Also in this playlist...
This transcript is automatically generated
Oh for the defense -- let's listen to a clip from him earlier today this is not doctor -- to mile and he's testifying.
About what he believes the evidence shows about what the placement of the gun at the time of the shooting let's take a listen this is a sound -- -- And this is dictated that the gun was not against -- here.
It was not -- in half inch away.
It was more than an inch and based upon the concentration.
Of the marks.
And the size of -- it's my opinion that Muslim and done in this case -- -- two to four inches away.
From this -- so.
-- Barrel the -- Was against the clothing.
Among Republicans probably but the -- itself.
Have to be two to four inches away from the -- At the time.
Missed the mark which.
They have a right there Tom is our former NYPD detective here.
On sat with us what what does this tell you that he believes this medical expert believes that the gun was two to four inches away from the body and also that the shirt was -- was pulled away.
Quality it shows me that they could have been a struggle going on and that basically the gun was fired in very close proximity her two inches.
That's very very close that's not shooting at someone as he's coming -- you.
From a distance it's close what we would call the police -- close combat firing.
So that is that bolsters the defense's argument that this -- -- That's correct now.
I don't visit as a cop when you talk close combat -- -- to -- to put that you have him.
To push the suspect with the president William -- the fire we.
Away from you -- -- your body slightly to be able fire that's what they -- close combat this is beyond close combat.
This is right up against each yeah almost hand hand in hand time and I am down a -- so how would you use us as they criminal defense attorney will.
-- The expert himself has provided the best possible explanation of what he's saying he said in no uncertain terms that his.
Testimony is consistent with him and accountants things in the woman's right he's directly ball -- -- -- testimony.
To -- point.
I think we can all agree that Rick's right in general experts are hired guns they're mercenaries.
They're gonna say whatever you want them to say and that's true in any track any trial.
But in a case like this it almost entirely circumstantial case where evidence of what actually happened that night.
-- very very scarce.
Forensic evidence takes on a crucial if not determinative role in the case and to the extent that this trial devolved into a battle of the experts.
And this expert whose credibility is unassailable unimpeachable -- -- the prosecution expert.
That prosecution expert had a chance to directly demolishing Zimmerman theory of the case to knock it out of the park to say it was incredible.
Not consistent with the forensic evidence he didn't do that.
He basically said.
He knows that's the bodies in its favor and you have an exponentially better expert bolstering Zimmerman.
Version of events it's gonna be even tougher for the prosecution yet you know hey --
Filter by section