On Wednesday, July 3, 2013 12:45:38 PM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
On 3 Jul 2013 14:20:22 GMT, F.O.A.D. wrote:



When challenged on this determination on cross examination by defense she

became somewhat frustrated and hostile because she was forced to admit

that more than one punch and more than one head banging on the concrete

walkway *could* have taken place.



Dude Zimmerman bang his head on the concrete or punch himself first?



===



Well dude he or duden't he?

only the dude knows...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...



What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?

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

The ME didn't witness any crime with respect to her testimony.
All
she did was evaluate Zimmerman's head wounds from photographs and
review the report of the examination by the Physician Assistant.


She was giving testimony AS an "expert WITNESS".

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

Read what you posted above. You made the statement, "What
"qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

She didn't "witness" any crime. She testified as a witness for the
prosecution on her evaluation of Zimmerman's injuries based on
photos
and a PA's examination. What became contested was her statement
that
the injuries were a result of only two actions .... a punch in the
nose and a single "smash" of the head on the concrete walkway.

Oh, boy. It's VERY clear that like the FOXites, you've made up your
mind
already.

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

I have not. I wish you would pay attention to what you post and what
is posted as a response.

As it pertains to the medical examiner you stated:

What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?

I answered that she was *not* a witness to a crime in this case. She
was simply providing testimony regarding head wounds.

How do you conclude that I've "made up my mind" based on that?
I've stated several times that I don't know.

She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of the
case?

In article ,
says...

In article , says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,

says...


The ME with the exemplary qualificaitons should have been able to
not get hostile when the
defense started asking her questions.

What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?

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

The ME didn't witness any crime with respect to her testimony. All
she did was evaluate Zimmerman's head wounds from photographs and
review the report of the examination by the Physician Assistant. It
was based on the photos and the PA report that she determined that
Zimmerman's injuries were "very minor". Somehow she was also able to
determine that only one punch in the face and one "smashing" of his
head on the concrete took place.

When challenged on this determination on cross examination by defense
she became somewhat frustrated and hostile because she was forced to
admit that more than one punch and more than one head banging on the
concrete walkway *could* have taken place.

It shows that the ME was biased and her qualifications weren't relied upon to come to her
conclusion.

Cite?

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...



What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?

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

The ME didn't witness any crime with respect to her testimony.
All
she did was evaluate Zimmerman's head wounds from photographs
and
review the report of the examination by the Physician
Assistant.


She was giving testimony AS an "expert WITNESS".

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

Read what you posted above. You made the statement, "What
"qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

She didn't "witness" any crime. She testified as a witness for
the
prosecution on her evaluation of Zimmerman's injuries based on
photos
and a PA's examination. What became contested was her statement
that
the injuries were a result of only two actions .... a punch in the
nose and a single "smash" of the head on the concrete walkway.

Oh, boy. It's VERY clear that like the FOXites, you've made up your
mind
already.

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

I have not. I wish you would pay attention to what you post and
what
is posted as a response.

As it pertains to the medical examiner you stated:

What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?

I answered that she was *not* a witness to a crime in this case.
She
was simply providing testimony regarding head wounds.

How do you conclude that I've "made up my mind" based on that?
I've stated several times that I don't know.

She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 7/2/13 6:16 PM, Eisboch wrote:


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

On 7/2/13 6:08 PM, Eisboch wrote:


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

On 7/2/13 4:13 PM, Eisboch wrote:
I was just thinking about how Big Al will present today's testimony on
his "Politics Nation" show this evening. I can see it now:

"So far Zimmerman and his defense attorneys have insisted that
young, 17
year old Martin punched him repeatedly and smashed his head over and
over on a concrete walkway.

Well, today heard the truth. The state prosecutors presented the
chief
medical examiner for the county and her testimony doesn't support
Zimmerman's claims at all. He was only hit once or twice
according to
the examiner who, by the way, has a long list of exemplary
qualifications."

Then Sharpton will stare at the camera, point his finger and exclaim:

"Nice try, Zimmerman, but WE GOTCHA!"


Actually, Zimmerman hasn't "insisted" on anything during the trial. He
hasn't testified, and probably won't.

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

Ok. "Insisted" was the wrong word to use. Try "have consistently
stated" instead.

I am getting a headache. Need to find something to do.



Zimmerman's lawyers have consistently stated.

One person is dead and the other person, who claimed his head was
slammed into the ground 25 times, needed a band-aid.

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

Yeah, someone on Big Al's show just said the same thing 15 seconds
ago. You must be watching.

Did you also hear Al comment about "Zimmerman's depraved mind ... if he
has one"?



Zimmerman is a thug. According to wikipedia:

In 2005, Zimmerman was charged with assaulting a police officer and
resisting arrest, after shoving an officer while a friend of
Zimmerman's was being questioned about underage drinking. The charges
were reduced, then dropped when Zimmerman entered a pre-trial
diversion program. Also in 2005, Zimmerman's ex-fiance filed a
restraining order against him, alleging domestic violence. Zimmerman
requested a reciprocal restraining order. Both orders were granted.
The incidents were raised by prosecutors at Zimmerman's initial bond
hearing.

What kind of hotheaded moron shoves a cop? What kind of hotheaded
moron shoves around his fiance? The kind that'll shoot a kid if he
gets the chance, eh?
I agree. He's a wannabe.

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...



What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?

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

The ME didn't witness any crime with respect to her testimony.
All
she did was evaluate Zimmerman's head wounds from photographs
and
review the report of the examination by the Physician
Assistant.


She was giving testimony AS an "expert WITNESS".

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

Read what you posted above. You made the statement, "What
"qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

She didn't "witness" any crime. She testified as a witness for
the
prosecution on her evaluation of Zimmerman's injuries based on
photos
and a PA's examination. What became contested was her statement
that
the injuries were a result of only two actions .... a punch in the
nose and a single "smash" of the head on the concrete walkway.

Oh, boy. It's VERY clear that like the FOXites, you've made up your
mind
already.

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

I have not. I wish you would pay attention to what you post and
what
is posted as a response.

As it pertains to the medical examiner you stated:

What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?

I answered that she was *not* a witness to a crime in this case.
She
was simply providing testimony regarding head wounds.

How do you conclude that I've "made up my mind" based on that?
I've stated several times that I don't know.

She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a
"witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand???

"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any
crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED
a
"witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand???

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

The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of
these discussions. This one started with you posing the question,

"What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this
case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's
injuries.

Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my
response, "witness" is a noun.


"

On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a
"witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand???

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

The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these
discussions. This one started with you posing the question,

"What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this
case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's injuries.

Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my
response, "witness" is a noun.


"
Good luck with this. Many people before you have tried to repair Loogies
thinker, and failed. ;-)

On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a
"witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand???

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

The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these
discussions. This one started with you posing the question,

"What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this
case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's injuries.

Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my
response, "witness" is a noun.


"

On a side note.. you guys were right! This is much more fun to watch
than to be involved in It's like watching the proverbial "send him
looking for the shiny item in the corner of the round room".

On 7/5/2013 10:21 AM, Hank© wrote:
On 7/5/2013 9:57 AM, Eisboch wrote:


"iBoaterer" wrote in message
...

In article ,
says...


She IS a "witness". What was she called to the stand as? Someone who
knows nothing about the case, and has no experience in any aspect of
the
case?


_____________________________

I'll try one more time .

Contrary to you're statement, she *was NOT* a witness to any crime.
She simply examined photographs and reviewed the medical report of a
PA who examined Zimmerman.

Why do you have such a hard time understanding this?

Probably because you have a hard time understanding that she is INDEED a
"witness" for the court. If not, why would she be on the stand???

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

The problem I have is understanding your line of logic in some of these
discussions. This one started with you posing the question,

"What "qualifications" are needed to have witnessed a crime?"

I merely pointed out that the ME did *not* witness a crime in this
case. She testified *as* a witness her opinions of Zimmerman's
injuries.

Think of this way: In your question "witness" is a verb. In my
response, "witness" is a noun.


"
Good luck with this. Many people before you have tried to repair Loogies
thinker, and failed. ;-)

Kevin is smarter than you think.. he always manages to keep someone
running in circles