The third State's Attorney finally gets his 15 minutes.  He is disrespectful, sardonic, patronizing and no one should be allowed to treat your witness this way.  Take him to the bench.  This witness is asked questions like Well, did you hear testimony in court?  No.  So what can you know anything about this?  (neck swivel).   This is all defense theory, right?  Well, duh, all it has to be is supported by the testimony and evidence.  Each piece plugs in.  It has turned into a conversation for one thing.  He's retrying every piece of evidence in the case.  Where's the judge?  I heard her sigh.    Here she is.  Yea.  Put up the animation and ask your questions but this can't go on, oh sorry, helpful to the court.   So it's not just me.  Gratifying.  BUT here we go again.  Blah blah, well  you show this sprinkler here... did you measure?  Who told you?  Now the Junior-G-man is asking and answering.  How many inches did Dr. DiMaio tell you how TM's head was angled?  So the answer is you don't know, right   Objection:  So What?   Oh Boy, back to the f'ing sprinklers.

Use any statements of George Zimmerman (GZ) to make this animation?  (WHY was that not his first question at the crack of dawn this morning when this voir dire began?)   The jury waited for an hour this morning and court started a half hour early.  Now we've been at this for another 3 hours.)   Yes, he used the video of GZ's walk through with the cops.    Why only that one?  Swivel, swivel...Did you pick it out because it's  long?   I'm just asking.  That's you in a suit not GZ or Trayvon Martin (TM).  You don't know what they did.   A:  Reconstruction is based on all the discovery and going there myself twice.  Fine tuned with attorneys.   But you weren't in court so all real info, which you don't know,  was funneled through attorneys.  So this whole animation is all estimation.  Du-uh.

Cross Examination:    Is this is the most cutting edge presentation of data re movement of a body?  Yes.  This motion suit is the upgrade of the suit with the little balls all over   Q:  Ever wait till after trial is over to animate?  I know it's silly but answer anyway.  No.   Animation normally done with info available to you?  Yes.  Modify when new info comes?  Yes.   There was some more about locations and which testimony he used but not so much and he knows what to ask instead of flailing about.   With shell casing you could show casing ejecting but you cannot know how many spins it will make.  Computer computes the physics.  No evidence how GZ and TM got from standing fight to final position so he skipped that and zoomed with an arrow  from first event to final event. Didn't want to "make something up."     Court jumps in with pertinent questions.  Now she's reading her notes.  She points out that John Goode called 911 a while waiting to connect he hears gunshot.  She asks did you use that?   John Goode's call connected at 7:17:15 so shot was just before that but we don't know how long he waited to connect.  Overlay of 911 call on animation has to be more accurate than not.     911 call records shot so back it out to find John Goode's timing as to when he yelled at GZ and TM, what he saw and when he ran to call 911 himself.

Oops, Goode is under witness sequestration, O'Mara talked to him and showed him the animation.  Modifications were made during trial when Goode is under sequestration per his suggestions.

Re-direct:  Hip position of avatars moved.  In one, no access to gun and in second position gun is accessible.  Why move hip positions? This is another one of your assumptions.  Or lawyers told him.   He said it's common sense, he had to be able to get his gun out.      Then, court asks who says TM was left-handed?  A:   Medical evidence shows injury on R of GZ's face so it's likely from a left hand throw.  That's why the animation shows TM punching GZ in the face with left hand.    Each position discussed according to the evidence.

Standard:  Accurate?  Assist the jury?   Cases require that.   Pierce said where it's demonstrable only, didn't go back to jury.  To assist expert testimony only.  Consistent with evidence in any case, needs to accurate.  Example of frailty, if this were real life it would be all dark.

State says riddle in enigma.   BoP on defense.  Stack of cases.  Factors:  Can it be tested?  Has it been submitted to peer review?  Do techniques allow calculation of error rate? Is it  accepted in its community?  Is there maintenance of standards?  Is the expert qualified?   Reliability and relevance?    Joiner, court may decide too big an analytical gap between evidence and animation.    Dawbert (sic) Frye inquiry.  About evidence which goes to the jury.  If this is OK if only demonstrable prop, maybe, but no one needs it.  Everyone has testified and gone.  This witness knows nothing.    This is a graphic designer who is advancing the arguments and inferences of a party.  All this is argument masquerading as fact.   This adds nothing.  (Honestly, how does the judge do it?  I can no longer focus my ears and I'm in a comfortable chair.)  O'MARA says uh-huh, does too.  Helps jury.  It shows what happens when.  Court says jury will play it over and over for what happened.  It gives weight to something which doesn't comport with evidence.   O'Mara says substantially the same OK in Pierce.  Pierce agreed When helpful, admit it, if confusing, reject it.  In Pierce the detective used animation to explain what happened.  Not so here.