point. If Zimmerman's side can show how that Martin did cause them by starting the fight, then that's important.
His injuries were so severe from this "deadly" assault that they didn't require any immediate medical attention. And no, I don't think the wolves that raised you had anything to do with it.
That's just your ignorant spin on a dumb statement. You have no idea if zimmerman was in fear for his life. the closest eyewitness saw him screaming for help. Martin made a foolish decision to lay hands on someone instead of resolving thing in a civil manner. He paid the ultimate price for a poor decision
That is just your foolish assumption that Martin instigated the hostilities. The only thing that you have to go on is that there are eyewitnesses that saw Martin with the upper hand. Maybe he did fear for his life. That is not the legal standard. The legal standard is whether that fear was reasonable. It is very difficult to bring somebody to the point where death is possible with your bare hands without getting traces of blood, hair or skin on you. You can pull out the big words like "dumb" all you want, but the fact is that you have made as many assumptions as anybody in this thread. Questioning the intelligence of other posters doesn't make you smarter than they are...in fact, it is quite the opposite.
