On 6/28/2013 12:23 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:44:21 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
news


The witnesses so far seem to indicate that Zimmerman started the
altercation, that the screaming seemed to be coming from Martin, that
Zimmerman was on top of Martin after the gunshot, et cetera.


-------------------------------------------

There's one piece of forensic evidence and also witness testimony
regarding the color of the shirts or jackets that were worn that may
convince the jury that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. The forensic
evidence was introduced by the defense the first day of the trial and
indicates that there was about an inch to two inches of space between
Martin's shirt and where Zimmerman's bullet entered his body. It was
determined by powder residue and burns.

If Zimmerman was on top of Martin, it's unlikely any space would exist
between Martin's shirt and his chest. However, if Martin was on top,
leaning forward, the space would exist.

I'll bet the defense focuses on that in their summation.

If some stranger accosted me in the middle of the night for no reason
and I had a chance, he'd get his ass kicked.

So now the racist Martin did kick Zimmerman's ass. That is aggravated
battery, a forcible felony and Zimmerman had every right to shoot him,

Racist? I think the Cracker line shows that.


Does anybody remember that it was Sharpton and his gang that turned this
into an issue? Does anybody remember what Sharpton and Jackson do for a
living. Especially Sharpton, a known witness coach...?

On 6/28/2013 12:34 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


DNA is an entirely different matter than a witness. How did this head
bashing allegedly occur if there was no DNA on Martin's hands?

--------------------------------------------

What makes you think that DNA is automatically transmitted just because
you came in contact with something?
You are basing your whole conclusion on the *lack* of DNA. DNA is
used to either prove contact or to prove the contact wasn't by the
person accused.
Lack of DNA proves nothing.



He watches too much CSI... There are many opinions out there that the
magic done on TV crime shows is causing problems in criminal cases
because of people like Kevin who confuse the TV shows, with reality...

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:44:21 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"F.O.A.D." wrote in message
news


The witnesses so far seem to indicate that Zimmerman started the
altercation, that the screaming seemed to be coming from Martin, that
Zimmerman was on top of Martin after the gunshot, et cetera.


-------------------------------------------

There's one piece of forensic evidence and also witness testimony
regarding the color of the shirts or jackets that were worn that may
convince the jury that Martin was on top of Zimmerman. The forensic
evidence was introduced by the defense the first day of the trial and
indicates that there was about an inch to two inches of space between
Martin's shirt and where Zimmerman's bullet entered his body. It was
determined by powder residue and burns.

If Zimmerman was on top of Martin, it's unlikely any space would exist
between Martin's shirt and his chest. However, if Martin was on top,
leaning forward, the space would exist.

I'll bet the defense focuses on that in their summation.

If some stranger accosted me in the middle of the night for no reason
and I had a chance, he'd get his ass kicked.

So now the racist Martin did kick Zimmerman's ass.
Who said that?

That is aggravated
battery, a forcible felony and Zimmerman had every right to shoot him,

Did you EVER hear of self-defense????

Racist? I think the Cracker line shows that.

I'm sorry, where did I say anything about anybody being racist??

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:10 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

On 6/27/13 11:29 AM, wrote:

None of this is necessary, of course, if you come across a kid on
the
street carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Just shoot him.
Make
sure you are in Florida, of course.

You keep leaving out the "punch in the nose" and "beat your head
on
the concrete" part

Yeah, and the best part about that, absolutely NO Zimmerman DNA on
the
kids hands.....

---------------------------------------------------

Assuming the reports of injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head are
accurate, how did he get them?

Self inflicted perhaps? Stranger things have been done to conceal a
crime.

------------------------------

Self inflicted? That's a stretch, given the timeline as reported by
witnesses.

The defense was going out of their way this morning to establish the
timeline of events and prove there was no time for anything like that
or for another person to be involved.

The witness has testified that it was Martin on top, Zimmerman on the
bottom and it was Zimmerman calling for help, in his opinion.
That's pretty strong testimony. Funny thing is, he is technically
the prosecution's witness.

Sound experts agree that the screaming for help was Martin.

In article ,
says...

On Fri, 28 Jun 2013 10:52:41 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 16:43:53 -0400, iBoaterer
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:10 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 6/27/13 11:29 AM, wrote:

None of this is necessary, of course, if you come across a kid on the
street carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Just shoot him. Make
sure you are in Florida, of course.

You keep leaving out the "punch in the nose" and "beat your head on
the concrete" part

Yeah, and the best part about that, absolutely NO Zimmerman DNA on the
kids hands.....

Cite

http://tinyurl.com/nk7b8bx

http://tinyurl.com/mwonp9p

Has this been presented in the trial? I didn't see it.

Is the trial over????

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


DNA is an entirely different matter than a witness. How did this head
bashing allegedly occur if there was no DNA on Martin's hands?

--------------------------------------------

What makes you think that DNA is automatically transmitted just
because you came in contact with something?
You are basing your whole conclusion on the *lack* of DNA. DNA is
used to either prove contact or to prove the contact wasn't by the
person accused.
Lack of DNA proves nothing.

So now it's "contact" when before it was "bashing his head in".

In article ,
says...

On 6/28/2013 12:34 PM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


DNA is an entirely different matter than a witness. How did this head
bashing allegedly occur if there was no DNA on Martin's hands?

--------------------------------------------

What makes you think that DNA is automatically transmitted just because
you came in contact with something?
You are basing your whole conclusion on the *lack* of DNA. DNA is
used to either prove contact or to prove the contact wasn't by the
person accused.
Lack of DNA proves nothing.



He watches too much CSI... There are many opinions out there that the
magic done on TV crime shows is causing problems in criminal cases
because of people like Kevin who confuse the TV shows, with reality...

You stupid little twit!!!! Have you EVER heard of "reasonable doubt"???
Lack of DNA can and has done just that in several cases.

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


DNA is an entirely different matter than a witness. How did this head
bashing allegedly occur if there was no DNA on Martin's hands?

--------------------------------------------

What makes you think that DNA is automatically transmitted just
because you came in contact with something?
You are basing your whole conclusion on the *lack* of DNA. DNA is
used to either prove contact or to prove the contact wasn't by the
person accused.
Lack of DNA proves nothing.

Lack of DNA can and has historically given rise to "reasonable doubt".

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 27 Jun 2013 11:42:10 -0400, "F.O.A.D."
wrote:

On 6/27/13 11:29 AM, wrote:

None of this is necessary, of course, if you come across a kid
on
the
street carrying a soft drink and a bag of candy. Just shoot
him.
Make
sure you are in Florida, of course.

You keep leaving out the "punch in the nose" and "beat your head
on
the concrete" part

Yeah, and the best part about that, absolutely NO Zimmerman DNA on
the
kids hands.....

---------------------------------------------------

Assuming the reports of injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head
are
accurate, how did he get them?

Self inflicted perhaps? Stranger things have been done to conceal a
crime.

------------------------------

Self inflicted? That's a stretch, given the timeline as reported
by
witnesses.

The defense was going out of their way this morning to establish the
timeline of events and prove there was no time for anything like
that
or for another person to be involved.

The witness has testified that it was Martin on top, Zimmerman on
the
bottom and it was Zimmerman calling for help, in his opinion.
That's pretty strong testimony. Funny thing is, he is technically
the prosecution's witness.

Sound experts agree that the screaming for help was Martin.

----------------------------------------

That's not what I've heard. I've heard that the experts can *not*
agree, due to the poor quality tape recordings based on a cell phone.

The witness who testified this morning (Cook) said he was of the
opinion that the screams for help came from Zimmerman .... who was on
his back with Martin on top. He admitted he can't be 100 percent
sure, but that was his impression.

They are showing the trial on CNN. You can also find several places
that are streaming it live on the Internet. You can hear this first
hand for yourself, if you so desire.

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...


DNA is an entirely different matter than a witness. How did this
head
bashing allegedly occur if there was no DNA on Martin's hands?

--------------------------------------------

What makes you think that DNA is automatically transmitted just
because you came in contact with something?
You are basing your whole conclusion on the *lack* of DNA. DNA is
used to either prove contact or to prove the contact wasn't by the
person accused.
Lack of DNA proves nothing.


So now it's "contact" when before it was "bashing his head in".

--------------------------------------------------

I never said anything about bashing anyone's head in. You're a trip.
Just forget it if you aren't interested in finding out the truth.