Case in point...a few years ago there was a big murder case in Boston,a bigshot Harvard doctor accused of murdering his wife.During the trial a Boston TV station caught their three kids,two of whom were physicians themselves,leaving the court for the day.The reporter asked how they thought the trial was going."Very well,indeed" they answered in unison."The defense has made many,many excellent points".The reporter then said "but the prosecution has presented many powerful bits of evidence...your mother's DNA having been found where it shouldn't have been found,you father's DNA having been found where *it* shouldn't have been found..." (he badly cut his hand while stabbing her).Their response to that? In unison..."well,those were obviously lab errors".
I don't care what the family of friends of *either* person involved says here...or in any other similar case.
<>I want testimony from people who have nothing to gain from lying,imagining or wishful thinking.I want videos...I want DNA...I want ballistics testing...I want cellphone records,etc,etc,etc.<>
You bet but thus far we have this statement from the commenter which does seem to be borne out by the evidence thus far that the writers of these articles seem to miss:
First, the window of the car shows one bullet hole angled in such a way that it could not have hit him at all, much less in the chest. Picture here:
http://diwataman.wordpress.com/2012/09/18/black-woman-stands-her-ground-kills-white-man/
Second, he had two bullet holes in his chest per the Houston Chronicle article.
Those are two forensic witnesses that aren’t lying and aren’t family and aren’t mistaking and aren’t going to
be changing their stories.
Per these two forensic witnesses, she must have fired once from within the car and twice outside. That is not self-defense.
The case needs to go to trial. Too much media spin for us to determine what kind of threat she was under when he approached her car, if any.
There is no comparison between the circumstances of this case and the Zimmerman case. Martin did aggressively approach and circle Zimmerman while he was in his car in a threatening manner as Z was talking to the cops, but he did not feel his life was in danger because he was in his car and did not see St. Skittles carrying a weapon.
Had he shot him from inside his car, especially if Martin was unarmed, I would not support that as a case of self defense unless a witness claimed and explained that he had no choice.
Texans don’t generally do moral relativity too well. The grand jury will be looking at the facts concerning the claim of self defense in this case, separate from the Zimmerman case. They are not at all the same.