The Zimmerman Trial: The Scream

[Thor_MN]

139. Unfortunately, this isn't about "accepting" an explanation. It's about proving facts

You seem to be having trouble with the concept that I'm not trying to prove any specific conjecture on how the cuts were made. He could have gashed his head on his car door as he left it after being told not to. He could have raked the handgun against his head after he realized he had just killed someone. An eagle could have tried to carry him off. It doesn't matter how he got the cuts, they are not proof of anything other than he got two, bandaid optional, cuts to his scalp.

I am pointing out that there are many ways he could have been cut, therefore the cuts themselves are not proof that he was on his back, on the concrete. It does not matter what you think is the most simple explanation. If the defense can convince the jury of that in the absence of more evidence, the prosecution will have failed on this point.

It has not been reported that Zimmerman's blood was found on the concrete, which could prove that he was on his back and was cut by the concrete. Possibly, in the upcoming forensic testimony, they will report that Zimmerman's blood was found on the concrete in a manner consistent with getting his head slammed against it. On the other hand, if no blood was found, it would undermine Zimmerman's story. Getting one's head repeatedly slammed into concrete hard enough to cut the scalp would result in blood on the concrete. Until such evidence is reported or not reported, everything is idle conjecture, but it is totally valid to say that the cuts alone do not prove that Zimmerman was being held down on the concrete.