Trayvon Martin Case

[Gary84Clark]

A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening."

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified.

Rao's testimony could contradict Zimmerman's assertion that he was involved in a potentially life-threatening struggle with the Florida teenager.

Catch up on all the details from the George Zimmerman murder trial.

Zimmerman, 29, claims he shot Martrin, 17, in self defense on Feb. 26, 2012 as Martin repeatedly banged his head against the pavement and reached for Zimmerman's gun.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by Gary84Clark

A medical examiner who reviewed video and photographs of George Zimmerman's injuries suffered during his fatal confrontation with Trayvon Martin called the neighborhood watch captain's wounds "insignificant" and "non-life threatening." ...

Dr. Valerie Rao testified that Zimmerman was struck as few as three times by Martin during the fight that night. She also asserted his head may have only been slammed on the concrete a single time. Zimmerman, who faces second-degree murder charges for the death of the unarmed teenager, said Martin repeatedly slammed his head on the concrete.

"Are the injuries on the back of the defendant's head consistent with one strike against a concrete surface?" asked prosecutor John Guy

"Yes," Rao said.

"And why do you say that?" asked Guy

"Because if you hit the head one time, it is consistent with having gotten those two injuries at that one time," she testified. ...

Dr. Rao is the first, and to my knowledge, the only direct evidence offered by the prosecution to contradict Z's assertion that he was reasonably in fear of his life. Rao, however, was not at the scene, did not see or examine Z at the time of the incident, and reached her conclusions about the injuries only from reviewing photos and videos after the fact.

Further, Rao's testimony conflicts with that of the EMT who examined Z at the scene. (And does not address in any way the testimony of Good that Z was on the ground with TM on top of him with Z yelling for help).

IMHO, much of Rao's testimony was simple conjecture in hindsight and was highlighted as such by the defense's cross exam. Here is what the Cross-X brought out:

- Rao admitted that Martin could have hit Zimmerman in the face more than one time.

- Rao said it is possible there could have been more than one blow to the concrete.

- Rao said the bruise to the right side of Zimmerman's head could be consistent with his head hitting concrete. She said it was a small bruise, but there was some swelling.

So, while I fully expect the prosecution to hang their hat on Rao's testimony and hope for biased, emotional mobs participants like G84C to ignore everything else presented on the issue, to me, it's the same speculative evidence that the prosecution has been presenting all along.

It's very possible that it happened as Rao said - one strike against the concrete caused the two injuries. It's also possible that it happened just as Z said it did and as the EMT opined - multiple strikes againat the concrete causing disorientation and reasonalbe fear for medical safety.

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

...

It's that whole burden of proof thing again - always a stumbling block to the pitchfork and torches crowd.

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

so "she turned me into a newt" is not sufficient proof when you got better?

Let's just throw Z in the water - if he floats, he's guilty. If he drowns, he's innocent.