....is that he defended himself.
Posted on 07/02/2013 1:56:23 PM PDT by servo1969
A medical examiner testified that George Zimmerman's injuries were "insignificant" and could have been the result of a single blow as prosecutors continued to make their case that the neighborhood watch volunteer was not simply defending himself when he shot 17-year-old Trayvon Martin.
Dr. Valerie Rao, who was called by the prosecution to provide her assessment of Zimmerman's injuries based on photos, cast doubt on Zimmerman's claim his head was repeatedly bashed against the pavement as he fought with Martin in the Feb. 26, 2012 incident.
"The injuries are so minor that the word slam implies great force," Rao said in response to questioning by prosecutor John Guy. "There was not great force used here."
Rao said Zimmerman's injuries were not only "not life threatening" but were also "very insignificant." She said the injuries to the back of Zimmerman's head were consistent with hitting the ground but the injuries on his face were from consistent with one punch or strike.
Under questioning by defense attorney Mark O'Mara, Rao acknowledged she was appointed by state attorney Angela Corey, who is overseeing the prosecution of Zimmerman. She also conceded that while Zimmerman's injuries were consistent with one punch, it does not mean that he was not hit repeatedly.
"Could it of been four times?" O'Mara asked Rao, who replied, "That's not my opinion but it is possible."
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
MSNBC: DOCTOR SAYS ZIMMERMAN LYING
How many times do you have be hit before you can shoot? If you lose consciousness before you reach the limit, will the attacker stop because he’s a good sport?
The prosecution’s witness here was ripped pretty good by O’Mara.
As in not being credible.
How many free punches are you supposed to give an assailant before you defend yourself?
“Who ya gonna believe, me, or your lyin’ eyes?”
Let me bang her head on the sidewalk with the promise to stop as soon as she thinks it is ‘significant’. How many bangs do you think it would take?
Also,she's got a checkered past (professionally),a past that the defense can't introduce,and was hand picked by the Governor of Florida who,clearly,has been read the Riot Act (secretly,of course) by Attorney Corporal Holder himself.
Prosecution:
key witness - hear say, can’t read her own statement, uses racist slurs
medical expert - on the pay role of the prosecution, never examined Zimmerman, her medical opinion is based on pictures
eye witness - his testimony validates Zimmerman’s statement
So is the prosecution tying to lose the case?
The moment st skittles started pounding GZ skull against the pavement...it crossed the line from assault to attempted murder...
....is that he defended himself.
Why was this woman “WASHING” her feet in the pathology lab?
Is she another Moslem making up data against innocents,
like in Massachusetts?
Wasn’t Zimmerman’s nose broken? The picture I saw looked pretty bad. Not insignificant.
“based on photos”
Wow.
When I listen to the left defense of Martin. They usual say, Zimmerman is guilty because he was following Martin, thus the the aggressor. This gives Martin the right to beat Zimmerman bloody in self defense
Well there you go. Point, set, and match as regards this witness.
Not independent at all. Clearly going to be biased by her position and appointment. If the person seeking to win the prosecution against Zimmerman appointed this Dr. passing judgement on his condition, then the Defense has already discredited that Dr. with those question...that is if the jurrs are also impartial and have the capacity to realize this.
Simply amazing that the prssecution does not have an independent medical examiner testifying.
I am continually appalled that professional news reporters are so ignorant of basic English grammar. "Could it OF been four times?"
Jesus. Can't anybody write proper English anymore? This reporter should HAVE (or should've) known better.
It's enough to make me loose my mind. (Kidding. I know it's LOSE).
“St. Skittles” -Perfect!
I didn't think so.
Irrelevant. Should have been objected to by MOM. If it was, may be reversible error right there. (The standard is “reasonably in fear of death or grevious bodily harm,” not “sustained life-threatening injuries.”)
Also, one blow to the head can and has killed people. MOM should ask this mendacious bitch about that.
Zero. You just have to be in fear of death or graciously bodily harm as measured by a “reasonable person” standard. /not a lawyer but know that much
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.