Open Thread on Zimmerman Trial

  • Thread starter Thread starter Seamus_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
kelvinf said:
I believe he is an expert. Just not good at presenting. What is important are the facts. He presented in details how Trayvon died. Very graphic.
Click to expand...
What relevance does how long it took Martin to die have to this case?
 
rlg94086 said:
I didn’t say he didn’t use many books. 🤷

I said he referred to a book written by the Defense’s expert witness. Is that not true?
Click to expand...
He made mention of books many times. I haven’t yet come across the part where he gave a specific name of a book. Still watching.
 
Dawnia said:
Of course he’s an expert. He wouldn’t have been hired for his job if he wasn’t. But, I can’t imagine that this was his first time testifying, so you’d think he would have a better grasp on how it all works. 🤷

Regardless, the jury gets to hear more than one expert opinion and has to decide who is more credible. If the Defense’s witness is more confident in his answers and contradicts Boa’s testimony, he could come across as more credible. Bao continually referred to relying on other sources and not on his own experience or training. He even testified that he wasn’t relying on his training or experience.
Click to expand...
He responded to many different questions: there were times when he stressed his opinion/experience and there were times when he said he did further research and consulted with other experts. Sounds very professional to me.
 
rlg94086 said:
He also changed his testimony on how long it would take him to die, so the “facts” don’t seem to be clear. You are right…he isn’t good at presenting. All analysis I read says his testimony didn’t help the prosecution. That is also important.
Click to expand...
This guy was very interesting. He repeatedly told both the prosecution and defense the difference between facts and opinions. He said for instance: “Facts: there is no right or wrong. Just true of false”. The defense immediately raised an objection. Regarding opinion, he spoke of opinion as based on facts and life time learning experience. (Very smart guy.) That he changed his opinion shouldn’t be surprising as he said, since it is based on learning and experience. He made reference to the body they examined 3 weeks ago. From that experience, he learnt something new. That made him to change his opinion.

Any person in the field of science should easily understand this, I believe.
 
kelvinf said:
This guy was very interesting. He repeatedly told both the prosecution and defense the difference between facts and opinions. He said for instance: “Facts: there is no right or wrong. Just true of false”. The defense immediately raised an objection. Regarding opinion, he spoke of opinion as based on facts and life time learning experience. (Very smart guy.) That he changed his opinion shouldn’t be surprising as he said, since it is based on learning and experience. He made reference to the body they examined 3 weeks ago. From that experience, he learnt something new. That made him to change his opinion.

Any person in the field of science should easily understand this, I believe.
Click to expand...
That science isn’t exact, and therefore his opinions aren’t exact? Sure. So, that doesn’t help prosecution much. Fact: his body was found in a certain position. Opinion: he couldn’t have moved into that position because he died within 3 minutes. Opinion: he could have moved into that position because he died within 10 minutes.

Opinion: The guy was a disaster for the prosecution, regardless of how smart and interesting he may be. 😉
 
There are certain things that cannot be determined. So no fact. E.g. the shooting range. “Nobody can use the eye to measure the range. Impossible” he said. So that is based on opinion. “Experience, you mean?”, prosecution asked.
 
rlg94086 said:
That science isn’t exact, and therefore his opinions aren’t exact? Sure. So, that doesn’t help prosecution much. Fact: his body was found in a certain position. Opinion: he couldn’t have moved into that position because he died within 3 minutes. Opinion: he could have moved into that position because he died within 10 minutes.

Opinion: The guy was a disaster for the prosecution, regardless of how smart and interesting he may be. 😉
Click to expand...
Yep, your opinion.
 
kelvinf said:
This guy was very interesting. He repeatedly told both the prosecution and defense the difference between facts and opinions. He said for instance: “Facts: there is no right or wrong. Just true of false”. The defense immediately raised an objection. Regarding opinion, he spoke of opinion as based on facts and life time learning experience. (Very smart guy.) That he changed his opinion shouldn’t be surprising as he said, since it is based on learning and experience. He made reference to the body they examined 3 weeks ago. From that experience, he learnt something new. That made him to change his opinion.

Any person in the field of science should easily understand this, I believe.
Click to expand...
Well, to me he came off as kind of a detached manager of his department. Not a good grasp on some of the specifics of why or why not certain things were done. Pictures not taken, why there weren’t nail clippings, why only one stick for all the nails. His statement that clothes should only be put in paper bags and anyone who put them in plastic bags should be fired. Yet the DNA lab tech testified she received the clothes from the coroner in plastic bags. I don’t know if any of that really matters much now, I mean, it may have resulted in a lost opportunity to have gotten some DNA but what would that tell us? It just seems he was running a sloppy lab.

I think the controversy over him changing his mind was that he claimed at times to have told the DA of the change, than said he hadn’t. He went back and forth a few times. Problem being it would have been another instance of the DA not turning over things he knew to the defense as required. Hence, Nelson ended up putting the DA under oath at the bench - without the jury present. But I think the prosecutor was just as surprised by the changed opinions as the defense. Weird, but I don’t think it really impeaches the ME as a witness or damages his credibility. The facts he was testifying too really weren’t a surprise to anyone.
 
MODERATOR NOTICE

Please charitably discuss the issues not each other
 
estesbob said:
What relevance does how long it took Martin to die have to this case?
Click to expand...
Well, one of the issues is that Zimmerman claimed that after shooting Martin, Martin rolled off of him laying facedown. Zimmerman says he got on top of him and held his hands away from his body. Martin’s body however, had his hands under him when the police/other folks arrived on scene. So, if Martin was dead in 1 or 2 minutes while Zimmerman was on top of him-- how did his hands get under him? If Martin was actually still alive after Zimmerman got off him- Martin could have moved his hands under himself.

Again, as in my other post my impression was the big deal in court was more the change of opinion as a surprise to all, combined with the ME saying he’d met with the prosecutor the day before and thought he had, maybe hadn’t, maybe had told the prosecutor yesterday.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Well, to me he came off as kind of a detached manager of his department. Not a good grasp on some of the specifics of why or why not certain things were done. Pictures not taken, why there weren’t nail clippings, why only one stick for all the nails. His statement that clothes should only be put in paper bags and anyone who put them in plastic bags should be fired. Yet the DNA lab tech testified she received the clothes from the coroner in plastic bags. I don’t know if any of that really matters much now, I mean, it may have resulted in a lost opportunity to have gotten some DNA but what would that tell us? It just seems he was running a sloppy lab.

I think the controversy over him changing his mind was that he claimed at times to have told the DA of the change, than said he hadn’t. He went back and forth a few times. Problem being it would have been another instance of the DA not turning over things he knew to the defense as required. Hence, Nelson ended up putting the DA under oath at the bench - without the jury present. But I think the prosecutor was just as surprised by the changed opinions as the defense. Weird, but I don’t think it really impeaches the ME as a witness or damages his credibility. The facts he was testifying too really weren’t a surprise to anyone.
Click to expand...
The reason paper bags were used in this case was because the clothing was wet.The ME was pointing out that if plastic had been used it would be a cause for firing. The clothing was probably changed to a plastic bag, then being dry, before being sent to the DNA lab.
 
styrgwillidar said:
Well, to me he came off as kind of a detached manager of his department. Not a good grasp on some of the specifics of why or why not certain things were done. Pictures not taken, why there weren’t nail clippings, why only one stick for all the nails. His statement that clothes should only be put in paper bags and anyone who put them in plastic bags should be fired. Yet the DNA lab tech testified she received the clothes from the coroner in plastic bags. I don’t know if any of that really matters much now, I mean, it may have resulted in a lost opportunity to have gotten some DNA but what would that tell us? It just seems he was running a sloppy lab.

I think the controversy over him changing his mind was that he claimed at times to have told the DA of the change, than said he hadn’t. He went back and forth a few times. Problem being it would have been another instance of the DA not turning over things he knew to the defense as required. Hence, Nelson ended up putting the DA under oath at the bench - without the jury present. But I think the prosecutor was just as surprised by the changed opinions as the defense. Weird, but I don’t think it really impeaches the ME as a witness or damages his credibility. The facts he was testifying too really weren’t a surprise to anyone.
Click to expand...
Well, for me, he came across to me like a police commission who delegates tasks to his assistant. Hence they both work on different cases. He stressed that he had confidence in his team and gave a practical example of how they all work at the same time. So he is not concerned with what the others are doing when he himself is examining a body.

Many of the questions the defense was asking were just irrelevant.
 
kelvinf said:
Well, for me, he came across to me like a police commission who delegates tasks to his assistant. Hence they both work on different cases. He stressed that he had confidence in his team and gave a practical example of how they all work at the same time. So he is not concerned with what the others are doing when he himself is examining a body.

Many of the questions the defense was asking were just irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Agree on the delegation, but he didn’t seem to have much awareness of the how/what/where of going about their tasks. Where I work we’re accountable for our subordinates efforts- they mess up and we get held accountable along with them. It can tend to push one towards micro-management. He just seemed more detached than the supervisors in my line of work.

I’ve kind of thought that about both sides through the whole trial. A lot of-- hey look, a squirrel!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top