Geeze...did everyone in Sanford witness this?
good question
Geeze...did everyone in Sanford witness this?
While photos were taken after GZ had been able to wash up, they sure do indicate that GZ wasn't able to land any punches to protect himself.Fighting for his life?
And the crime scene photographer has already testified. She confirmed GZ's injuries. It is amazing to me that people are still unwilling to accept the fact that GZ was, indeed, injured and that the injuries were quite visible.
My point is the Police did not contact her. Don't you watch the First 48? :floorlaugh:
But yeah I can agree I don't like how her interview was in front of the family.
Circumstantial evidence, common sense and the statements of the accused are all foundational.
Zimmerman didn't have the wounds beforehand. There were only two people there, according to witnesses, before others showed up and saw GZ's wounds.
Do you think they were self-inflicted, in secret, with a few seconds?
Not much wiggle room there, huh?
Will he testify?
I don't think he'll need to, given the State's successful defense of GZ -- LOL.
I accept the injuries but I would not kill a teenager for doing it.
Isn't this hearsay?
I don't know what these pictures show. They both need authentication to hold up in a court of law. The strange nose and straight-lined blood flow on the back of the head look hinkey to me. I hope whoever took them will be up on the stand to explain their techniques.
While photos were taken after GZ had been able to wash up, they sure do indicate that GZ wasn't able to land any punches to protect himself.
No, I don't think they were self-inflicted nor do I think they were sustained in the way which GZ claims. IMO most likely the small scratches on the back of his head were from either hiding in or falling into shrubs and his nose injury a result of running into something, i.e. a tree in the dark. The definitive evidence for me is that TM's body shows no sign of a fight, only a gunshot to the heart. Had he struck GZ repeatedly, as GZ claims, there would be evidence on his hands of such. There is not. A picture of one's injuries does not show how they were sustained. IMO they don't even match GZ's description of what happened.
I accept the injuries but I would not kill a teenager for doing it.
I was surprised this great childhood friend didn't call or text him for weeks after he was supposedly in a fight. Extremely odd imo
Oh, that Nancy Grace. Does she have an explanation as to where all the blood went?Right....it would be useful.:seeya:
Last night on Nancy Grace they questioned why there was still blood on the back of GZ's head if they were going to claim the blood was washed off TM, even though he had been covered up and GZ remained in the rain.
AH HA !! :twocents:
Here is where people disagree.
I don't think GZ wanted to either.
I accept the injuries but I would not kill a teenager for doing it.
He had no choice at that time, it was either kill or be killed.
IMO
FTR, and just clarifying, it's not new.
And having grown up where I have, it actually irritates me when the word is used in reference to me. I would never think of using the N-word or other epithets. The offender would, I guarantee you, get all kinds of righteous if I were to use such a word. However, "cracker" is apparently no big deal even though it's used with the same hostility and... endearment... as someone else using a different epithet.
I was surprised this great childhood friend didn't call or text him for weeks after he was supposedly in a fight. Extremely odd imo