Cross Examination:     Witness statements goes toward manner.  Hypo doesn't have to be accurate.  George Zimmerman (GZ) has a bias and stake.  If his statement not match evidence shows not truth.  Aware GZ was only one armed with gun and flashlight.  Can this flashlight injure someone?  Not much of a weapon, not heavy enough.  Not given some statements one which says GZ on top.  Notice John Goode couldn't hear smacks and hits on concrete.  No.  Now he says this doctor killed animals to experiment.  Anesthetized  How many animals have you shot!?  Ooooo     And he worked on Phil Spector case.  Charges everyone $400 an hour, so far,  $2400.00  Not forensically complicated case.  No dispute that TM was shot in heart    You don't know who was shouting for help, the gun came from holster.  You don't know this and that or if it happened the way GZ said.  If impossible, I would say it.  How it came out of holster out side my discipline.

You say Trayvon Martin (TM) was over GZ.  Could these men have been standing up?  No, shirt would hang down.  It would have to be grabbed and pulled away, but defect in shirt would be in different spot.  De La Reondo is constantly incredulous and the pitch of his voice climbs.  Bruises could be from bumping into tree branches, right?  No branches cause abrasions.  What if I did this?  Or this?  On and on.  Cops used to carry wooden batons because it's less dangerous.  These injuries on GZ could be from rolling around and hitting concrete?  That's what I'm saying GZ hit concrete.

This is difficult to hear.  Listen people, badgering is not cross examining.   I would report it for you but it's soap bubbles, idiotic and angels on pins.  Example, you aren't familiar with head so you don't know what's an injury and what is head shape.   DA wants to say the hands on doc is better than you looking at pictures.   Your main thing is gun shot stuff, right?  Now he reviews medical reports like fire rescue which says GZ's OK.  Where does t say they re-set his nose?    "Scratches?"  No, lacerations.  Indicative of hard impact.  Like rolling around or being hit?  Hard impact.   GZ declined medical attention.  Next day his PA didn't note all the injuries you did.  They never do.  They treat, I don't.

If hand is put over GZ's bloody nose expect to see blood on hand.  On back if nose bleeding blood into mouth hard to yell help?  Unless you swallow.  GZ had no apparent problems.  Walking talking fine.  OK.  No witnesses except GZ and TM.  Right.      Don't people wear hoodies loose?  Can in pocket makes shirt tighter.  OK....     Clothing in plastic not dried makes mold and decomposition.  But not surprised to get DNA off damp hoodie.

So after all GZ's injuries, someone pulled hid nose to replace position.  Swelling would not go down in four hours.  Deviation correction would match photo of next day which showed less deviation.  Q:  Why are there more blood vessels in head.  Duh.  Don't know.   You don't know if TM was pulling away.  All evidence is consist with GZ's account.   Trauma is pathology.  See sprinkler boxes in photos, could have hit knuckles ?   GZ is right handed.  ( he is left handed but shoots with his right).

RE-direct:   Do your notes contain summary of measurements, example : BMI of TM?  Normal?  Yes.    Q:  You considered GZ statements to compare with evidence.  Is it necessary to review all statements even of those who didn't see?   A:  Witnesses are wrong all the time.     In this case one witness said GZ on top and TM on bottom on his stomach.  Possible?  No, shot is in the front.   So  that statement has no use for you?  No.  John Goode saw GZ under TM being hit.  Consistent?  Yes.  But doesn't use even that to form opinion.  He must use physical evidence to form opinion.   There were trunks but not branches of trees on scene.  You'd have to run backwards onto the tree twice to get those marks.  And tree won't make punctate pattern.  His job is to document and analyze injuries.    In GZ's PA report, black eyes.  Punch in nose blood leaks into eye cavities.   Not surprising at all.  Re nose, displaced or swollen he was hit in nose.  It's obvious he was hit in nose and forehead.  GCS scale of 15  is a check for waling and talking.  Everyone here is a 15.   Concussions happen immediately.

What about the damp shirt in plastic for a month?    Not good handling of evidence?  No.  DNA degrades?  Yes.   Doesn't know when nose began to bleed and position of head important for finding GZ's blood on TM's hand.  Absence shows nothing.  Presence means something.  Environment important.  TM's body was in rain for three hours, covered for some time, and whether bag was tight and rubbed.   Pathologist should never leave the body.  Never.  Even if assistants helping to avoid transfer and mistakes.   (Dr. Bao kept saying "Not my job.")  TM's chest was photographed at scene with hoodie lifted up.  Some blood at nipple, in autopsy photo no blood.  Someone cleaned it off.

RE- Cross Examination:  Q:  Blood could be wiped off by sweatshirt.  A:  But whole chest is clean so technique is improper.  Q:  You relied on Dr. Bao's report.  A:   "I had no choice, sir."    No x-rays of broken nose and concussion?  Right.
He disregards statements except GZ's.  Witnesses cannot be used to get forensic decisions.  Autopsy is for matching.

REdirect-if witness doesn't testify as to seeing or hearing blows on cement, that does not preclude it being so, no.   He was hit.