Soot, Ring Abrasion and Stippling? The only thing missing is a ******* muzzle impression.
It appears to me that to call it "intermediary" is misleading.
It appears to be closer to accurate to call it a (nearly) "close contact" wound.
the lab called it a contact shot
http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/FDLE-Lab-report.pdf
http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/FDLE-Lab-report.pdf AT pdf page 19 of 21. The analysis report says that the residue and physical effects were
"consistent with" a contact shot.
I find that ^ pretty compelling.
Since it only says "consistent with," there is a pretty fair chance that the prosecution will seek to parse that finding. But, I doubt they will press it too far. A pretty good set of underlying scientific bases exist for the scientific conclusion reported; and I suspect that the prosecutor will not want to highlight the essentially inescapable conclusion.
It is highly significant scientific/forensic physical evidence for the defense, though.
It AT LEAST corroborates Zimmerman's account and does nothing to support any other view of the evidence. Zimmerman didn't light the kid up from a distance. With the wound evidence on Zimmerman, the grass evidence on Martin's pants and Zimmerman's jacket, and with the close contact nature of the gunshot, it is really not reasonable to believe anything other than that Trayvon was on top of Zimmerman at the moment Zimmerman fired the shot. Plus, it also looks damn likely that Zimmerman
was getting a beat down.
The defense of "justification" looks strong.