George Zimmerman found not guilty

redrumloa said:
Luckily for Zimmerman you were not the pathologist at the trial who testified the injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's story.
Click to expand...
And I say that pathologist said exactly what he was paid to say.

Under questioning from prosecutors, however, Di Maio admitted he primarily focused on a statement Zimmerman gave police — and a statement by Zimmerman neighbor John Good that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman.
Di Maio testified that he did not take into account several witnesses who said Zimmerman was the aggressor in the struggle. He also said, when pressed, that Zimmerman's injuries could have been caused by rolling around on concrete with Trayvon.
Click to expand...
I stand by my original statement. We heard only one story because there was only one story teller and you gulped it down hook, line and sinker.
 
The pathologist also said the injuries were minor and not life threatening.
 
Glaucus said:
And I say that pathologist said exactly what he was paid to say.
Click to expand...

You've just negated any argument you might have by saying it doesn't matter what ANY witness says on the stand, you believe they're intentionally lying for either personal or financial means. Did the witnesses for the prosecution lie because they were paid? Food to choke on....
 
fla-mugs-liberty-7.gif
 
Wayne said:
You've just negated any argument you might have by saying it doesn't matter what ANY witness says on the stand, you believe they're intentionally lying for either personal or financial means. Did the witnesses for the prosecution lie because they were paid? Food to choke on....
Click to expand...
I didn't say he lied Wayne. Look at that article that I quoted, which btw was an article that Red linked to. The article states quite clearly that the pathologist examined it using only a very specific perspective and not taking account all evidence. In other words, he didn't do a full and exhaustive investigation and analysis. Which is fine and that's why we have cross examinations. But it seems both you and Red have completely ignored what he said under cross examination. That very same pathologist said on the stand that the injuries weren't life threatening and they could have been caused simply by struggling on the concrete. In other words, he states himself that he couldn't prove the injuries were even caused by a deliberate head bashing.

So you chose to ignore his testimony under cross examination. Whyzzat?
 
Glaucus said:
I didn't say he lied Wayne. Look at that article that I quoted, which btw was an article that Red linked to. The article states quite clearly that the pathologist examined it using only a very specific perspective and not taking account all evidence. In other words, he didn't do a full and exhaustive investigation and analysis. Which is fine and that's why we have cross examinations. But it seems both you and Red have completely ignored what he said under cross examination. That very same pathologist said on the stand that the injuries weren't life threatening and they could have been caused simply by struggling on the concrete. In other words, he states himself that he couldn't prove the injuries were even caused by a deliberate head bashing.

So you chose to ignore his testimony under cross examination. Whyzzat?
Click to expand...

You are cherry picking to match your feelings on the subject. His TESTIMONY was that the injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's account, period. Under cross examination he could have been asked if it were POSSIBLE that aliens abducted Zimmerman and caused the injures and he probably would have said it was possible, but that does not change his EXPERT OPINION that Zimmerman's account was accurate.
 
How much irony is it possible to squeeze into one thread?

Hunners!

:p
 
redrumloa said:
You are cherry picking to match your feelings on the subject. His TESTIMONY was that the injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's account, period. Under cross examination he could have been asked if it were POSSIBLE that aliens abducted Zimmerman and caused the injures and he probably would have said it was possible, but that does not change his EXPERT OPINION that Zimmerman's account was accurate.
Click to expand...
Being consistent with something just means it was consistent. It's not proof of what happened. You are the one who seems to not only cherry pick things but redefine them as well. Sure, I agree fully, his wounds are consistent with having your head hit on to concrete. But his wounds are also consistent with struggling on the concrete which the same pathologist also said. Being consistent doesn't mean that's actually what happened, it just means the wounds don't prove that couldn't have happened just like they don't prove aliens didn't abduct Zimmerman. Sorry for the double negatives but I'm sure you get what I'm saying.

Look Red, I understand that in a court of law you must acquit if there is reasonable doubt and there may have been. But I take issue with your statements where you seem to state things as absolute fact when in reality it's just Zimmerman's words. The fact is we don't really know what happened there. I personally have serious doubts about Zimmerman's story, but like I said before, doubt only helps people get acquitted not convicted. I think you should at least acknowledge that Zimmerman's account may not be 100% accurate and just leave it at that.
 
redrumloa said:
You are cherry picking to match your feelings on the subject. His TESTIMONY was that the injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's account, period. [...], but that does not change his EXPERT OPINION that Zimmerman's account was accurate.
Click to expand...

Injuries were consistent with Zimmerman's story is not the same as Zimmerman's story is true. The expert opinion had no baring on whether or not Zimmerman's story was accurate, just that it was a plausible explanation of his injuries in the opinion of this expert. His injuries could also have been consistent with banging his head on the ground when he fell back after getting punched in the nose.
 
or after he realized what he had done he smacked himself twice with his own gun... wounds are consistent with that too...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top