Posted: Jul 16, 2013 10:48 am
Warren Dew wrote:Weaver wrote:Pebble wrote:The reported interaction as recorded on Trayvor Martin's autopsy report suggests a rather different series of events when compared to Zimmerman's later account. Also shooting someone directly 'front to back' is more consistent with this initial account than some one on their back on the ground while shooting someone above them.
" At approximately 1910 hours on 02/26/2012, 911 dispatchers received a call from a resident of the complex. The resident advised of a B/M who was at the complex between the townhouses. The caller stated that the male should not have been in the area and he observed the male while walking his neighborhood watch. Shortly after the call the resident confronted the male and the two began to physically fight. Witnesses observed the two fighting in the yard and then the resident fired a handgun at the male striking him in the chest. The male fell to the ground. SPD and SPF arrived on the scene. The male was pronounced dead at 1930 hours."
The Medical Examiner who did the autopsy did very poorly on the stand, and was convincingly refuted by an expert witness brought in by the defense, who showed that in his professional opinion the wounds were consistent with Martin being on top of Zimmerman when the round was fired.
Really - you have to acknowledge everything that came out at trial, not just the prosecution side of things.
Not to mention that the paragraph quoted by Pebble talks about things that are clearly outside the expertise of a medical examiner. The medical examiner should be talking about the body, not about what happened during a fight he wasn't present for.
It makes it sound like the medical examiner started with hearsay reports on what happened, and did his examination on that basis - not very good practice.
Bollox - that will be the initial testimony of the duty officer. It is used as the starting senario and it is imperative that the postmortem accounts for the known 'facts' - thus for example if someone 'died' in a fire but no evidence of tissue reaction to heat or inhalation is found then those are relevant findings. Doing a PM is not something carried out in isolation from the background data. If that data is subsequently shown to be incorrect, then the medical examiner should be appraised of this and have the opportunity to reconsider whether his conclusions are still valid. It would appear that the defence did this but not the prosecution.