07-09-2013, 07:42 PM
I thought Dr. Di Maio was a much better forensic expert for the defense than Dr. Bao was for the state.
I also thought that de la Rionda was highly effective in his cross of Dr. Di Maio today. I'd found de la Rionda mostly unimpressive previously.
Under cross, Dr. Di Maio acknowledged that Trayvon could have been pulling away from Zimmerman when the shot was fired. He also acknowledged that the abrasions to the back of George's head could have been caused by either the tree branches or concrete.
Another of George's neighbors testified by phone. Nothing of value. IMO.
There's a hearing regarding the admissibility of an animated recreation of events, based on the timing of 911 calls and defense witness testimony (if I'm following correctly). The defense wants the animation presented to the jury.
It's clear, to me, that there's no forensic evidence that can either confirm or refute either sides' version of events - with or without the animated re-enactment. I'd hoped there would be.
The jury is going to be left to deliberate evidence that is open to interpretation and credibility is going to be the deciding factor. IMO. Still more testimony and closing arguments left to consider, but none of the possible verdicts (or a hung jury) will surprise me.
I also thought that de la Rionda was highly effective in his cross of Dr. Di Maio today. I'd found de la Rionda mostly unimpressive previously.
Under cross, Dr. Di Maio acknowledged that Trayvon could have been pulling away from Zimmerman when the shot was fired. He also acknowledged that the abrasions to the back of George's head could have been caused by either the tree branches or concrete.
Another of George's neighbors testified by phone. Nothing of value. IMO.
There's a hearing regarding the admissibility of an animated recreation of events, based on the timing of 911 calls and defense witness testimony (if I'm following correctly). The defense wants the animation presented to the jury.
It's clear, to me, that there's no forensic evidence that can either confirm or refute either sides' version of events - with or without the animated re-enactment. I'd hoped there would be.
The jury is going to be left to deliberate evidence that is open to interpretation and credibility is going to be the deciding factor. IMO. Still more testimony and closing arguments left to consider, but none of the possible verdicts (or a hung jury) will surprise me.