Zimmerman Trial Live Feed - Day Seven

[spookyturtle 9,465]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/439026-zimmerman-trial-live-feed-day-six/?p=6339788

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I'm just an impartial juror assuming the accused is innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Thus far they haven't. I have things that I question, and maybe more evidence will come out as the trial continues.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/439026-zimmerman-trial-live-feed-day-six/?p=6339788

Okay. Again. Same thing. First sentence stipulates that Zimmermann took a blow from Martin to the nose. Next offers a theory how the lacerations on the back of his head came about - a theory, by the way, that's more realistic than the uncorroborated head smashing against concrete that Zimmermann has claimed. That is according to the ME that testified today.

The remainder of the post discusses the discrepancies between the account offered by Zimmermann and the evidence as it presented itself at the scene. Again, for the most part, my points have been supported by the testimony offered by the ME on the stand today.

He may have taken one on the nose. He may have fallen and banged his head. What do I know?

What I do know is that there's a 30 to 50 feet gap between Zimmermann's account of events and Martin's dead body. That's a pretty big gap. That gap clearly suggests that he was not attacked by Martin the way he says he was. And then there's the issue of the head wounds not matching the account of having his head bashed into the sidewalk to the point where he felt he'd pass out. And then there's the suffocation that - given the bloody nose - would have to leave traces of Zimmermann's blood on Martin's hands ad/or sleeves. None there. Makes no sense.

Still not a shred of evidence that I said Martin had no injuries. Not a shred of evidence that I said Martin did not hit Zimmermann. Not a shred of evidence that I claimed Zimmermann's injuries came out of nowhere.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Okay. Again. Same thing. First sentence stipulates that Zimmermann took a blow from Martin to the nose. Next offers a theory how the lacerations on the back of his head came about - a theory, by the way, that's more realistic than the uncorroborated head smashing against concrete that Zimmermann has claimed. That is according to the ME that testified today.

The remainder of the post discusses the discrepancies between the account offered by Zimmermann and the evidence as it presented itself at the scene. Again, for the most part, my points have been supported by the testimony offered by the ME on the stand today.

Still not a shred of evidence that I said Martin had no injuries. Not a shred of evidence that I said Martin did not hit Zimmermann. Not a shred of evidence that I claimed Zimmermann's injuries came out of nowhere.

Ok, you win big guy. Feel better?

[RGinWA 816]

Natasha Richardson: Tragic Delays After Her Fatal Fall

By Kathy Ehrich Dowd and Dana Kennedy

03/21/2009 at 12:25 PM EDT

• Facebook
• Tweet

Natasha Richardson

Sylvain Gaboury/FilmMagic

Subscribe to PEOPLE Magazine

Get it now

As Natasha Richardson's loved ones prepare to attend the funeral of the Tony Award-winning actress near her country home in upstate New York, PEOPLE has confirmed new details about the day of her ultimately-deadly fall at a Canadian ski resort – and critical lapses in her care that may have contributed to her death.

Richardson, 45, was on vacation with one of her young sons at Quebec's Mont Tremblant resort March 16 when she fell on a beginner's slope known as Nansen, a run popular for its gentle slopes and forgiving turns. Although her fall may have first appeared minor – she reportedly refused to be taken to hospital at least twice – the head injury she suffered is a type that, if tended to quickly at a qualified trauma center, can often treated successfully – and can just as easily turn fatal if not treated in time.

The New York City medical examiner's office ruled March 19 that Richardson died from blunt trauma to the head, causing massive internal bleeding in the brain. In such cases, blood from a damaged but still-pumping artery can quickly pool in the brain, creating pressure that must be relieved before irreparable damage is caused.

Time of the Essence

Medical experts tell PEOPLE that time is of the essence in increasing the chances of survival. Yet patients and untrained observers often don’t realize the grave danger they are in since patients may experience periods of lucidity during which they can walk and talk – a scenario known as "talk and die."

Yves Coderre, director of operations for Ambulances Radisson, the company that responded to both 911 calls for Richardson on Monday, says nearly four hours elapsed between the actress's tumble and her admission to a local hospital. Coderre, who has reviewed 911 dispatch records, tells PEOPLE a member of the ski patrol summoned the first ambulance to the scene at 12:43 p.m. on Monday, not long after her fall toward the bottom of the run. The ambulance arrived just after 1 p.m. and waited near the bottom of the mountain while a ski patrol member followed protocol by placing Richardson in a toboggan to transport her down the hill.

Coderre, who has been a paramedic for 28 years and a member of a local ski patrol for eight years, said the paramedics in the ambulance saw Richardson whisk by on the sled without stopping. Minutes later, their dispatcher called them and said they were free to go because the actress had refused treatment.

Right to Refuse Care

"They just saw her on the sled for a split second, nothing more," said Coderre, who explained that Richardson was brought to a small clinic at the mountain, rarely staffed by a physician, where a member of the ski patrol and her instructor, a female university student, talked to her.

"The protocol in these situations is that the person is told that she would be wise to seek medical attention but she always has the right to refuse," said Coderre. "The only time a person can be overruled is if she is thought to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol or if she is showing visible signs of head trauma and seems to be intellectually incapacitated in some way."

Skiers are asked to sign a document if they refuse medical treatment. "They'd never let her go without her signing it," said Coderre of Richardson.

Richardson left the clinic still accompanied by her ski instructor and returned to her suite at the nearby luxury hotel where she was staying. Once there, her condition began to deteriorate. "She came back to the hotel [after the accident] and the instructor was right with her and took her to the room," a source tells PEOPLE.

Still Lucid

"The instructor called the [hotel's] general manager and said Richardson had a headache and she was not feeling well. The GM went to see her and said she was going to call an ambulance. Richardson said she didn’t need an ambulance or a doctor – and the GM insisted that an ambulance come and get her."

Another call was placed from the hotel to the paramedics at about 3 p.m. and an ambulance arrived nine minutes later, according to Yves Coderre. He says Richardson was still lucid and coherent when she spoke to paramedics, but her condition had worsened and there were signs she might be in danger.

"[The paramedic] saw something that wasn’t right," says Coderre. "He saw some signs indicating her condition was destabilizing. He called ahead to the hospital to let them know of her condition and he put the siren on." Coderre declined to specify what the exact signs were.

The ambulance carrying Richardson left Mont Tremblant at 3:47 p.m. for Centre Hospitalier Laurentian in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts, a small hospital some 25 miles away, where Richardson was stabilized, transferred to an ambulance and began the trip to the trauma center of Sacre-Coeur hospital in Montreal, a distance of 52 miles. She arrived there close to 7 p.m., according to Toronto’s Globe and Mail newspaper.

(Coderre’s timeline conflicts with a press release issued by the ski resort Tuesday stating that medics were called to Richardson’s hotel room about an hour after her fall. The resort did not respond to an email seeking further comment on the sequence of events.)

No Helicopter Available

Why had it taken nearly six hours for the patient to arrive at a facility capable of treating her critical needs?

Witnesses agree that Richardson herself repeatedly declined to be taken to a hospital. But once it became obvious that her condition required it, Quebec's antiquated medical evacuation system played a part: the region has no helicopters to move patients from the field to hospitals in Montreal – a situation that has already stirred controversy in the wake of Richardson’s death.

"Our system isn't set up for traumas and doesn't match what's available in other Canadian cities, let alone in the States," Tarek Razek, director of trauma services for the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal, which represents six of the city’s hospitals, told the Associated Press. Montreal and its suburubs, the second largest urban region in Canada, has a population of more than 3.6 million. Richardson was treated in the intensive care unit at Sacre-Couer and it is believed her husband, Liam Neeson, first saw his wife after her fall there sometime Monday night after abruptly leaving a Toronto film set.

On Tuesday, Richardson was flown from Montreal to New York in dire condition. One report said the actress was seen on a yellow stretcher wrapped in blankets as she made her final journey home with her worried-looking husband by her side. She was admitted to Lenox Hill Hospital in Manhattan and family members held vigil at her bedside. The family announced her death Wednesday evening.

http://www.people.com/people/package/article/0,,20266545_20267163,00.html

More proof that even a light blow to the head can cause death. . The law said FEAR of bodily harm justifies Georges response.

Post the Sonny Bono skiing incident next!

[spookyturtle 9,465]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/439026-zimmerman-trial-live-feed-day-six/?p=6339762

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I'm just an impartial juror assuming the accused is innocent until the prosecution proves otherwise. Thus far they haven't. I have things that I question, and maybe more evidence will come out as the trial continues.

Innocent of what? Zimmerman killed Martin. That is undisputed. Absent providing a reasonable self defense theory justifying the homicide more likely than the theory presented by the prosecution, then the only question the jury will have before them, is did Zimmerman act with an intent to kill Martin without premeditation, or did Zimmerman merely commit an unlawful killing without intending to do so,.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Ok, you win big guy. Feel better?

Just don't attribute statements to me that I did not make.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/topic/439026-zimmerman-trial-live-feed-day-six/?p=6339762

Same statement you linked to earlier. Only this time it's the original.

That rain must have done a good job washing. The sidewalk, Martin's hands, sleeves, and whatever else would have come in contact with Zimmermann's bleeding face and skull during the intense altercation where Martin allegedly covered Zimmermann's mouth and nose to the point that Zimmermann felt he was suffocating. All that and not a drop of blood on the alleged assailant. The rain. Magic rain perhaps. It's close enough to Orlando where magic happens every day, eh?

Keep digging for my saying that Martin had no injuries and that Martin did not inflict the insignificant injuries Zimmermann suffered. Or you may stop digging because what you're looking for doesn't exist.

Edited July 3, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Just don't attribute statements to me that I did not make.

To me it still sounds like that is what you meant.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Okay. Again. Same thing. First sentence stipulates that Zimmermann took a blow from Martin to the nose. Next offers a theory how the lacerations on the back of his head came about - a theory, by the way, that's more realistic than the uncorroborated head smashing against concrete that Zimmermann has claimed. That is according to the ME that testified today.

The remainder of the post discusses the discrepancies between the account offered by Zimmermann and the evidence as it presented itself at the scene. Again, for the most part, my points have been supported by the testimony offered by the ME on the stand today.

Still not a shred of evidence that I said Martin had no injuries. Not a shred of evidence that I said Martin did not hit Zimmermann. Not a shred of evidence that I claimed Zimmermann's injuries came out of nowhere.

It has been a while back but you said it, at teh very beging. .. Two eyewitnesses. You are guilty

[RGinWA 816]

Lets all take a breath and be civil...you're all apart of history in these threads.

Years from now you'll be able to say, "there was this one idiot who started a Zimmerman thread on VJ for every day of that 3 month trial and that caused more dang problems than I ever saw. I kinda miss all those b@stards...well except Gary."

Just kidding Gary...you've made some solid points....for the State. But still solid.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Innocent of what? Zimmerman killed Martin. That is undisputed. Absent providing a reasonable self defense theory justifying the homicide more likely than the theory presented by the prosecution, then the only question the jury will have before them, is did Zimmerman act with an intent to kill Martin without premeditation, or did Zimmerman merely commit an unlawful killing without intending to do so,.

I'm assuming that it was self defense until proven otherwise.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Innocent of what? Zimmerman killed Martin. That is undisputed. Absent providing a reasonable self defense theory justifying the homicide more likely than the theory presented by the prosecution, then the only question the jury will have before them, is did Zimmerman act with an intent to kill Martin without premeditation, or did Zimmerman merely commit an unlawful killing without intending to do so,.

Bingo. The concept of the affirmative defense seems not to have yet sunk in yet. There is no dispute that Martin is dead and that Zimmermann killed him. This isn't about proving that it happened. The question is whether Zimmermann killed the kid with a depraved mind and disregard for human life. If the prosecution can demonstrate that beyond a reasonable doubt, it's murder two. That's an uphill battle. But if the preponderance of the evidence shows that Zimmermann either had no reasonable fear for his life or grave bodily harm or that Zimmermann was in fact the aggressor, then it's manslaughter. That is not that high a bar to clear seeing that Zimmermann walked away with nothing but insignificant injuries.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm assuming that it was self defense until proven otherwise.

What's an affirmative defense?

An affirmative defense is a justification for the defendant having committed the accused crime. It differs from other defenses because the defendant admits that he did, in fact, break the law. He is simply arguing that he has a good reason for having done so, and therefore should be excused from all criminal liability.

In criminal trials, the most common affirmative defenses include self-defense, defense of others and insanity. Duress, entrapment and involuntary intoxication are used less often.

To see how one of these defenses works, let's look at the pending Trayvon Martin trial. George Zimmerman will undoubtedly argue that he acted in self-defense as defined by Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law. There's absolutely no question that he killed Martin. If he can successfully prove he acted in self-defense, the law says he cannot be convicted of murder. He will go free.

It has been a while back but you said it, at teh very beging. .. Two eyewitnesses. You are guilty

Bull. I did not make such statements.

To me it still sounds like that is what you meant.

If that is what I meant, then that is what I would have said. I didn't. Now let it rest.