George Zimmerman -- Trial for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin --June 10, 2013

Finally! They are now talking of the actual testing of the DNA...

Discussing with the witness the DNA from swabs.

Flashlight offered no DNA.

Tech labeled the stains on the clothing ABC

Hoody offered 3 separate stains; cuttings were also taken; notes and pics;
DNA A was front, lower jacket:
DNA B was negative for blood
DNA C was positive for blood

Lower sleeve test negative for blood and foreign DNA R/cuff area;
Lower sleeve test negative for blood and foreign DNA L/cuff area

Tech did NO testing around the gunshot hole per future testing by other means;

Sweatshirt UNDER the hoody
Sweatshirt offered:
Bottom front surface letters ABCDE
A offered pos for blood; DNA to GZ
B offered pos for blood; DNA to Trayvon Martin
C offered neg for blood
D offered pos for blood; DNA mixture not resolvable as to major/minor
both GZ and Trayvon Martin could be included in that DNA
E offered pos for blood; DNA to Trayvon Martin

Cuffs:
R/cuff: neg for blood, foreign DNA
L/cuff: mixture; GZ could not be excluded

GZ's Jacket:
17 different red/brown stains, Q-R
Used different testing with wave lengths
14 additional stains, R-EE

GZ's Jacket:
Too many to list!!!


No stains on back of TM sweatshirt.

12:13 p.m.

The jury is excused for lunch with extra time.

Court will resume at 1:45 p.m.
Witness: Amy Siewert - Firearms analyst

12:12 p.m.

Siewert demonstrates pulling the trigger of the gun.

Guy finishes questioning.

O’Mara re-cross examines.

He asks about other guns and single action feature.

O’Mara asks about what the trigger pull would be for this gun for a second shot. It would still be the same, she says.

O’Mara finishes.

Siewert is excused.

12:08 p.m.

O’Mara asks her about safety. She says it is a personal preference.

O’Mara asks if she found anything unsafe about the gun being carried loaded. She says no.

Siewert says she has toured the manufacturing facility.

“The gun functioned, yes,” she says.

O’Mara asks her about “racking” the gun, which puts a bullet in the chamber ready to fire.

He asks her about the extra bullet in the chamber and if it is usual.

She says she sees a wide variety, but it is not unusual.

O’Mara points out that law enforcement and military personnel do the same thing.

O’Mara asks about the shirts and the use of the word contact.

Siewert says there was no evidence the gun was pushed against, but was consistent with contact.

She says contact is defined as touching the garment.

O’Mara asks if the fabric was around the muzzle of the gun, there would’ve been different marks.

She says she would not have seen the same physical effects.

O’Mara asks her if she examines flesh wounds from the bullet. She says he only examines clothing.

Guy redirects.

Guy asks if the firearm used for self-defense could also be used for murder.

O’Mara objects.

She says 4.5 pounds is within the normal range of trigger pull.

Guy asks her about a live round in the chamber and how to get it out.

She says the person was would have to pull the trigger.

She explains what an external safety is.

11:58 a.m.

O’Mara asks about the issues being examined.

Guy objects to the conclusion of what is at issue.

O’Mara is asked to rephrase the questions.

O’Mara asks if she knows of issues in the case. She says they are never told what issues there are.

O’Mara asks her to hold out the gun. He asks if she know what different types of firearms are used for. He asks her about the double action feature.

She explains what double action means.

O’Mara asks if it is a safety feature. She says yes.

O’Mara asks if some weapons are used for self-defense. She says yes.

He asks if a firearm for self-defense should be ready to use. She says potentially.

She says something like that would be more of a personal preference.

O’Mara asks about external safety and the extra step to turn it off.

Siewert explains that with the double action and hammer, the gun cannot be fired unless the trigger is pulled.

O’Mara asks about the trigger travel distance.

She explains that it is much longer than a single action firearm.

O’Mara asks if that would mean the gun wouldn’t fire unless the trigger is pulled.

He asks if that is for safety. She says potentially, yes.

She says the gun is safe in terms it will not fire unless the trigger is pulled.

11:49 a.m.

Guy shows the jury and Siewert the long-sleeved shirt Martin wore under the hooded sweatshirt.

She removed an area from it as well.

Guy asks if she captured her test fire analysis with photography.

She says yes.

Guy shows the court a picture of the hooded sweatshirt.

She points out the markings on it. She says she measured the distance from the shoulder seam and sidearm seam.

Guy shows a close-up photo of the hole. She says there are a few gun powder particles and blackening around the hole, plus burning and singing of the fabric.

Guy shows a close-up of inside the sweatshirt.

She explains how she conducts a distance test. She test fired into portions of both garments she received, she says.

Guy shows a photo of the distance test.

Guy asks what she determined the distance from the muzzle of the gun to the material. She says she determined it was a contact shot.

Guy asks about testing of the under sweatshirt.

She says there was tearing of the fabric and gun powder particles, and light sooting and burning of the fabric ends.

Guy shows the distance test photo. She says she conducted the test simultaneous as the other one and layered them with the hoodie on top.

She says it was consistent with a contact shot.

She says it is consistent with the muzzle making contact with the outer sweatshirt.

Guy finishes questioning.

O'Mara begins cross examination.

11:41 a.m.

She defines the term trigger pull.

She measured it on the firearm using weights. She says it was between 4.5 and 4.25.

Guy shows her the fired cartridge casing.

She says she can determine the gun that fired the casing by comparing them to a test fired one.

She says the cartridge case was fired in the pistol.

Siewert also received bullet fragments.

She says the fired bullet jacket portion was fired from the pistol. The fragments were inconclusive and the lead core was not suitable.

She says the fragments were very damaged.

She received clothing in this case.

She says when a gun is fired a cloud can leave a pattern on an object.

Guy shows the jury the sweater Martin was wearing.

Siewert says she did distance testing on it by looking at the area around the hole. She looked for gun powder particles, sooting and the ends of the fibers.

She says she removed a portion of the back of the sweatshirt for testing purposes. She points out the area.

11:33 a.m.

Guy asks her about her training, education and work history. She has been an expert 17 times before.

She examined the firearm for this case. Guy shows it to her.

She tells the jury the type of gun. She defines the semi-automatic and 9 mm terms.

She says she did a general firearm exam. She test fired the gun and says it was found to be functional.

Guy removes the safety lock. A deputy clears the gun.

She shows the jury how the gun would be loaded and readied to fire.

Guy asks if there is a way to load it so you wouldn’t have to pull the slide back.

She explains how that can be done if the magazine is full.

She says she received seven cartridges, or bullets, total.

It would be consistent with a loaded magazine and one in the chamber, she says.

She says the firearm cannot be cocked unless the trigger is pulled.

Siewert explains trigger travel distance and says this gun has a longer distance than most handguns.

“You have to pull back significantly in order release the firing mechanism,” she says.

She shows the jury the holster.

11:24 a.m.

Amy Siewert, a crime labratory analyst assigned to the firearms section with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, takes the stand.
Witness: Scott Pleasants - Professor

11:22 a.m.

O’Mara asks if there was discussion about how to be a witness.

He asks about the introductory sheet. Pleasants says Zimmerman told him his career goal was to become an attorney and eventually a prosecutor.

O'Mara finishes questioing.

Judge Nelson excuses him as a witness.

The state calls their next witness.

O'Mara asks to approach for a sidebar.

11:19 a.m.

O’Mara asks about the course being online. He says he had something students could voluntarily attend.

O’Mara asks if the book was needed to take tests.

Pleasants says he can’t guarantee that the book was discussed in class or that it was read through.

O’Mara asks if he can testify that Zimmerman read the book.

Pleasants says he cannot.

O’Mara asks about the strategies for a witness.

Pleasants says Zimmerman participated in all of the different discussion and it was documented by the system that allowed him to go back and look.

Pleasants says he has printouts of the discussions.

He gives him a moment to review them.

11:14 a.m.

O’Mara sets the phone by a microphone.

Mantei finishes questioning.

O’Mara begins cross examination.

11:12 a.m.

The state calls Professor Scott Pleasants.

Pleasants says Zimmerman was in his class, which covers aspects of investigations and the duties of the investigator.

Mantei submits the exhibit as evidence.

Mantei asks about the type of course.

He says the students are online and he facilitates it.

They have weekly discussions in the class based on different topics.

It appears that someone keeps calling his skype. More people are calling his account.

Judge Nelson asks that he be called on a landline.

11:07 a.m.

The state calls Professor Scott Pleasants. He is testifying via video conference. He teaches Criminal Investigation at Seminole State College.

11:05 a.m.

The jury is brought into the courtroom.

11:01 a.m.

Richard Mantei sets up a video conference with the next witness.

10:38 a.m.

The next witness will appear by Skype, Judge Nelson says. She says court will be in recess until 11 a.m.
Witness: Jim Krzenski

10:37 a.m.

Mantei asks him about Zimmerman’s ride-along application.

He says the reason Zimmerman wrote on his ride-along application is to “solidify his chances of” becoming a law enforcement officer.

O’Mara cross examines.

He asks if Zimmerman had a record of response about the officers after the ride along.

Krzenski says he only found the record shown there.

O'Mara says he has no further questions.

Krzenski is excused.

10:34 a.m.

Jim Krzenski takes the stand. He works for the Sanford Police Department.
Witness: Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter - College professor

10:33 a.m.

Mantei asks about the concept of imperfect self-defense.

Carter says he is talking about with the concept is the use of excessive force.

Mantei asks what the ultimate use of force would be.

Carter says a gunshot would be an example.

Mantei finishes questioning.

The state calls their next witness.

10:30 a.m.

West finishes questioning. Mantei redirects.

He asks about the claim of self-defense and if provoking the action was in their class discussion.

West objects and asks to be heard at the bench for a sidebar.

10:29 a.m.

Mantei objects to the questioning.

Judge Nelson reminds the witness that his discussion is limited to what he taught in the course.

West asks how Carter would explain the Florida self-defense concept.

Carter says it is fluid and changing of a certain fact can weigh differently whether someone acted reasonably.

He says he showed YouTube videos and stopped them frame-by-frame going over whether the person was acting reasonably.

West asks about the issue of injuries and the fear of the injury.

Carter says it is imminent fear and the fact alone that there isn’t one doesn’t mean the person didn’t have fear. He says injuries show or support a reasonable fear.

Carter says they also talked about imperfect self-defense, describing it as a person being attacked and taking it a step forward and becoming the aggressor.

West asks about the concept and if he approached Carter.

Carter says he would be taking it a step forward if he used a video camera to hit him back.

West asks about a similar situation if he was screaming for help.

Mantei objects.

West asks a similar question

Mantei objects again. Judge Nelson asks him to rephrase the question.

West asks about the tables being turned and the person being attacked using more force back.

Carter explains it back, saying yes, that would be an example of imperfect self-defense.

Mantei objects. Judge Nelson overrules.

10:20 a.m.

West resumes questioning about the Stand Your Ground law.

Carter says the class work was not contained in the book.

West asks about the Castle Doctrine and its meaning of meeting force with force. “Correct,” Carter says.

West asks about the later change in law allowing the concept to be allowed outside the home.

Carter says there was a presumption of fear for life inside the home and it extended outside the home, but there wasn’t the same presumption.

He adds that if you’re in your home there’s a reasonable fear for death

Mantei objects.

Judge Nelson tells the jury they will be given instructions about the law. She tells West his question needs to be about what Carter taught in class.

Carter explains what he taught in class about the Stand Your Ground law saying the actions would be judged as to if they were those of a reasonable person.

Carter says the totality of the circumstances is important.

10:09 a.m.

Carter says the discussions focused on Florida would have been in the class.

West asks about statutes. He mentions the Florida statute of self-defense.

West asks if Carter is familiar with the self-defense law in Florida. Carter says yes.

Carter says Stand Your Ground is a nickname.

West asks about the Castle Doctrine becoming Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

He asks about the Castle Doctrine and the duty to retreat. Carter confirms.

West asks about the Stand Your Ground law moving that concept to outside the home. Carter confirms.

West asks about it being outside and an accessing an attack before resorting to force.

Mantei objects and the attorneys approach for a sidebar.

10:04 a.m.

West points out Zimmerman at the defense table. “How you doing George?” Carter asks.

Carter says he only taught one class and was also working as a public defender in Orange County night circuit. He then left for JAG Corps training.

Carter says the public defender job was his first as a lawyer.

He says the “cool” thing about teaching is it reinforced everything he needed for his job.

“It’s been said there is law in the books and law in action,” Carter says.

Carter says all facts have significance, but certain things through case law have been given more weight.

West asks about his current work.

Carter says he is prosecuting. He says the JAG Corps is set up to put him in a certain position and they move you throughout your career.

West asks about the class. Carter says the book was suggested and used by the previous professor.

He says he thinks the book referenced some states, but doesn’t remember Florida.

Carter says he tried to supplement the book with other materials and discussion with a Florida distinction because he felt it was important.

9:56 a.m.

Mantei shows him a homework assignment Carter says was one given to all the students.

Carter says he remembers Zimmerman as one of the better students in the class.

He says he wanted to teach the students a more practical way so they could apply it to their own life.

Carter says they covered the Stand Your Ground law.

Mantei asks how long they spent covering self-defense.

Carter says it is one that he constantly iterated and something the students wanted to know about and were engaged in class discussion.

Mantei finishes questioning.

West cross examines.

9:53 a.m.

Capt. Alexis Francisco Carter, a member of the U.S. Army, who taught criminal litigation.
Witness: Lt. Scott Kerns - Prince William County Police

9:49 a.m.

West asks about his role in the police department.

Kerns says he was the administrator for six years and was in that position at the time Zimmerman applied.

Kerns says he can’t remember the application or the reference used.

A lot of people want to be police officers, Kerns agrees.

West asks about the exhibit and the letter not having letterhead or a signature.

Kerns says it is not the actual copy, it is the document used to create the original on letterhead.

West asks about the extract page and the information indicated on it.

West asks about the listing of “Spanish.” Kerns says it would indicate Zimmerman says he speaks Spanish. Kerns says it would be tested in the process.

West points out the credit history indicator.

Kerns says the credit history is the reason why he would not be accepted.

West asks if his credit was better, he could reapply. “It’s possible, sir,” Kerns says.

Kerns says he knows of people that have reapplied and been accepted.

West finishes questioning.

Kerns is excused.

9:42 a.m.

Kerns says they keep records for three years in accordance with the state’s records act. He says Zimmerman’s application was destroyed.

Mantei shows him a document.

Kerns says after the records are destroyed they create a cursory amount of information from the record and they send a letter to the individual about their status.

The letter was dated July 2009.

Kerns says there is nothing sinister or unusual with not getting the job.

Mantei finishes questioning.

Don West cross examines.

9:39 a.m.

The state calls Lt. Scott Kerns, with the Prince William County Police Department.
Witness: Sonja Boles-Melvin - College registrar

9:38 a.m.

Mantei shows her the degree application. She says it looks like he applied for his degree in October 2011. The document shows he thought he would graduate Spring 2012.

Mantei finishes questioning. There is no cross examination.

The state calls their next witness.

9:35 a.m.

Boles-Melvin is the registrar for Seminole State College, responsible for the school’s records.

9:33 a.m.

Judge Nelson checks with the jury to make sure no one discussed the case, read or saw reports about it and researched it. The state calls their next witness, Sonja Boles-Melvin.

9:31 a.m.

All of the exhibits will be admitted as they are agreed to be redacted. Judge Nelson asks for the jury to be brought in.

9:20 a.m.

Mantei says he videotaped one of the professor’s testimony and gave it to the defense.

He mentions the defense’s motion to exclude the term “wannabe-cop.”

Mantei says Professor Jackson has been listed as a witness.

He shows a picture of a shoehorn on the screen and says the defense is trying to shoehorn their argument with different ones.

Judge Nelson overrules the objections.

O’Mara says there was in issue for the redaction of the credit.

Mantei says the lieutenant will testify about the reason which was Zimmerman’s credit.

Judge Nelson suggests they take out the word credit.

Mantei suggests the last page being stricken.

Judge Nelson says that would make it not an issue.

Court is in recess for 10 minutes.

9:15 a.m.

O’Mara says they should have presented the evidence 10 days before trial and the state is saying they aren’t bad acts to slide them by, but they will be presented to the jury as such.

The can argue that they aren’t’ 404, but they are, O’Mara says.

He mentions the bad acts presented on some of the cases cited.

He says the state is going to argue that Zimmerman was a “seething cop-wannabe.”

O’Mara says the state must show facts from the night of the shooting to show relevance.

If they’re going to bring in prior good acts, which they can’t do unless they show a connection, O’Mara says about the state, they must proffer the evidence.

He says the problem is there is no connection.

He renews his request to proffer the evidence before the professors and additional time to address it.

Mantei responds.

9:10 a.m.

Judge Nelson says the mention of credit history would need to be redacted.

Mantei says he has no objection to that.

Mantei say a lieutenant with the Prince William police would testify about the application.

He says that they must show he was in the course is overstepping because it was Zimmerman that signed up for it and paid for it.

He points out Zimmerman got an “A” in one class and a “B” in another.

O’Mara is given a chance to argue.

He asks for a couple of hours to look over the cases given to him.

Judge Nelson says she gave him all night.

O’Mara asks to be allowed to finish his request.

Judge Nelson says she spent the night looking at it and has a jury waiting.

O’Mara asks for a continuance of a couple of hours to review the case law.

Judge Nelson says “in all due respect, we started this issued yesterday afternoon…” She mentions the half hour given yesterday and overnight recess.

She says she is not continuing the matter.

9:05 a.m.

Mantei says familiarity with certain tactics is not evidence of bad character, but just relevant evidence. He says the idea of being familiar with police procedures is not uncommon.

Mantei says it is relevant to any fact of the case like motive and state of mind, showing concern or hostility.

He says there was ample implication in cross examination of Noffke that Zimmerman only followed because of how he interpreted the words.

He says the coursework intertwines with the defendant’s other ambitions shown by the police application and ride-along with police.

He says the danger of prejudicial evidence must outweigh the probative value. He says they are clearly probative of his state of mind.

Mantei says the idea is that he would know what might be asked of him if he was ever in this situation. He says the applications for the police force and ride-along show a person that has decided he wants to do that and it shows his state of mind when he encountered the individual and called him a suspicious guy.

Judge Nelson asks about personal information and references to good or bad credit.

8:57 a.m.

Mantei says he starts with a basic relevance objection. He says there is more than one theory of the case. He says the state isn’t bound to consider one theory.

He says they sort of saw this argument before when they went over Zimmerman’s prior non-emergency calls.

He has had a desire to be an actual police officer and the defense has crossed witnesses about when they became a police officer and their motivations for it. He says they’ve made that relevant by their own questioning.

He says the relevance of the application for the degree is that it was submitted in fall 2011 and he was taking more classes in the spring of 2012. His extracurricular life mirrored that, Mantei says. He says Zimmerman wrote in his statement he used police jargon. He points out the phrase “I un-holstered my firearm.”

Mantei says the cross-examination of Serino showing police tactics. Anytime they talk about the defendant and the tactics being used on him, he says Zimmerman knew them.

Mantei cites a case that says relevance is defined as a tendency to establish a fact in controversy. He says in this case the records can impeach a statement made in a video tape.

Mantei says relevance can pertain to any element in the defense and the state has to establish there was no self-defense. Mantei mentions they can show “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”

He says the records can show the context of the defendant’s behavior.

The state is asserting these are bad acts, just that they are relevant to understand his actions that night, Mantei says.

8:44 a.m.

The first he addresses is the ride-along release form with the Sanford Police Department from March 15, 2010.

He says there is no relevance as it was two years before. He says this information would open up information about Martin.

Judge Nelson says she would like to keep focused.

Prosecutor Richard Mantei says his argument is prepared to address all the documents.

O’Mara moves to the next exhibit of the application for the police officer position.

O’Mara says Zimmerman had credit issues preventing him from being submitted. He objects that it is improper foundation and authentication.

O’Mara moves to the redacted statements; the diploma application and grade change for a class.

He says the distance in time and his client signing up for the course makes it inadmissible and the state should proffer it to show their proof.

Another document points to homework Zimmerman did of scenarios, which O’Mara says they have nothing to do with the case.

A final project from Zimmerman talking about the fourth amendment is not relevant unless it can be tied together, O’Mara says.

An excerpt from the Criminal Law and Procedure book addresses self-defense. O’Mara says it isn’t relevant without connectivity and they must show Zimmerman was present in the course.

He says his clients past should not be before the jury.

O'Mara says another excerpt from another book for another class that addresses criminal profiling. He says the state must show his client had the book, read it and discussed it with the professor. His objection is relevance.

His objects include relevance, authentication, and distance and time.

Judge Nelson says the handwritten homework assignments and application were Zimmerman's documents. She asks they stay on point after O'Mara references valentines Zimmerman might've written in first grade.

Mantei offers his argument.

8:36 a.m.

O’Mara points out the interview with Sean Hannity and the Stand Your Ground question and the course work from years earlier. O’Mara says it is far removed from admissible evidence. If it is allowed, the prior knowledge, O’Mara says Martins prior history of fighting should be.

Judge Nelson says that would be a different argument. She tells O’Mara to stay with the argument to the exhibits the state wants to admit.

O’Mara asks to go through each exhibit for different objections.

8:33 a.m.

Judge Nelson hears argument from defense attorney Mark O'Mara. He says that if the state's theory is that Zimmerman is a wanna-be cop it must conform with the law and they have to show how it meets the criteria for ill-will, spite and hatred. He says they need to connect the dots in legal and factual ways their theory of the case.
Before court resumes

8:10 a.m.

The prosecution and defense are expected to argue the relevance of Zimmerman's school records before Judge Debra Nelson without the presence of the jury.



http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/3/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

2:50 p.m.

De la Rionda asks about the swab from the pistol grip.

Gorgone says he tested for blood and got a positive result. He says the sample was a mixture of DNA. He was able to determine the major profile as

Zimmerman. The last column is statistics from probability of DNA profile based on population database.

He says he wasn’t able to determine a profile for the other minor contributors, but was able to exclude Martin.

The swab collected from the trigger was not tested for blood. He says he did not get a mixture of DNA, but wasn’t able to determine a profile.

The swab collected from the pistol slide tested negative for blood. The DNA results were not a mixture. He was not able to include or exclude

Zimmerman or Martin.

The fourth swab from the holster tested negative for blood. He got a mixture of DNA. He was able to get a major DNA profile that matched Zimmerman.

He says he couldn’t determine a DNA profile for minor contributors and wasn’t able to include or exclude Martin.

De la Rionda asks about the fingernail scrapings taken from Martin.

Gorgone says he swabs the sticks used to test for DNA.

He says for the right hand, there was a positive test for the presence of blood. He says there was no DNA foreign to Martin.

He says the left hand stick was not tested for blood and he didn’t get any DNA results from it.

2:36 p.m.

Gorgone says he first does a chemical test for blood.

He cuts a portion of the cotton from the swab and tests it.

West looks over an exhibit De la Rionda plans to show the court.

2:33 p.m.

Gorgone says they were the known samples used for comparison in the case.

De la Rionda asks him to explain columns of the data.

The first column is the 13 locations he tested on the DNA molecule. An additional location shows the gender of the sample provider.

The next column shows Zimmerman’s data. The two numbers he says represent size fragments of DNA at the location. There are two numbers because one came from each parent.

The next column shows Martin’s data.

De la Rionda asks how a mixture would show.

Gorgone says a mixture in a question sample would show more than two numbers at the location indicating multiple individuals contributing to the sample.

De la Rionda asks about four swabs taken from George Zimmerman’s gun.

2:26 p.m.

Gorgone says he performs a random match probability test when he has multiple locations.

The different results aren’t evenly distributed in the population, he says.

He uses two different databases for this case: the FBI’s and Butler database, created by Dr. John Butler.

Gorgone explains the product rule as seeing the probability of the frequency for one event and an independent event happening together.

March 26, May 9, and July 26 of 2012 are dates of reports by Gorgone.

De la Rionda says he received swabs from Zimmerman and Martin.

De la Rionda shows him the evidence swabs.

2:18 p.m.

Gorgone says he sometimes gets a partial DNA profile, which can still be used to make some kind of comparison.

He says he has a question sample and a known sample, which is collected directly from an individual.

De la Rionda asks if markers not matching can eliminate a person.

Gorgone says it depends, a person can be eliminated as a match by markers, but sometimes there are mixtures of DNA which is a different comparison.

He says an indication of two or three people means he has to try to separate out the mixture into separate profiles.

When one person contributes more and stands out, he calls them a major profile.

When he can’t make individual profiles he can still compare.

Gorgone explains how he finds the presence of blood.

2:12 p.m.

Gorgone says he does proficiency testing from an outside company every six months.

He says an item submitted for testing goes to the evidence intake section, which is given an exhibit number and barcode, and then it is brought to him.

He says he marks the package with his initials, the case number and the date.

Gorgone says he used STR DNA testing, which is Short Tandem Repeat testing. He says they are repetitive non-coding regions of DNA.

The first step, he says, is analyzing the evidence for fluids. He takes a swab and exposes it to heat.

The next step is called quantification which tells him how much DNA he got.

That is followed by amplification, he says describing it as making copies.

The last step is called electrophoresis which where he creates the DNA profile, he says.

He says he can get a pen and be asked to determine who was handling it; other times he gets a swab already used on the item in question.

De la Rionda asks what the minimum is for DNA needed to get a result.

Gorgone says 1 nanogram is preferred, but can sometimes have less. He says there really is no minimum for him to do the next step because he can still get some information for comparison.

2:04 p.m.

He has testified 28 times prior to today dealing with statistics. He is submitted as an expert in DNA.

He says DNA is the genetic blueprint that makes everyone unique.

A copy of DNA is in every cell of the body, he explains, which can be used to develop a DNA profile for identification purposes and comparison.

He says several fields use DNA comparison and it is accepted in the field.

The lab is accredited, Gorgone says, adding that there is a quality assurance program with documentation and a standard of procedures.

Gorgone says before testing for DNA he tests a positive and negative control to make sure the chemicals are working.

De la Rionda asks what kind of clothing he wears to prevent cross contamination.

He says he wears a lab coat, gloves, mask and sometimes a hair net.

1:58 p.m.

The state calls Anthony Gorgone, who works in the biology department of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

1:56 p.m.

Judge Nelson checks with the jury to make sure they didn’t discuss the case or research it.

1:54 p.m.

“End of discussion,” Judge Nelson says after telling West she will not give a day off Friday.

West says he is simply asking for time now and order Crump to be available Thursday.

Judge Nelson says he can continue to discuss the issue with her after the state has rested.

De la Rionda says there have been some delays today and may go long today.

Judge Nelson asks for the jury to be brought in.

1:52 p.m.

West asks for recess on Friday for an opportunity to take Crump’s deposition and an FDLE agent’s deposition.

Judge Nelson asks for the availability of Mr. Benton.

De la Rionda says he can check with him.

Judge Nelson says the state plans on resting today and the defense will begin Friday. She is obliging the day off for the Fourth of July.

She says Crump has been available. She points out it has been almost a month since the Frye hearing. She says the keeping the jury sequestered is very hard to do.

“Your Honor, we’ve been somewhat tied up for the last month,” West says.

Judge Nelson says she understands there were depositions taken last night and some scheduled tonight. She says it was her intention to have the defense start after the state rests.

West mentions they were still litigating the evidence when the trial began.

She says no one has requested an early recess.

1:47 p.m.

Court resumes with West addressing a scheduling issues before Judge Nelson without the jury present. He asks that Martin family attorney be available tomorrow.

Stain B – same as above

Stain C – same as above

Stain D – same as above

Stain E – same as above

Stain F – same as above

Stain G – negative for blood

Stain H – negative for blood

Stain I – positive, single source profile matching Zimmerman

Stain J – same as above

Stain K – same as above

Stain L – same as above

Stain M – same as above

Stain N – same as above

Stain O – same as above

Stain P – same as above

De la Rionda finishes questioning.

Judge Nelson gives a 15 minute recess before cross examination by the defense.

3:34 p.m.

Stain V – positive, DNA results were too limited to match, but possible to exclude though could not exclude Martin or Zimerman

Stains W,X, and Y – negative

Stain Z – positive, results too limited.

Stain AA – negative

Stain BB – positive, mixture DNA, not resolved to major or minor profiles. Zimmerman included as contributor. Not able to exclude or include Martin.

The stain BB was on the back on the left should near the middle, almost below the neck, Gorgone says.

Stain CC – negative

Stain DD – negative

Stain EE – negative

De la Rionda asks about the shirt Zimmerman was wearing. Gorgone says he did the same kind of analysis on this shirt also.

He found 16 stains.

3:29 p.m.

De la Rionda shows the Zimmerman’s jacket to the jury.

Gorgone explains the same process he did for the other clothing.

He says each individual stain he is going to test is cut out and put into its own tube.

He says he takes a bigger cutting if the stain is very light to get more sample.

Stain A - positive result for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman

Stain B – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman

Gorgone says foreign DNA would be indicated as a mixture.

He says there’s no way to tell if DNA came from blood, skin cells or another bodily fluid.

Stain C – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman

Stain D – negative for blood

Stain E – positive for blood, mixture DNA; major profile matched Zimmerman. The minor contributor was undetermined and couldn’t exclude or include Martin.

Stain E was located on the back right should of the jacket.

Stain F – negative for blood

Stain G – positive for blood, limited DNA results that were not interpretable

Stain H – negative for blood

Stain I – positive for blood, mixture DNA and resolved partial profile for major contributor matching Zimmerman. Minor contributor could not be determined, but he could exclude Martin.

Stain J – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman.

Stain K – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman

Stain L – positive for blood, same

Stain M – Same as above

Stain N – positive for blood, mixture DNA major contributor was Zimmerman, minor contributor was partial profile of Martin.

Stain N is on the front right upper part of the jacket.

Stain O – positive for blood, single source profile matched Zimmerman.

Stain P – same as above.

Stain Q – negative for blood.

Stain R – negative for blood

Stain S – negative for blood

Stain T – negative

Stain U – positive for blood, mixture DNA found, could not resolve major and minor contributors. He determined Martin was included as possible contributor.

The stain was on the velcro of the bottom right hand cuff, Gorgone says.

3:15 p.m.

Gorgone says he did not test around the hole from the gunshot. He says it was requested because it would be tested by another area of the lab.

De la Rionda sets the gray under sweatshirt next to the witness stand.

Gorgone points to the marked stains on it. There were no stains tested on the back.

He says stain A tested positive for presence of blood and a complete DNA profile that matched George Zimmerman.

He says stain B test positive for presence of blood and a complete DNA profile matched Trayvon Martin.

Stain C tested negative for possible presence of blood.

Stain D tested positive for blood and obtained a mixture of DNA, but he wasn’t able to determine with profile was a major or minor contributor. He says both Zimmerman and Martin were included as potential contributors.

Stain E tested positive for blood and a single source profile was obtained of Martin.

Stain D was the large one on the middle of the front surface. Stain E was on the right hand side of the gray sweatshirt.

The right cuff lower sleeve was tested for blood and was negative and showed nothing foreign for Martin.

The left cuff also tested negative for blood and the DNA profile obtained was a mixture. He says the sample was too limited and he wasn’t able to exclude Zimmerman.

De la Rionda asks about Zimmerman’s orange rain jacket.

Gorgone says he did the same visual examination and circled possible blood stains.

He says he say 17 stains he wanted to test. He says an alternate light source was used to examine the jacket and found 14 more stains to test.

3:02 p.m.

Gorgone tested swabs from the bag of Skittles and a flashlight.

DNA on the Skittles tested positive DNA from Martin.

The swab from the flashlight gave a negative DNA result.

De la Rionda asks Gorgone about testing the hoodie sweater Martin was wearing.

Gorgone says circled areas are stains tested for blood. He says the item was intact when he examined it. He did take three small cuttings to test for

DNA from three separate stains.

Gorgone says he documented what and when he did things.

De la Rionda shows the stain marked on the back of the sweatshirt. De la Rionda asks for the findings from stain A.

He says it tested positive for blood and was a partial DNA profile matching Martin’s. It was located in the front lower part of the sweater.

Stain B was on the left sleeve. It tested negative for the presence of blood.

Stain C was on the back and gave a positive result for the presence of blood but did not give a profile.

Gorgone says he also swabbed for foreign DNA on the cuffs of the sleeves. He tested it for blood first and was negative on the right side. He says

there was no DNA foreign to Martin on the right side. The left side was negative for blood and also tested negative for DNA foreign to Martin.

De la Rionda asks how much of the sleeve he as checking for DNA.

He says from the elbow area down to the cuff.

De la Rionda asks about examining the sweatshirt Martin wore under the hoodie.

Gorgone says he analyzed it.

Witness: Anthony Gorgone, FDLE DNA analyst

4:24 p.m.

West asks about the swabs for the candy Skittles and the flashlight.

Gorgone confirms he never saw the bag or flashlight.

West asks about the sticks used for fingernail scrapings.

Gorgone says if he sees red/brown staining he tests for blood and saw it on the stick for the right hand.

It tested positive for blood and the DNA profile matched Martin.

Gorgone says he didn’t test for blood on the left hand because there was not staining. He did test if for DNA.

He says he’s more interested in foreign samples that might’ve scraped off in the fingernails of that individual.

Gorgone says he has no way of knowing when the blood came in contact with the hand.

No DNA on the left hand did not surprise him, Gorone says, adding that it is a very small area being collected from.

The absence of evidence isn’t significant, he confirms.

West asks if he ever say Martin’s fingernails.

Gorgone says no.

West asks why there is only one stick for each hand.

Gorgone says the one stick is used to scrape all five fingernails on one hand.

He says he’s never done that process.

4:15 p.m.

West questions him about the use of swabs from the firearm.

West asks him if he reports about why DNA is where it is. Gorgone says he analyzes the swabs.

He says moisture, heat and humidity environmental factors can degrade DNA which affects his ability to amplify the sample for testing.

A gun is a hard surface so touch DNA or skin cells will be on it, not soaked into it like can happen with a shirt, Gorgone explains.

The hard surface of a gun or pen is not good for retaining touch DNA, he says.

West asks about the results for the slide of the gun sample.

Gorgone says he could not match it to an individual.

“I wasn’t able to exclude them,” Gorgone says about the DNA sample on the slide of the gun.

West asks about the holster.

Gorgone says the major DNA profile match Zimmerman.

West asks about Gorgone not being able to exclude or include Martin from the holster.

“Their information is not represented enough,” Gorgone says about how he excludes someone.

West asks if the ability to conduct reliable analysis depends on the collection and packaging of the sample.

Gorgone says if an item is collected and not stored properly it could degrade DNA on the sample.

4:06 p.m.

The jury is reseated and Don West begins cross examination.

3:40 p.m.

De la Rionda shows the actual shirt worn. Gorgone points out the stains marked for testing.

Stain A – positive, single source profile matching Zimmerman

For above:

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/3/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

4:33


Bill Sheaffer:
Guest; thank you. I could see the lesser charge being included. For those who think this is over, stay tuned. State will be relentless during defense witness testimony

4:35


Comment From qc
if you are being punched in the face, you would think the puncher would have blood on his/her hand/knuckles
4:35


Comment From Sandra
The skittles were bought for a kid at the house, why would be go home and come back with the bag in his hand?

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

couldnt tune in today much due to babysitting and outside chores but the lil snippets I did see on HLN just upset me (and I am talking actual trial coverage NOT TH's opinions)..I seriously feel now that this trial is only happening to placate the masses..I dont think the prosecutors have come anywhere close to proving their case..something is CLEARLY wrong when almost every single witness they called favored the defense.Criminey Pete today we learn GZ blood was found on TM hoodie!
Not even sure I will watch the defense present their case now..what is the point?

I liked Guy and Mantei but Bernie is not focused, IMO.
Questioning the teacher's and the gun expert was interesting, IMO.

DNA is a lot of dry stuff...

I would agree with the trial taking place is to placate the masses...
other than Serino, no one was pushing for an arrest when Trayvon was murdered.

I wish a complete gag order had been issued on the parties, families, attys UNTIL the start of the trial.

carlakay wrote:something that is bothering me..witness first on scene said GZ seemed calm IIRC..well if he was on the bottom;screaming for help in between being suffacated;punched and having his head slammed into concrete while also struggling for a gun then how is it this "obese" man was not at least breathing heavy immedietly after the shooting?

Hi Carla, not defending GZ but everyone reacts differently in stressful situations. GZ seems to have a very flat effect consistently could be caused by ?depression. Also he was at least 100lbs lighter back then.

July 3, 2013



George Zimmerman Trial - Day 8 - Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4a006Yo2Jo




George Zimmerman Trial - Day 8 - Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1zhmq7BGJc




George Zimmerman Trial - Day 8 - Part 3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq006zh3e08




George Zimmerman Trial - Day 8 - Part 4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcaKrIA41DE

George Zimmerman Trial - Day 8 - Morning Hearing

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEpOe9kiAzA

hello clarice wrote:

carlakay wrote:something that is bothering me..witness first on scene said GZ seemed calm IIRC..well if he was on the bottom;screaming for help in between being suffacated;punched and having his head slammed into concrete while also struggling for a gun then how is it this "obese" man was not at least breathing heavy immedietly after the shooting?

Hi Carla, not defending GZ but everyone reacts differently in stressful situations. GZ seems to have a very flat effect consistently could be caused by ?depression. Also he was at least 100lbs lighter back then.

Hi hello clarice..it is perfectly fine with me when someone does defend GZ but I understand..anyhow I put the quotation marks around the word obese cuz that is how he was classified by that chic who examined him and testified in court..to be honest that blew my mind cuz I sure wouldn't of labeled him as such at that time. Self confessed chunk chaser here so aint afraid to say I prob would have taken a second look at GZ had I seen him walking down the street last year.
Also there was alot of people that said he had a "flat affect" after the shooting..even his best friend and I dont get why no one considered the possibilty that he was in shock? Just odd to me how so many described his behaviour with the exact same term. This whole trial seems shady to me and it pisses me off.

carlakay wrote:

hello clarice wrote:

Hi Carla, not defending GZ but everyone reacts differently in stressful situations. GZ seems to have a very flat effect consistently could be caused by ?depression. Also he was at least 100lbs lighter back then.

Hi hello clarice..it is perfectly fine with me when someone does defend GZ but I understand..anyhow I put the quotation marks around the word obese cuz that is how he was classified by that chic who examined him and testified in court..to be honest that blew my mind cuz I sure wouldn't of labeled him as such at that time. Self confessed chunk chaser here so aint afraid to say I prob would have taken a second look at GZ had I seen him walking down the street last year.
Also there was alot of people that said he had a "flat affect" after the shooting..even his best friend and I dont get why no one considered the possibilty that he was in shock? Just odd to me how so many described his behaviour with the exact same term. This whole trial seems shady to me and it pisses me off.

Hi Carla, I have been reading all the posts here at RC. I am curious as to why this trial has angered you.

George Zimmerman Trial: What Happens If He's Acquitted?

ABCNews

Published July 2, 2013

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMSSmEoCpdQ#action=share

State’s case against Zimmerman nears a close

BY EVAN S. BENN
Posted on Wednesday, 07.03.13

Prosecutors are expected to wrap up their case Friday in the murder trial of George Zimmerman, with Trayvon Martin’s mother likely to be the state’s final witness.

On Wednesday, before a holiday break, jurors heard about Zimmerman’s criminal-justice studies and his interest in police work, as well as testimony from forensic experts.

Part of the state’s theory in the case is that Zimmerman, a neighborhood-watch leader, acted as a vigilante and wannabe cop, profiling and pursuing an unarmed Trayvon.

Seminole Circuit Judge Debra Nelson cited that theory in allowing the state to call witnesses and present other evidence Wednesday that documented Zimmerman’s previous interest in legal issues and law enforcement.

~Snipped~

In an interview televised last year and played in court this week, Zimmerman said he had never heard of Stand Your Ground until after the shooting.

Read more:

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/03/3483129/george-zimmermans-criminal-justice.html#storylink=cpy

Zimmerman studied Florida’s "Stand Your Ground" law – trial witness

by FP Staff 46 mins ago

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) – Former neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman was versed in Florida’s self-defense laws before he shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, despite his previous claim to the contrary, jurors were told at Zimmerman’s trial on Wednesday.

The contradiction came into evidence at Zimmerman’s murder trial after the judge ruled it was relevant for jurors to hear about the defendant’s criminal justice studies.

~Snipped~

Under the “Stand Your Ground” law, which was approved in 2005 and has been copied in some form by about 30 other states, people fearing for their lives can use deadly force without having to retreat from a confrontation, even when it is possible.

The statute is central to Zimmerman’s defense in a case that captivated the United States throughout much of 2012 because of the self-defense argument.

Read more:

http://www.firstpost.com/world/zimmerman-studied-floridas-stand-your-ground-law-trial-witness-926789.html

Pianist wrote:

carlakay wrote:

Hi hello clarice..it is perfectly fine with me when someone does defend GZ but I understand..anyhow I put the quotation marks around the word obese cuz that is how he was classified by that chic who examined him and testified in court..to be honest that blew my mind cuz I sure wouldn't of labeled him as such at that time. Self confessed chunk chaser here so aint afraid to say I prob would have taken a second look at GZ had I seen him walking down the street last year.
Also there was alot of people that said he had a "flat affect" after the shooting..even his best friend and I dont get why no one considered the possibilty that he was in shock? Just odd to me how so many described his behaviour with the exact same term. This whole trial seems shady to me and it pisses me off.

Hi Carla,  I have been reading all the posts here at RC. I am curious as to why this trial has angered you.

Pianist..the whole ordeal..my main irk is that I believe the police failed to do a proper investigation from the get go..forcing the Martin family to have to call upon those who went to the media n stirred up racial tension..investigation finally done AFTER the Martin families attorney done interviewed important witnesses which IMO has caused alot of people to now believe their testimonies were fabricated.The prosecutions charges and version of events that night are way off what I believe took place that night..then the flippin second chair of defense starts off his case with a knock knock joke..all thruout this trial the prejudicial comments from people talking on tv..on the street..on the internet have just sickened me to the core..it is ignorance at it's finest.

Carla-
So essentially you are saying our revered justice system of truth and honor has been tossed down and trampled on; not unlike like a paid prostitute stating "it's all about love" when we all know it is not. (Here, the prostitute is simply the media screaming THEY know and report the truth wisely, prudentially, and fairly... lol.)

I decided early on in this case when I saw how contentious it was going to become, I wouldn't follow too closely. Ha - everywhere I turn it's all over every flippin' TV station be darned to what else is going on in the world. I cry bullchit to all the folks who say this case isn't about race, that's absolutely all it's about! I have my own ideas on the subject and have no desire to get into that discussion as it's just too much hard work which never gets anyone anywhere. I agree with Carla and freckles, this case ended up going to trial after the anger squad eg: Sharpton, Jackson et al jumped on the bandwagon again and the powers that be decided the masses needed to be stilled. All the lies, innuendo's, false claims  and name calling aside whatever happens GZ is screwed. If he's found guilty and sent to jail his life is over and if he's found not guilty and released his life is over.
I would like to see closed courtrooms to the TV stations and media with no reporting on a case until a verdict has been reached. Seems to work in the UK. I understand people will come back and say that would be against the constitution, maybe that need to be addressed too!!! JMO - peace!

I am concerned with the fabric of our country.
Too many people screaming for too much attention, IMO.
I am reminded of Randolph Hearst and the Spanish-American War:
"You provide the pictures and I will provide the war."

Everything is neutral. It is how it is twisted to serve the "needs" or desires of someone that changes it--- all in the presentation. Even these court cases.

DNA: Ideally, a baby could be tested at birth and the records could be kept on file. We have seen, however, when this type of evidence can be altered and even planted to "serve" the needs or desires of others. I would ONLY support the collection of DNA IF the person was on death row OR had committed horrendous crimes OR crimes against a child.

OPEN COURTS: The purpose was to demonstrate to the interested public the FAIRNESS  and  lack of bias of the judiciary. We have seen how judges, attys, and witnesses have used the media for their own "needs" and desires; how parties have pandered to the camera. Keep in mind, they are part of the media who is fighting for control of info..

Freckles wrote:I am concerned with the fabric of our country.
Too many people screaming for too much attention, IMO.
I am reminded of Randolph Hearst and the Spanish-American War:
"You provide the pictures and I will provide the war."

Everything is neutral. It is how it is twisted to serve the "needs" or desires of someone that changes it--- all in the presentation. Even these court cases.

DNA: Ideally, a baby could be tested at birth and the records could be kept on file. We have seen, however, when this type of evidence can be altered and even planted to "serve" the needs or desires of others. I would ONLY support the collection of DNA IF the person was on death row OR had committed horrendous crimes OR crimes against a child.

OPEN COURTS: The purpose was to demonstrate to the interested public the FAIRNESS  and  lack of bias of the judiciary. We have seen how judges, attys, and witnesses have used the media for their own "needs" and desires; how parties have pandered to the camera. Keep in mind, they are part of the media who is fighting for control of info..

Freckles...how right you are. I fought against drug testing for our corporation years ago because then it was a blood test and I said that if we did that we could get DNA and I don't trust what would be done with the information. I don't believe that my BEING should be part of a data base to be used at someone else's desire. I understand that people who were convicted but innocent have been freed by DNA, BUT why should everyone be in a data base. That is going too far. IMO.

Open courts were a good IDEA but the execution of that idea fed into the media's insatiable ego and the egos of the lawyers, judges, reporters, etc. it seems that they want to be the center of attention when it should be the justice system that is the center of attention.

Even though I love to watch trials I get unnerved at the biased accounts and the wannabe analysts who only spew their ideology. Everyone has an opinion and I am open to hear those, but they are opinions not FACT. I believe in my heart that OJ and CA would have been convicted if the cases were tried behind closed doors and the media would have stayed out of the system.

I reiterate....You are so SPOT ON!!

Right now, I am concerned with the over use of the word "terrorist".
This is one scary path to walk down when we let govt and LE determine what is a terrorist. Terrorist is a CONCEPT. I spose any of us could label someone else with the word terrorist to serve our own purpose. IMO, this is what the govt has done.

As for 911: IF what happened was actually planned and carried out by foreign entities without knowledge and assistance by our own govt, it still would NOT justify the suspension of American rights to PRIVACY. I gave up flying and resorted to driving because I don't care to be exposed to the indignation of ever being frisked again. I will NOT submit to having my body X-rayed when it is known that can be harmful to my body, and it is certainly an invasion of my privacy.

Snowdon: Yes, he has the potential to release "govt trade secrets" but if we were not out trying to gather info against OTHER countries and peoples within those countries, what would we have to be concerned with? What has he released the other countries did NOT know about? Surely, we ALL know the govt is prying into our most private emails and phone calls, don't we? So what has he said that is not previously released? Or is it because he has dared to state the truth, Bartholomew, "The king has no clothing on!"

Right now, I am starting in-depth exploration of Agenda 21. This makes me sick and I don't want to go there... yet, I must. I must be informed to help others if not for myself.

One world govt: God destroyed the tower of Babel and mixed up the languages. If he did it once, he may do it again. Still, this one world gov't isn't a new concept: Roman wanted world power; "the sun never set on the British empire"; Hitler wanted a one world govt. Many of the concepts in Agenda 21 are siphoned from Hitler and implemented following Stalin.

BTW: Earlier this week, it was announced the USA has given permission for FOREIGN soldiers from Russia to "assist" our government in law enforcement of Americans IF they are called upon. A year or two back, Russian soldiers were training at American facilities in Colorado...

Today is INDEPENDENCE DAY. What better time to re-evaluate what we each are doing to ensure the continuation of our Constitutional rights? Are we talking and sharing with our families, our neighbors? Are we attending school board meetings and city hall meetings? Do we write our elected officials asking for accountability? We have been fortunate to be born into a nation rich in rewards for the individual. What are we doing to ensure the next generations will be able to share in that wealth?

Freckles wrote:I am concerned with the fabric of our country.
Too many people screaming for too much attention, IMO.
I am reminded of Randolph Hearst and the Spanish-American War:
"You provide the pictures and I will provide the war."

Everything is neutral. It is how it is twisted to serve the "needs" or desires of someone that changes it--- all in the presentation. Even these court cases.

DNA: Ideally, a baby could be tested at birth and the records could be kept on file. We have seen, however, when this type of evidence can be altered and even planted to "serve" the needs or desires of others. I would ONLY support the collection of DNA IF the person was on death row OR had committed horrendous crimes OR crimes against a child.

OPEN COURTS: The purpose was to demonstrate to the interested public the FAIRNESS  and  lack of bias of the judiciary. We have seen how judges, attys, and witnesses have used the media for their own "needs" and desires; how parties have pandered to the camera. Keep in mind, they are part of the media who is fighting for control of info..

BBM: It is William Randolph Hearst.

And the Quote and background go like this:

Wikipedia wrote:The most famous example of a claim is the apocryphal story that artist Frederic Remington telegrammed Hearst to tell him all was quiet in Cuba and "There will be no war." Hearst responded "Please remain. You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war." Historians now believe that no such telegrams ever were sent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Freckles wrote:Right now, I am concerned with the over use of the word "terrorist".
This is one scary path to walk down when we let govt and LE determine what is a terrorist. Terrorist is a CONCEPT. I spose any of us could label someone else with the word terrorist to serve our own purpose. IMO, this is what the govt has done.

As for 911: IF what happened was actually planned and carried out by foreign entities without knowledge and assistance by our own govt, it still would NOT justify the suspension of American rights to PRIVACY. I gave up flying and resorted to driving because I don't care to be exposed to the indignation of ever being frisked again. I will NOT submit to having my body X-rayed when it is known that can be harmful to my body, and it is certainly an invasion of my privacy.

Snowdon: Yes, he has the potential to release "govt trade secrets" but if we were not out trying to gather info against OTHER countries and peoples within those countries, what would we have to be concerned with? What has he released the other countries did NOT know about? Surely, we ALL know the govt is prying into our most private emails and phone calls, don't we? So what has he said that is not previously released? Or is it because he has dared to state the truth, Bartholomew, "The king has no clothing on!"

Right now, I am starting in-depth exploration of Agenda 21. This makes me sick and I don't want to go there... yet, I must. I must be informed to help others if not for myself.

One world govt: God destroyed the tower of Babel and mixed up the languages. If he did it once, he may do it again. Still, this one world gov't isn't a new concept: Roman wanted world power; "the sun never set on the British empire"; Hitler wanted a one world govt.  Many of the concepts in Agenda 21 are siphoned from Hitler and implemented following Stalin.

BTW: Earlier this week, it was announced the USA has given permission for FOREIGN soldiers from Russia to "assist" our government in law enforcement of Americans IF they are called upon. A year or two back, Russian soldiers were training at American facilities in Colorado...

Today is INDEPENDENCE DAY. What better time to re-evaluate what we each are doing to ensure the continuation of our Constitutional rights? Are we talking and sharing with our families, our neighbors? Are we attending school board meetings and city hall meetings? Do we write our elected officials asking for accountability?  We have been fortunate to be born into a nation rich in rewards for the individual. What are we doing to ensure the next generations will be able to share in that wealth?

THANKS FRECKLES!!! It needed to be said. Thanks for find the words and step forth.

Freckles nice analogy up there..I guess that's kinda what I meant..lol

I cant say closed courtrooms tho cuz I looove to watch trials..it is the media who riles me up the most with their nonfactual opinion screamers..too many people see lil snippets of this kind of reporting then go round discussing these cases as if they have heard and now know the actual facts.

Case in point..for the past two nights I have debated this case with people who have done just that. They ALL were shocked that I feel GZ should be on trial. Every single one of them said..Carla how can you be proTrayvon? As soon as that kid punched GZ he had the right to defend himself! I always answered."because there is absolutely no proof that TM was the one to start the physical altercation..just because GZ is claiming that..it dont make it a fact. This is why a thorough and unbiased investigation needs to be done immedietly ..it was not done the night TM  was killed and it is my opinion because of that there will be no justice in this case for anyone.

HOT DAY IN COURT!!!
RC has been down for maintenance and I could not post!
I will copy transcript from this morning when I get the time.

RICHARDSON HEARING ON ME BAO.
Bernie was sworn in!
BAO brought a "script" to court.
IMO, he may have prepared this due to a language barrier.

West was examining the witness but kept overstepping.
Richardson Hearing MUST be according to whether or not the prosecution had prior influence/knowledge of the scripting.

Hearing outside the jury.

Last witness for the prosecution.

Witness hanged one "opinion" re how long Trayvon may have lived after being shot (1-3 minutes is now 1-10 minutes) and the toxicology of THC in Trayvon's system. IF there is a conviction, this could be overturned on reversible error. Bernie did NOT have this info with the witness....

Judge: No violation.

(IMO, the best part was when GZ opened his left lapel and stuck his face under the lapel to take a "whiff"... GZ then smiled as he pulled his face away.)

Witness: Sybrina Fulton - Martin's mother

9:05 a.m.

She says she didn’t really know what the tape was about. She says she was the first to react.

O’Mara asks about the other people listening to the recording.

She says they didn’t tell her anything.

O’Mara asks if anyone spoke to her, telling her she would be listening to screams.

She says no one did, they hadn’t heard the tape at the time.

O’Mara asks if anyone prepared her.

She says no.

She says she listened to it once.

O’Mara finishes questioning.

De la Rionda redirects.

He asks if she hoped her son would be alive.

“I hope he was still alive,” she says.

“Did you enjoy listening to the recording,” De la Rionda asks.

“Absolutely not,” she says.

O’Mara re-cross examines.

He asks if she hoped Martin did nothing that lead to his own death.

She says she hoped that this would’ve never happened and he would still be here.

“I don’t believe he was,” she says in answer to O’Mara’s question that Martin was responsible for his own death.

Fulton is excused.

The state calls Jahvaris Fulton.

9:00 a.m.

Fulton says she recognizes the screaming as Martin.

De la Rionda has no further questions.

O’Mara cross examines.

He begins by apologizing for her loss. Judge Nelson says he needs to ask a question.

He asks her about the first time she listened to the recording.

She says it was at the mayor’s office in Sanford.

She says law enforcement were there, but not in the room.

O’Mara asks if she was there when Chief Lee had a conversation with the mayor and city manager.

She says no. She says she thinks it was the mayor that played the recording for her.

In the room was Tracy Martin, her other son, attorneys Benjamin Crump and Natalie Jackson, Mayor Triplette, City Manager Bonaparte and a few others.

O’Mara asks if anyone listened to it individually.

She says Tracy Martin did not tell her he had listened to the tape before and did not have a conversation about it with him.

“Absolutely,” she says in answer to it being one of the worst experiences.

O’Mara asks if it was Zimmerman saying those screams, she would have to accept that it was her son that caused his death.

“I heard my son screaming,” she says.

8:54 a.m.

Fulton has two other children. She lives in Miami. Martin’s birthday was Feb. 5. She says she is on leave from her employer.

She has worked for the county for 24 years.

She tells the court her education background.

She says Martin was right-handed. He had tattooes of praying hands on his right should with his grandmother’s and great grandmother’s names and

Sybrina’s name on his left wrist.

She says she has heard him crying before.

De la Rionda plays the recording of the 911 call with the screams heard in the background.

8:41 a.m.

The state calls Sybrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin's mother, to take the stand. The attorneys go into sidebar.

8:40 a.m.

The jury is seated. Judge Nelson checks to make sure they did not discuss the case, see reports about it or research it.

8:37 a.m.

Judge Debra Nelson arrives in court and addresses matters the prosecution or defense asks about. She asks Zimmerman about a stipulation the state requests regarding the identity of the victim, Trayvon Martin. He agrees to it.

Guy submits a report from Weather Underground detailing the weather conditions from the night of the shooting. The defense objects. Judge Nelson says it will be taken up later.

Judge Nelson asks for the jury to be brought in.

8:18 a.m.

Court is expected to resume at 8:30 a.m.


http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/5/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

Witness: Jahvaris Fulton - Martin's brother

10:03 a.m.

O’Mara asks if Jahvaris remembers hearing the recording after the initial two times in the mayor’s office.

Jahvaris says he didn’t want to listen to the recording again.

He says he has listened to it since.

He says it is emotional and he didn’t want to listen again. He says in total it was about 10 times.

O’Mara asks if Tracy Martin was living with him.

Jahvaris says Martin left the home when he was 9 or 10 years old, and Trayvon was about 5.

O’Mara asks if he and Trayvon hung out together.

Jahvaris says they didn’t have the same set of friends.

He says he didn’t really interact with him on Facebook or Twitter, but occasionally did with his own friends.

O’Mara asks if Jahvaris spent a lot of time with Tracy Martin.

He says he usually spent the weekends or whenever they wanted.

Guy begins redirect.

He asks about the first time hearing the 911 call.

Jahvaris says it was emotionally difficult and he was still in denial about his brother’s death.

He says he believes it is Trayvon Martin’s brother on the tape.

He says he was about 9 years old when Tracy and Sybrina divorced. He would visit Tracy with Trayvon on the weekends.

He went to FAMU in Tallahassee and would stay with Tracy occasionally and sometimes Trayvon would stay with him at FAMU.

Jahvaris is excused.

The state recalls Sybrina Fulton.

The attorneys approach for a sidebar.

9:54 a.m.

O'Mara resumes questioning with the jury present.

9:23 a.m.

Judge Nelson says his answer was the same. O’Mara says his concern is the questions before the break.

The court reporter reads more of the transcript.

Judge Nelson says whether he remembers the question is a collateral matter and his answer was the same.

O’Mara says he renews the request because the interview shows his inflection and hesitation.

Judge Nelson asks what it is for on a legal basis because it cannot be played for impeachment purposes because his answer was the same.

He submits the clip as an exhibit.

Judge Nelson give a recess as the locksmith arrives to work on the evidence locker door.

9:18 a.m.

Judge Nelson says she thinks the witness said he wasn’t sure, so it should be played without the presence of the jury.

O’Mara plays the interview without the screen.

Jahvaris says in the interview he didn’t listen to the recording that well and he’s not positive it is Trayvon.

O’Mara renews his request to play the interview before the jury.

The state argues that Jahvaris already answered the questioned.

Judge Nelson asks the court reporter to read back the record.

9:14 a.m.

He says he and Martin was living together with his mother, brother and uncle.

He says he was aware Martin was with Tracy Martin. He learned of Trayvon’s death the following Monday from his mother.

He has heard the recording of the screaming and the gunshot. He estimates he’s heard it 10 to 15 times.

He says he recognizes Trayvon’s voice in the yelling and screaming.

He says he has heard Trayvon yell, not like that though.

Guy finishes questioning.

O’Mara cross examines.

O’Mara asks about an interview with a report in March 2012 in which he’s says he not positive it’s his brother, but thinks it is.

O’Mara asks about the first time he heard the recording in the room with everyone else.

Jahvaris says he didn’t want to believe that it was really Trayvon as he was feeling shock and sadness.

Jahvaris says he’s not sure of the dates of the interview and hearing the recording.

He says he probably didn’t listen to the tape between that time. He says he’s not sure of the time being asked about.

O’Mara asks him about an interview with a Miami reporter.

Jahvaris says he doesn’t remember the question.

O’Mara asks if he can play the recording. The state objects to improper impeachment.

The jury is excused.

9:05 a.m.

Jahvaris Fulton, 22, takes the stand. He attends FIU. His major is information technology. He is Martin's older brother. Martin is not his biological father, he says.

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/5/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

Witness: Sybrina Fulton - Martin's mother

10:16 a.m.

The jury is reseated. De la Rionda shows her a button Martin was wearing. Fulton identifies it. There is no cross-examination.

The state calls Dr. Bao.

10:10 a.m.

The jury exits the courtroom. The sidebar continues.

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/5/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

Witness: Dr. Shiping Bao

11:54 a.m.

West says he would like a copy of Dr. Bao's notes and asks for time to do it. Judge Nelson breaks for lunch until 1 p.m.

11:51 a.m.

West asks who took the autopsy photos.

Dr. Bao says it was one of the technicians.

He says he doesn’t remember what he was doing at the time the clothing was removed, but he was there.

West asks what happens to the clothing once removed from the body.

He says he would pack them in a paper bag to give to the police department.

West asks if that is what happened.

“Should be,” Dr. Bao says, adding that he can’t remember.

West asks if wet clothing should be packaged in paper bag.

Dr. Bao says they let them dry.

He says he does not remember what happened beyond his notes for the case.

West asks if it would be a violation of protocol to put a wet shirt in a plastic bag.

Dr. Bao says the only plastic bag was the body bag.

He says if anyone does that they would be gone the next day and fired because it is very basic.

West asks where the shoes are.

Dr. Bao says he doesn’t know where they are now.

He says he spents hundreds of hours reviewing photos and notes. He says he doesn’t believe anyone can remember what happened from two years ago.

West asks to see what Dr. Bao is reading from.

Dr. Bao says before the testimony he spent hours typing answers to potential questions. He says he prefers no one see them.

Judge Nelson says both attorneys are entitled to see them.

West asks to see all the notes he prepared for his testimony today.

De la Rionda asks to see them, also.

West suggests a copy be made.

Dr. Bao says they are his notes.

Judge Nelson says counsel can sit down to look at them and return them to Dr. Bao.

11:42 a.m.

“All I know is his body was at scene for some period of time,” Dr. Bao says.

West asks if he has any idea of what was supposed to have happened.

Dr. Bao says he only knows he was shot and dead.

West asks if he did the autopsy without information from what happened the day before.

Dr. Bao says he only has the notes he has and has no recollection of the day of the shooting.

He says he tries

Judge Nelson says only one person can speak at a time. She asks for West to allow Dr. Bao to answer and Dr. Bao to wait.

West and Dr. Bao speak at the same time.

West asks for the question to be read back because it was a yes or no.

Dr. Bao says he needs to explain to the jury why he can’t remember the autopsy.

Judge Nelson asks him to stop speaking so West can ask the next question.

West asks if his testimony today relies on the autopsy report.

Dr. Bao confirms and says the photos, too.

West asks what point the body is seen.

Dr. Bao answers.

West asks to interrupt. De la Rionda objects.

Judge Nelson asks for only one person to speak.

West says he would like to ask a more specific question.

West asks at what point he sees the body. He points out where the report says the body is viewed unclothed.

Dr. Bao says he was there the whole time. The body was received in plastic bag, which they opened and removed his clothes.

11:35 a.m.

West asks to walk through the steps taken performing the autopsy.

He asks about the technicians assisting with the autopsy.

Dr. Bao says one helped to write and the other helped to put evidence together.

West asks about the preliminary inspection and if plastic bags were around Martin’s hands.

Dr. Bao confirms there were none, just the body bag.

He says plastic bags cannot be used, but standard practice is to use paper bag.

West asks about Martin’s body remaining at the scene for three hours.

Dr. Bao says he doesn’t know.

West asks if he has the notes from the investigator.

Dr. Bao says yes and looks for them.

He says the notes are not his or his opinion, so he can only read them.

He says she wrote she got there at 9:44 p.m.

Dr. Bao tells West he is under oath and cannot give wrong information.

West asks him to assume the event occurred at 7:15 p.m. and the jury can sort out the time.

West asks based upon her notes, she arrived about 2.5 hours after the event and left at about 10:10 p.m.

Dr. Bao says he doesn’t see that. West approaches and points out the note for Dr. Bao.

11:25 a.m.

The jury returns.

11:13 a.m.

Dr. Bao says the stick goes under every finger.

De la Rionda asks about the blood card taken for DNA.

Dr. Bao confirms.

De la Rionda asks about an identification photograph.

Judge Nelson reads an instruction to the jury about the identification of Trayvon Benjamin Martin.

De la Rionda asks if the gunshot wound was right at the heart. Dr. Bao says he had to open the body to see that.

De la Rionda finishes questioning.

West asks for a recess.

Judge Nelson grants a 10 minute recess.

11:09 a.m.

De la Rionda hands Dr. Bao the bullet fragments recovered. Dr. Bao identifies them and De la Rionda shows them to the jury.

Dr. Bao says there was no blood on Martin’s hands. The only injuries were the abrasions already asked about.

De la Rionda shows a photo of the hand.

Dr. Bao says it is a superficial injury from blunt force trauma and could have happened before meeting Zimmerman.

He says it could have been two hours before, right after the shooting, or as he fell to the ground.

Dr. Bao says the abrasion is one quarter by one eighth. He describes the three types of blunt force trauma.

This abrasion is the least severe of the three, he says.

The pinky had a small abrasion, too small to be measured, he says.

He says the blood is still inside and confirms it could be classified as a scratch to the skin.

De la Rionda asks about the fingernail scrapings.

11:02 a.m.

Dr. Bao says the wound is not a contact shot to the skin.

He says it is an intermediate range shooting, which means stippling is seen.

Dr. Bao says his opinion is based off facts seen from the gunshot wound.

Intermediate range is .4 inches to four feet away, De la Rionda explains.

Dr. Bao explains an intermediary target is more difficult to determine range of shooting.

De la Rionda asks about the clothing.

Dr. Bao says clothing will block soot and material from the gunshot. He says intermediate range is not measured and no one can use eyes to determine it.

He says he believe there was loose contact. A hard contact would have shown an imprint in the clothes.

Dr. Bao says there are no facts and he has no opinion on how Martin’s body was when he was shot. He can say the gun was in front of him.

De la Rionda asks if Martin was conscious for a few minutes.

Dr. Bao says his opinion is based on facts. He believes Martin was alive for one to 10 minutes after he was shot.

10:53 a.m.

Dr. Bao says a photo shows the defect on the left of the chest.

In a closer photo, Dr. Bao describes features that he says are consistent with an entrance wound.

A photo shows “superficial abrasions” on the left 4th finger and 5th finger, Dr. Bao says.

No other injuries were found, he says.

A photo shows the lead core and fragments recovered.

Dr. Bao says the bullet went straight from the front to the back with perforation of space between 5th and 6th ribs, it went through the ventrical of the heart and the posterior wall of the heart.

Dr. Bao says Martin was alive for one to 10 minutes after he was shot.

De la Rionda asks about the shot being fatal.

Dr. Bao says there was no chance he could survive with two holes in the heart.

“It’s a straight shot right into the heart,” De la Rionda asks.

“Yes,” Dr. Bao answers.

10:45 a.m.

De la Rionda shows two more photos of the body bag and another of the seal.

De la Rionda shows an X-ray taken to try to locate the bullet fragments. Dr. Bao points out where they are located.

De la Rionda asks about a photo of the clothing Martin was wearing.

More photos from the autopsy exam are shown.

Dr. Bao says the back of the hooded sweatshirt appears to be wet.

He points out the back of the grey sweatshirt, adding that there is no exit wound.

Dr. Bao says they normally take three photos of the body. He says other than the defect of the gunshot wound, Martin was healthy and disease-free.

More photos of Martin from the autopsy exam are shown.

De la Rionda asks about the hands.

Dr. Bao says other than some small abrasion on left 5th and 4th finger there were no other injuries. There was also no blood, he says.

10:36 a.m.

Martin was measured as 71 inches, 5 feet and 11 inches, and 158 pounds.

Dr. Bao says an investigator goes out to the scene of the incident.

He says two assistants work with him.

De la Rionda shows a picture to the jury.

West asks for the physical photos to follow along.

Dr. Bao says it is a photo of the bag that carried Martin.

10:29 a.m.

He explains what an autopsy is and the definitions of manner of death.

He says Martin’s death was a homicide because he was killed by another person.

Dr. Bao says he has done more than 3,000 autopsies, with about 150-200 being homicides.

He has testified before as an expert.

Dr. Bao did the examination of Trayvon Martin on Feb. 27, 2012 at the medical examiner’s office Volusia County.

The cause of death was a gunshot wound to the chest and manner of death was homicide, Dr. Bao says.

He says Martin was not identified when he arrived at the office and his age wasn’t known.

They first looked for bullet fragments, he says, adding that the body was sealed in a plastic bag.

He describes Martin’s height and weight and says he was wearing a shirt with a hole and another below it with blood.

He describes the gunshot wound seen after removing the clothing.

He says the bullet went through fiber tissue around the heart and through a ventricle of the heart.

The lead core of the bullet and two fragments were recovered, he says.

He says Martin was still alive when the bullet went through his heart. He says Martin was still suffering and in pain.

West objects to speculation.

Judge Nelson asks the attorneys to approach.

10:18 a.m.

Dr. Shiping Bao shares his education and work history.

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/5/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

IMO, BAO is a very poor witness.
He recalls nothing or his technicians performed the work.
He stated he made notes only if it was present not if it was not present; he does not note that which is missing.

This is bad for the State.

BAO is asked for protocol and he states repeatedly, "Not my job" even when it is re the technicians he admits he is to supervise.

The taking of fingernail evidence was down with ONE "stick" for five fingers of the hand. The evidence of a finger could not be determined as to which finger it came from.

Repeatedly, BAO states, he does not know and it is not his job...

BAO tried to get blood as it is routine.
BAO notes the blood is from Trayvon's chest.
Peripheral blood is the best, say from a leg.
Did he attempt? Yes but BAO does not recall where.
BAO said chest was only option as "no blood left"...
(IMO, I believe he is referring to blood pressure induced blood draw? Dunno...)
BAO states he never draws blood; BAO names another person, Ben ???.

***
According to commentators, there will be heavy sanctions against the ME by his employer re his testimony and the scripted notes. He may be terminated or forced to take a big professional step-down.

Watching live with blog at bottom:

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

Dr BAO, ME
West questioning

BAO states NO pics of the entire hand, no space for the entire body; only pics of injuries, tumors, etc. NO pics of the palms of the hands.
Says if he finds nothing he does not take pics of things HE thinks would not be "significant"--- he saw no injury or disease. No pics of the fingernails or clippings; BAO says "they do not do that"... has nothing to do with cost as images are stored digitally; BAO said efficiency is all important; BAO did autopsy in AM with another for the PM. He took 5-10 photos in any case; does not take photos for future use; cannot take 100 pics; cannot take photos of all the body surfaces; indicates it is protocol; BAO states no one knows the autopsy better than he knows it... and West points out, "... except you don't remember it..." and Bao agrees.

BAO states the same abrasion to Trayvon's pinky could have happened up to 2 hours before the gunshot; it could have been during the struggle; no consistent with a blow; could have been from scraping on cement, hitting GZ or falling to the ground.

West continues questioning BAO.

BAO says abrasion could have been before, during or after being shot. Grass would not have caused the injury. BAO said there was no blood as injury was not deep enough. West asks if it could have been wiped off; BAO said no injury to the blood vessel. Very superficial injury.

BAO states he never said ht as dead man could not stand; he said length. BMI was 22. Trayvon was 5'11". Normal range for stats.

BAO said the minimum amount of time Trayvon would have survived is one minute; maximum amount of time is ten minutes. BAO has never been published in gunshot wounds; his info is from reviewing work of other autopsies and his own work; he has no research or data base re gunshots; BAO said he did some research 3 wks ago ... that is why he changed his statements (and failed to notify the State... hence, the Richardson Hearing earlier)

BAO has less than 50 per cent confidence Trayvon survived more than 1-10 minutes... BAO believed it was 1-3 minutes earlier but has new personal info leading him to change his mind... BAO did not do autopsy on the other case but he had great interest in the other case and that lead him to change his opinion... He has no notes on that case that involved a man who was in his 40's...

WOW. This is not good. Dunno why the judge is allowing this!
BAO is bringing in another court case however... age and health etc. are NOT being offered for comparison...

BAO is answering West.
BAO states Trayvon would not have been able to move immediately upon being shot; Trayvon would not have been able to talk; Bao says Trayvon would have been able to move a little bit and make some verbal noise... In the comparative case, BAO stated the other person was able to call 911 and talk with the dispatcher PRIOR to death when the EMTs arrived...

Judge is yelling over West and Bao. She is admonishing BAO to wait until West is done asking the question. West is repeatedly asking for approach; denied repeatedly.

West asks if opinion of BAO that Trayvon WAS able to move a bit; BAO said YES. West asks of research BAO has done; BAO is nonresponsive... Judge admonishes BAO to WAIT for the question while BAO states he had not finished answering the question. BAO keeps stating he has no time for writing publications; keeps stating this is very, very rare the gunshot to Trayvon; BAO is unable to test because subjects would be killed...

West: Wound to skin a contact wound?
BAO: No.
West: Easy to see?
BAO: Yes. Do that almost every day.
West: Some distance between fabric and skin?
BAO: No. Muscle to gun. Contact to skin not to clothing. Two types of contacts: skin and clothing. IF to clothing then fabric would be moved to the skin... BAO know says there are THREE types of contact...

My hands are thrown up!
Witness is impossible to follow!!!!

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

BAO just said he has "several books on my shelf"...
BAO referenced these books.
BAO can not offer any more precise info other than the shot was somewhere between 4 inches and 4 feet!  
BAO said the stipling ... he "is not worried about how far it is spread..."

BAO avoids the question.
BAO says it is NOT his job to determine the distance...
BAO said the stippling was about 2 inches, "pretty big"
BAO did not attempt to determine the distance; it is an opinion and not part of autopsy report;
BAO said he had to do research for his opinion...

WOw. What a messy witness !!!

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

ME BAO:Re-direct by State, Bernie

BAO made a report and 7 pages for autopsy report;
BAO documented his findings because he cannot rely on his memory for "truth" because "truth is not known at that time..."

BAO wrote everything down, ie, name, employments, etc., to help him with the jury; "intermediary" is the clothing (2 sweatshirts) between the skin and the gun barrel.

Pics shown.

BAO said he did not take pics of hands because it is difficult.
Hands contract in death.
Had there been blood or injury to palm he would have taken pics.
When he DID find something, he documented with pics.

BAO said trained tech took the fingernail scrappings;
BAO said Trayvon was going to die no matter what;
BAO said he came across a case where a person could live 10 minutes;
BAO did not visit the crime scene; tech did go to crime scene and BAO relied on tech's report; BAO has no opinion.

BAO said the tarp seen in pics "protected" the body;
BAO said Trayvon could not move; brain not functioning;

BAO is excused subject to recall.

Break is called.

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

This is a rather lengthy transcript for Dr. BAO, ME.
I will let you find it...

http://www.cfnews13.com/content/news/cfnews13/news/article.html/content/news/articles/cfn/2013/7/5/zimmerman_opening_statements.html

2 pieces of evidence by State then they are resting;
Def objects to the timeline...

MOM is asking for acquittal as States has NOT proved the elements of the charges to GZ.

3:36


Comment From JUST SAYIN
Why is there no one on here talking about the drugs that were in GZ system or not in it when Zimmerman said in response that he had a bad memory and takes medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder !!!!

http://www.wftv.com/s/zimmerman-livestream/

MOM is citing case law.
He re a case Jenkins in which the party was knifed in the heart and, as MOM states, "he passes away." Come on, MOM! Passes away? He was KNIFED to death! Call it correctly!!

MOM is stating Trayvon "mounted" GA... Trayvon was the aggressor!
This whole case is unreal. Witnesses are poorly prepared and unreliable.

Shame Trayvon's justice rests in such mundane and lack luster prosecution. Ill will and hatred? State was too weak on using the info at hand ... What popped their balloon Someone get paid off or something to cause the State to back down?

-------

https://realitychatter.forumotion.com/viewtopic.forum?t=4357