Neoteny wrote:My third point is the main reason he will go to trial. That's not appropriate self defense. If he didn't actually follow Martin, or can otherwise refute the way the recording sounds, I think he'll get off. But please stop kidding everyone that it's "dubious." It sounds bad, and Zimmerman's lawyers have their work cut out for them trying to change perspectives on that.
It sounds like "fucking cold" according to the second link, after this sound engineer clarified it:
I was actually referencing the bit about following Martin. When the operator asked if Zimmerman was following him, he said "yeah." Sorry for any confusion. I've mentioned I don't think Zimmerman was out, er, vermin-hunting. Also, it's bizarre to me that anyone still uses that particular slur. It's the twentyfirstmotherfuckincentury.
Classic pawn response. You still refer to the edited 911 tape? silly.....
Then.....as Neo would love to ignore, the operator said "We don't need to you do that sir" And Zimmerman said "OKAY"
There was no F'n slur! for the last time!
But he kept following him. And then events got to the point where Zimmerman shot him. Is "coon" even a slur anymore? The answer is probably yes, but I can't help thinking it'd elicit the same reaction as calling a white man "ofay." A curious one.
Neoteny wrote:My third point is the main reason he will go to trial. That's not appropriate self defense. If he didn't actually follow Martin, or can otherwise refute the way the recording sounds, I think he'll get off. But please stop kidding everyone that it's "dubious." It sounds bad, and Zimmerman's lawyers have their work cut out for them trying to change perspectives on that.
It sounds like "fucking cold" according to the second link, after this sound engineer clarified it:
I was actually referencing the bit about following Martin. When the operator asked if Zimmerman was following him, he said "yeah." Sorry for any confusion. I've mentioned I don't think Zimmerman was out, er, vermin-hunting. Also, it's bizarre to me that anyone still uses that particular slur. It's the twentyfirstmotherfuckincentury.
Classic pawn response. You still refer to the edited 911 tape? silly.....
Then.....as Neo would love to ignore, the operator said "We don't need to you do that sir" And Zimmerman said "OKAY"
You have to ignore a lot to make that post, but that is not a surprise. If you want to point out people for using words like "the blacks" then you keep my name out of it because I never said such a thing. Get your blame straight. Sure, I have been all about the media. Is there 1 freakin person here who thinks this isn't a media created frenzy That thinks the media acted responsibly? Why you stickin up for the media?
This isn't about me or Nightstrike or anyone else, who is just making observations and noting all the lies that have been told. The media made it racial. Is that really something our society should ignore?
The only thing that was racially motivated was the media's handling of the case over the first 30 days. Of course, if you initiate racial motivation, and point certain races out, you are going to get a response. Looking at the response only is excusing the instigators. But I already knew you would do that so no surprise there.
A response does not justify the initiation. A response is legitimate.
What people care about is the right to defend themselves. I and many others have said, if he is guilty, lock his ass up. It looks like he was defending himself, as well as a few pieces of evidence that looks like he was in the wrong in a few ways before the scuffle ensued.
You want to call me overzealous for showing a picture that "trayvon-supporters" have long denied existed? What you really want is to attack me for proving those people wrong by showing the bloody head picture, which somehow makes me a supporter of Zimmerman.
As for all your racist bullshit, why don't you look at your own childish race posts, that were reported as racist.
If you want to look away or ignore who it is that is blowing this out of proportion, go ahead. I am not surprised by that either. You can sit there and pretend that racial slurs were not imagined on the airwaves for months, and the word "C%&n" was not played over and over and over and over again, and that certain leaders weren't threatening "escalation", ceartin "bounties" were not placed, and certain people were not tweeting addresses, and certain presidents were not making comments about how Trayvon "looks" rather than calling for calm, or that certain leaders were not calling for a race war, or that certain congresswomen were not telling lies to the congressional records, or that certain NBA teams are not participating with adding fuel to the fire, or that certain media pawns have not been spun and are still waiting for gravity to take over. You can sit there and pretend that hate crimes are not being committed in the name of Trayvon, and that people aren't laying in the hospital right now for being the wrong color, and solely racially motivated by the media from the start.
This isn't overboard.....if you ignore it......
Oh Lordy. Sometimes I want to give you the benefit of the doubt. I tried it again. It was sorta weird, but I really tried. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Mr. Scotty really does just care about honest reporting. I agree with that sentiment. Hell, most of us do. Nobody really ever gets the warm fuzzies by praising the media, which is a shame, since they are supposed to be on our side. "So," I thought, "to test this, let me do this scientifically." When I think of media created spectacles, my first thought is "Climate gate." It was an attack on science, so it's an issue that I feel deeply about. Surely, this crusader for balanced media would be the first to condemn the bias demonstrated by right-leaning media outlets. Turns out, if you search for that thread and Phatscotty's comments in it, you find... wait... that can't be right... our beloved Phatscotty conned by the media rage against a complete non-issue? What is the world coming to?!
Ok, so, seriously, by show of hands, who was surprised by that Shyamalonesque twist? Not I.
So, Phat. It's come come down to this. I have no issue with you railing against the media. I mean, I sort of find it humorous that you complain about the liberal media by constantly, I don't even want know how often, posting an image originally broken by ABC News. It's only a little funny though, because their motive is pretty clear. Money. Just like every media outlet, they want to get the story first, and they want to get the story that will get them the most attention. An unarmed minor was shot in the street. Good TV. The prosecutor is not pressing charges. Even better. A race difference between the shooter and the victim? I smell ratings pie. Retaliatory threats and assaults? Well, that happens with any high profile case. Put it on the ticker.
Is this what anyone really wants? Obviously, yes, otherwise they'd stop doing it. Is this what we should want? Obviously not. But, the media's an easy target. Anyone with half a brain wishes for a more balanced media, and knows it will never happen. I'm after something more interesting.
How does Phatscotty choose which media bias to expose? The obvious answer is the ones that speak to his bias. What sort of bias do we find? Shaming the deceased. Unrelenting defense of the accused. Implicit and explicit complaints of racism. You did not say "the blacks" but you are guilty of your own racist commentary. Indeed, as I've alluded to, your very focus on this issue is rather telling. And your complaints of the media racializing it are even more damning. Our modern culture was born out of the flames of racial tension. The wounds are deep. And if every media outlet kept quiet on it, I guarantee there still would have been a social, racially-charged backlash. I mean, it's just Florida, but it's still the south. This sort of worry is very pervasive.
But no. Those brown folks will surely be whipped up into a primal rage by the liberal media. Because they can't think for themselves. Can't they? No, not like Phatscotty. Scott knows where his biases are. He watches MSNBC and CNN so he can get the full picture. The people who watch TV obviously can't make decisions with regard to what to believe, and who to trust. Maybe you should start your own media empire, Scott. One based on reliable, honest reporting. I wish you luck on your endeavor.
So, you can ignore my posts all you want. You're good at that. My feelings aren't hurt. They aren't hurt by the thought of my posts getting reported either. Because I stand by everything I say, whether you or anyone else like it or not. I think you're racist, or at the very least strongly prejudiced, and I think your media criticisms are hypocritical.
When Zimmerman said "Okay," somehow that magically justifies the original following. Somehow that guarantees that he stopped. Maybe he did. But you are showing your bias, Scott. And it's not a pretty one.
Why don't you post more pictures of black people gripping their dicks. You seem pretty good at that sort of thing.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
My favorite part is how Phatscotty claims that people who cross lines are completely not responsible for their actions because he can always find an instigator somewhere to blame it on. And of course, Phatscotty and his buddies never do any provocation of their own, so they're completely blameless innocent babies who just flip out and flame people constantly.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
Also, anyone else who missed the bond hearing, LOTS of information here. You might even get sick of hearing "there is no evidence that suggests/supports that"
Also, is this thread title meant to highlight that one guy sounds white "Zimmerman" and one guy sounds black "Trayvon". Why not consistency in the names? Go both first or both last?
I know Phatscotty loves to pretend like he's not biased, but even his thread titles show the slant he takes his threads.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
I'm glad you mentioned that, pimpdave. It's understandable that you've missed it in this thread, since a majority of the posts are just a bloody scalp, but this has actually been brought to Phatscotty's attention multiple times, and I don't think he has actually commented on it. I do recall someone, Night Strike, I believe, blathering about how Zimmerman is an uncommon name, but Martin is so common that nobody would know about whom he's referring. Even in a thread with a direct reference in the title. Even when it's one of the most talked about news stories in the US at the moment.
Phatscotty, did I miss your comment on that, or should I continue using this fact as further evidence of your racism?
Last edited by Neoteny on Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Maybe not in bumblefuck hick stupid racist shitsville USA, but Zimmerman is a pretty common name in New York.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
pimpdave wrote:Also, is this thread title meant to highlight that one guy sounds white "Zimmerman" and one guy sounds black "Trayvon". Why not consistency in the names? Go both first or both last?
I know Phatscotty loves to pretend like he's not biased, but even his thread titles show the slant he takes his threads.
It doesn't matter what Zimmerman's name "sounds like". You should know this better than anyone with your daily spamming of racist charges. We don't judge people by how they look or how their name sounds. You are now the Hypocrite King.
Symmetry wrote:Can he not be considered hispanic because his father was white? Or can he not be called white because his mother was hispanic?
Great question. I wonder what our first African American president would say (or should I say our 44th white president)?
Symmetry wrote:What is the right racial term for Mr. Zimmerman that the media should apologize for not acknowledging?
There is no right racial term. They shouldn't have called him white or Hispanic. What they should have said, as they say in 99% of the other times this happens, some guy shot and killed some other guy.
Symmetry wrote:How would you classify him by race?
I wouldn't classify him by race (more on that below... and, frankly, 50 pages ago, but we have short memories don't we?)
As I said pages ago, this was a media-created news story (similar to how Drudge is creating news stories now). This kind of stuff happens all the time, it doesn't get reported, the national media decided to pick this Trayvon story and they called the killer white. Why did they call him white? I'm cynical. They called him white to create the media shitstorm. Here's the progression:
(1) Find story of black kid getting killed. (2) Call killer white. (3) Get president to comment. (4) Profit.
I watch the local news; they rarely, if ever, refer to the victim or alleged perpetrator by race, color, or creed. So, again, we get into that debate we had 50 pages ago where I accuse people of using this story to advance political or monetary agendas and you, Natty, PS, and Night Strike get angry because you're caught up in the furor.
That seems a little evasive dude. You specifically said that the media used "the wrong racial term", I don't think it's unreasonable for me to think that you had in mind a "right" racial term.
thegreekdog wrote:Yes, that is true. I still haven't heard any media member apologize or even acknowledge that he or she used the wrong racial term to describe Zimmerman.
I assume you're not lambasting the media outlets who describe him as hispanic with this, or applying this level of critique to conservative posters who describe him as hispanic.
Although, I have to say, I'm not surprised that you brought Obama into this.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Although, I have to say, I'm not surprised that you brought Obama into this.
Obama brought himself into it.
Pretty sure he hasn't posted so far in this discussion. I understand your general point, but it's not related to the discussion that I've been having with TGD. I appreciate that my posts have been fairly well mangled, but if you start from the post this line of questioning comes from, you might see the question in a different light.
I can understand the knee-jerk "Obama!" stuff, but it's not really what I was talking about was it?
You're usually pretty straight-up on this kind of stuff, so I hope you'll look at the context rather than an excerpt of a reply to a reply in which my original comments have been mysteriously expunged.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Although, I have to say, I'm not surprised that you brought Obama into this.
Obama brought himself into it.
Pretty sure he hasn't posted so far in this discussion. I understand your general point, but it's not related to the discussion that I've been having with TGD. I appreciate that my posts have been fairly well mangled, but if you start from the post this line of questioning comes from, you might see the question in a different light.
I can understand the knee-jerk "Obama!" stuff, but it's not really what I was talking about was it?
You're usually pretty straight-up on this kind of stuff, so I hope you'll look at the context rather than an excerpt of a reply to a reply in which my original comments have been mysteriously expunged.
TGD only included a timeline about how race has defined this narrative, and that included Obama saying "If I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon." So of course that fit into his answer about a racial agenda. If Obama hadn't commented on the story, or not in that manner, it wouldn't have become part of the narrative.
Symmetry wrote:Although, I have to say, I'm not surprised that you brought Obama into this.
Obama brought himself into it.
Pretty sure he hasn't posted so far in this discussion. I understand your general point, but it's not related to the discussion that I've been having with TGD. I appreciate that my posts have been fairly well mangled, but if you start from the post this line of questioning comes from, you might see the question in a different light.
I can understand the knee-jerk "Obama!" stuff, but it's not really what I was talking about was it?
You're usually pretty straight-up on this kind of stuff, so I hope you'll look at the context rather than an excerpt of a reply to a reply in which my original comments have been mysteriously expunged.
TGD only included a timeline about how race has defined this narrative, and that included Obama saying "If I had a son, he would have looked like Trayvon." So of course that fit into his answer about a racial agenda. If Obama hadn't commented on the story, or not in that manner, it wouldn't have become part of the narrative.
Still not part of the conversation you're replying to. You've latched on to the Obama mention (no surprise, you're a fairly conservative poster) and missed the greater part of the conversation. Would you care to join in? Or just try to blame Obama in some tangential way?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Still not part of the conversation you're replying to. You've latched on to the Obama mention (no surprise, you're a fairly conservative poster) and missed the greater part of the conversation. Would you care to join in? Or just try to blame Obama in some tangential way?
I was just answering your comment about not being surprised that TGD brought Obama into the discussion. All I said was that Obama brought himself into the conversation over race because he made a racial (not racist) statement. If you disagree, then you either state your disagreement over the comment or ignore the comment.
As for your question, Zimmerman is Hispanic. White Hispanic is not a term that has been used in this country, and the only reason it was used was because the media tried to characterize him as white but then realized he wasn't. Even on race questionnaires the options include "White (not Hispanic)" and "Hispanic". There is no option for "White Hispanic". The media only made up the term because they wanted to make sure to push a certain narrative even though the facts didn't support their narrative.
Symmetry wrote:Still not part of the conversation you're replying to. You've latched on to the Obama mention (no surprise, you're a fairly conservative poster) and missed the greater part of the conversation. Would you care to join in? Or just try to blame Obama in some tangential way?
I was just answering your comment about not being surprised that TGD brought Obama into the discussion. All I said was that Obama brought himself into the conversation over race because he made a racial (not racist) statement. If you disagree, then you either state your disagreement over the comment or ignore the comment.
As for your question, Zimmerman is Hispanic. White Hispanic is not a term that has been used in this country, and the only reason it was used was because the media tried to characterize him as white but then realized he wasn't. Even on race questionnaires the options include "White (not Hispanic)" and "Hispanic". There is no option for "White Hispanic". The media only made up the term because they wanted to make sure to push a certain narrative even though the facts didn't support their narrative.
Fascinating, so he would have to be racially pure to be described as white? A person with one white parent, and one hispanic parent would be hispanic, and couldn't be described as white?
And further more, a media group (I find it really weird that you say "the media" as if all forms of media agreed on something, but that's your thing) who wasn't sure, but who found out he had a white mother and hispanic father describing him as white-hispanic was somehow a conspiracy? By "the media".
Do you at least see how that might be kind of an odd way to look at things?
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
Symmetry wrote:Fascinating, so he would have to be racially pure to be described as white? A person with one white parent, and one hispanic parent would be hispanic, and couldn't be described as white?
And further more, a media group (I find it really weird that you say "the media" as if all forms of media agreed on something, but that's your thing) who wasn't sure, but who found out he had a white mother and hispanic father describing him as white-hispanic was somehow a conspiracy? By "the media".
Do you at least see how that might be kind of an odd way to look at things?
Maybe if you actually lived in the US, you would know what you're talking about. No one uses the term "White Hispanic". Ever. If a person is mixed-race, they are usually referred to as which traits are more dominant. So Zimmerman is Hispanic and Obama is black. Even then, some people who are more than 50% white may still classify themselves as their minority race because society has decided that people who are races other than white deserve special privileges in hiring, scholarships, etc. (affirmative action).
Symmetry wrote:Fascinating, so he would have to be racially pure to be described as white? A person with one white parent, and one hispanic parent would be hispanic, and couldn't be described as white?
And further more, a media group (I find it really weird that you say "the media" as if all forms of media agreed on something, but that's your thing) who wasn't sure, but who found out he had a white mother and hispanic father describing him as white-hispanic was somehow a conspiracy? By "the media".
Do you at least see how that might be kind of an odd way to look at things?
Maybe if you actually lived in the US, you would know what you're talking about. No one uses the term "White Hispanic". Ever. If a person is mixed-race, they are usually referred to as which traits are more dominant. So Zimmerman is Hispanic and Obama is black. Even then, some people who are more than 50% white may still classify themselves as their minority race because society has decided that people who are races other than white deserve special privileges in hiring, scholarships, etc. (affirmative action).
Oh dear, we're back to the "You're not American, you wouldn't understand" even though your position is a point of controversy in the US. So anyway, 50% hispanic, 50% white. equates to hispanic dominance?
And journalists should, what, have consulted racial tick boxes on forms for what is acceptable? Heads up, "Negro" was on the US 2010 Census form:
Symmetry wrote:Fascinating, so he would have to be racially pure to be described as white? A person with one white parent, and one hispanic parent would be hispanic, and couldn't be described as white?
And further more, a media group (I find it really weird that you say "the media" as if all forms of media agreed on something, but that's your thing) who wasn't sure, but who found out he had a white mother and hispanic father describing him as white-hispanic was somehow a conspiracy? By "the media".
Do you at least see how that might be kind of an odd way to look at things?
Maybe if you actually lived in the US, you would know what you're talking about. No one uses the term "White Hispanic". Ever. If a person is mixed-race, they are usually referred to as which traits are more dominant. So Zimmerman is Hispanic and Obama is black. Even then, some people who are more than 50% white may still classify themselves as their minority race because society has decided that people who are races other than white deserve special privileges in hiring, scholarships, etc. (affirmative action).
Oh dear, we're back to the "You're not American, you wouldn't understand" even though your position is a point of controversy in the US. So anyway, 50% hispanic, 50% white. equates to hispanic dominance?
Where's the controversy in the US over my comment?
Symmetry wrote:And journalists should, what, have consulted racial tick boxes on forms for what is acceptable? Heads up, "Negro" was on the US 2010 Census form:
Presumably you wouldn't object to a newspaper using this officially recognised term for any and all black people in their reports.
White-Hispanic seems fine to me.
It may seem fine to you, but it's never used in the US. And it's not like they started using it when first reporting the story. They first reported that Zimmerman was white.
By the way, the problem with that tick box is not the term "negro". The problem is equating black or negro with African-American. One can be black without being African-American, and one can be African-American without being black. African-American is not a race.
Symmetry wrote:Fascinating, so he would have to be racially pure to be described as white? A person with one white parent, and one hispanic parent would be hispanic, and couldn't be described as white?
And further more, a media group (I find it really weird that you say "the media" as if all forms of media agreed on something, but that's your thing) who wasn't sure, but who found out he had a white mother and hispanic father describing him as white-hispanic was somehow a conspiracy? By "the media".
Do you at least see how that might be kind of an odd way to look at things?
Maybe if you actually lived in the US, you would know what you're talking about. No one uses the term "White Hispanic". Ever. If a person is mixed-race, they are usually referred to as which traits are more dominant. So Zimmerman is Hispanic and Obama is black. Even then, some people who are more than 50% white may still classify themselves as their minority race because society has decided that people who are races other than white deserve special privileges in hiring, scholarships, etc. (affirmative action).
Oh dear, we're back to the "You're not American, you wouldn't understand" even though your position is a point of controversy in the US. So anyway, 50% hispanic, 50% white. equates to hispanic dominance?
Where's the controversy in the US over my comment?
Symmetry wrote:And journalists should, what, have consulted racial tick boxes on forms for what is acceptable? Heads up, "Negro" was on the US 2010 Census form:
Presumably you wouldn't object to a newspaper using this officially recognised term for any and all black people in their reports.
White-Hispanic seems fine to me.
It may seem fine to you, but it's never used in the US. And it's not like they started using it when first reporting the story. They first reported that Zimmerman was white.
By the way, the problem with that tick box is not the term "negro". The problem is equating black or negro with African-American. One can be black without being African-American, and one can be African-American without being black. African-American is not a race.
Look, dude, do you realise that "the media" is not a consistent coherent entity controlled by a liberal super-conscious?
Getting over that first hurdle will be the first great leap toward understanding my posts, and to understanding why I find it vaguely ridiculous that you or TGD, or any number of other conservative leaning posters who say that "the media" should apologise, or that "the media" misrepresented something.
So accepting that first point, I personally never saw Zimmerman represented as "white". "White-Hispanic", sure, but that's understandable. the arguments against that being accurate are at best weak, and at worst weirdly racist- if he's not mostly white he should be classified under another racial group? Nah. White-Hispanic was fair and accurate.
When I first came in on this story on these threads, one of my first questions was, who was describing Zimmerman as "white"? I asked you and Scotty, I think. The best answer I could get was a bunch of dudes on a youtube channel who used the term "White-Hispanic".
So where is the anger toward "the media" directed? And who is "the media"? Who are "they" in your posts?
You have a conspiracy with no conspirators.
the world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than from those who actually commit it- Albert Einstein
This is from a different opinion, but it points out some key things that are going to matter in the trial, if there is one.
After the arrest of George Zimmerman, Special Prosecutor Angela Corey stated that she had special evidence that promoted her to charge George Zimmerman with the murder of 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, but the prosecutor has remained mum on exactly what the boxes of evidence contain.
The time will soon come when Corey is required by law to release the evidence, and it may quickly change the course of the George Zimmerman's murder trial.
The Orlando Sentinel released an article today detailing how the mystery evidence, that is to be released within the next few days, will change the course of the trial.
According to the article, the evidence released will fall into the following categories: crime-scene evidence, witness statements, Autopsy Reports and crime lab reports.
As reported by the Orlando Sentinel:
Crime-scene evidence
That includes anything found at the scene where the two came into contact and the sidewalk where Zimmerman, a Sanford Neighborhood Watch volunteer, fatally shot the unarmed black teenager Feb. 26.
Local lawyers say some of the evidence they're most eager to see are photos or anything else that documents Zimmerman's injuries or their absence.
Sanford police took photos of the defendant that night. They should be in the evidence soon to be released.
A security-camera video, shot from long range at Sanford's police headquarters, showed Zimmerman with no obvious signs of injury, but when ABC News enhanced it, there appeared to be a gash on the back of his head.
Other important pieces of evidence in this category include the bullet casing from the fatal shot and any markings from the grass or sidewalk that might hint at how violent the fight was and who had the upper hand.
Witness statements
The most important witness in the case may be Zimmerman. According to prosecutor Bernie de la Rionda, the defendant gave five statements to authorities. Police described one as a re-enactment.
"I want to know," said former Seminole County prosecutor Donna Goerner, "exactly what did he say."
"If his statements have a lot of inconsistencies in them," said Orlando criminal-defense attorney David Fussell, "then that can be problematic for the defense."
Autopsy results
Trayvon died of a single gunshot wound to the chest, but the results of his autopsy should reveal how close the gun was when it went off and the bullet's trajectory, lawyers said.
Dale Gilbreath, a prosecution investigator, testified there was "stippling" around the entry wound, tiny gunpowder burns that Fussell said can be found only when the muzzle of a gun is close to the victim, usually an arm's length or less.
By plotting the bullet's trajectory, experts should be able to estimate the gun's relative position when it was fired, he said.
More important, said Goerner, are other marks on Trayvon's body, "signs of a struggle … signs of bruising."
If Zimmerman is telling the truth and Trayvon had him pinned to the ground and was beating him, the teenager's body should have cuts or bruises consistent with that, she said.
Crime-lab results
Police gathered Trayvon's and Zimmerman's clothes, and they have likely been analyzed for dirt, grass, blood and DNA by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
The presence of any of those things would lend credence to Zimmerman's account that there had been a fight and the pair wound up on the ground, said Pollack.
If Zimmerman told the truth and Trayvon was on top, there's a strong likelihood that the teenager's blood and DNA would be on Zimmerman's clothes.
There is no telling what types of evidence can be brought out in the case against George Zimmerman, but prosecutors are legally required to first share evidence with the defense and then information becomes public.
