George Zimmerman: In Technicolor

This is the photo Sanford Police Officer Mike Wagner took of George Zimmerman sitting in the patrol car the night Trayvon Martin was shot.
The state finally turned it over to the defense. Previously, it sent them a black and white xerox of the photo. The defense had to file motions and argue in court for the production of the original photo. [More...]

Also, the defense has filed a motion asking for the original interview of Trayvon Martin's phone friend "Dee Dee", whom Team Crump has described as 16 years old since March 20, the day they played a phone conversation between her and Crump. Why? It seems when the state interviewed her on April 2, they asked her how old she was and she said "18." The state redacted both the question and the answer from the recording initially provided the defense (and the media version).

Footnote 2 of Zimmerman's Motion to Compel, seeking an order directing Benjamin Crump "to produce the original recording and the original recording device used in the telephone interview of Witness 8 on or about March 19, 2012 and surrender same, without alteration, to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement."

Witness eight is 18 years old and was 18 at the time of Mr. Crump's interview of her according to her sworn statement to the prosecutor on April 2, 2012. Her unedited statement to the prosecutor was not released to the defense until September and only after repeated requests. Her age was edited out of the interview in a previous disclosure.

The state provided O'Mara with "Dee Dee's" real name but not her address.

Dee Dee's age was part of Crump's narrative of her from the get-go. On March 20, when he held his press conference in Fort Lauderdale to play his recording, which CNN was airing live, legal analyst Sunny Hostin told Kyra Philips as they were waiting for the conference to begin that she had spoken to Martin Family lawyer Natalie Jackson that morning:

CNN legal analyst, Sunny Hostin joining, me now with more on all of this.

Why don't we go ahead and start with Trayvon's cell phone friend? I understand you actually have a copy of her sworn affidavit. Give us the details, Sunny. We'll kind of unfold the conversation from there.

SUNNY HOSTIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Good morning, Kyra. I do not have a copy, though, of the sworn affidavit, but I did speak to one of the Martin family attorneys this morning for at least half an hour and she and I discussed this phone call.

Apparently Trayvon Martin on that night had been trading phone calls with a 16-year-old friend, a girl, and as they traded phone calls, one of the last phone calls, was at about 7:04.

The press conference had not yet begun. A bit later, Kyra Phillips says:

PHILLIPS: OK. And we'll be talking about it this afternoon. Sunny, thanks so much. I know you will be with us as well. We ask all of you to stay with CNN. We are going to bring you the live coverage of the news conference which Trayvon Smith's father, Tracy. Also their family attorney will be joining him. That's coming up any minute now. We will take that live as soon as it happens.

Benjamin Crump referred to her as 16 on March 21 on the Today Show (NBC News Transcripts March 21, 2012 Wednesday):

LAUER: Mr. Crump, though, as an attorney, does it worry you that really what this is, is hearsay evidence?

Mr. CRUMP: It really doesn't because she is a 16-year-old teenager who just lost a person very special to her. Her parents are very concerned. They did not want her to get involved. And it wasn't till Mr. Martin found the phone records and saw that she called him at 7:12--the police got on the scene 7:17. He was shot and dead on the ground. Five minutes.

Who is Dee Dee? Please don't speculate because the Court has ordered her identity protected.

Who has spoken to Dee Dee as much or more than Crump? ABC's Matt Gutman. On March 28, he used that name in his ABC News Report. And told Lawrence O'Donnell on the Last Word on 3/28 (transcript available on Lexis.com):

GUTMAN: Again, it was another contradiction of Zimmerman`s version of events. For minutes it seemed Trayvon Martin knew he was being followed by this unidentified person behind him. At one point he said there`s this crazy white dude behind me. I don`t know why he`s following me.

And this continues. He tries to run, and then he walks. And then he thinks he loses Zimmerman. And Zimmerman catches up to him. And then they had this confrontation, Trayvon Martin asking Zimmerman, why are you following me? Zimmerman responding, what are you doing here? And the next thing that this 16-year-old girl says, Dee Dee, that she heard was a scuffle. Trayvon`s treasured phone falls to the ground. She hears the rustle in the grass, and then the phone cuts out.

Matt Gutman told O'Donnell that night he'd been speaking to her for days:

O`DONNELL: Matt, quickly before you go, you talked to her. What`s your assessment of her credibility?

GUTMAN: I think she`s credible. I don`t think she has anything to hide here. We`ve been talking to her for days now. This is not the first time that I`ve heard her speak. I have no reason to believe that she`s lying.

More on Dee Dee here.

(To be continued, I have to get back to work.)

< Feet to the Fire | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Wow! (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:12:49 AM EST

    It almost seems as if the prosecution wanted to hide or minimize evidence of Z's injuries.

    Seen by itself the B&W image does not clearly indicate blood.  In color is is unmistakeable.


    Isn't it funny (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Payaso on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:16:59 AM EST
    Isn't it funny how the deeper we dig into this case the less guilty George Zimmerman appears? The first couple weeks after this story originally hit the news all the information we were receiving was very damaging to GZ. Since then many of the things were were told have been proven to be untrue, and lots of exculpatory evidence has emerged.

    Unfortunately, far too many people formed their opinions of this case in the first two weeks and are now emotionally attached to those opinions.

    It (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    seemed to me that Obama jumped the gun, so to speak, by immediately comparing Martin to the son he never had.

    So if Obama had a son... (3.50 / 2) (#41)
    by unitron on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:04:10 PM EST
    ...he wouldn't look like Trayvon, he'd look like Justin Beiber?

    It (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by lentinel on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:35:38 PM EST
    seemed to me that Obama made his "son" remark because he clearly accepted the notion and prevailing emotion that Martin was shot by a vigilante - a racist vigilante.

    Had he entertained the idea that perhaps Martin was the one who initiated physical aggression, I doubt he would have made that comment.

    I did feel that it was, at the time, prejudicial.


    Not for nuthin'.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:56:23 AM EST
    armed vigilantes are not immune from being beaten to the first punch.

    Zimbo can be innocent of murder for reasons of self-defense or SYG, and still be an armed vigilante at the same time.


    Who was the vigilante? (none / 0) (#62)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 11:30:49 AM EST

    Zimmerman called police.

    Martin took care of business himself.


    "Calling the police" ... (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Yman on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 02:02:21 PM EST
    ...and being a vigilante are not mutually exclusive.

    vig·i·lan·te - a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice.

    Origin of VIGILANTE
    Spanish, watchman, guard, from vigilante vigilant, from Latin vigilant-, vigilans

    He could just as easily have made the (none / 0) (#64)
    by Anne on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 03:09:30 PM EST
    comment because he is old enough to have a 17 year-old child/son; when children die or are killed in tragic and senseless ways, most parents instantly put themselves in the shoes of that child's parents.

    "There but for the grace of God or karma or the unknowable workings of the universe, that could be my child."


    True, (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by lentinel on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 05:43:09 PM EST
    but he didn't just say that.
    He referred to Martin's appearance.

    His complete statement was, "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon ...When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids."

    The second part of his statement is more in the feeling of what you wrote, but the first part made me feel that he was taking a side in a racially charged event.

    The way you said it, it embraced all parents and all children.


    Agree (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cashmere on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 06:26:41 PM EST
    He did not just state what Anne suggests and I also think Obama should have stayed out of the issue.  But what is done is done and ultimately, Obama's statement has no bearing on the case.

    this is off topic (none / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:41:00 PM EST
    Enough about Obama. This is about the photograph and the state's delayed disclosure.

    Media Coverage (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Luke Lea on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 12:18:44 PM EST
    Is the mainstream media determined not to give this story fair coverage to the end?

    Nope, those words on the NEN call (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Kyreth on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:26:11 PM EST
    really don't have that much relevance, and will be quite easy for the Defense to put in context how little meaning they have.

    Have you ever cursed out someone before?  Someone who cuts you off on the freeway, is rude to you, whatever?  Did that show an intent to kill him?

    Then if that person you were to curse at attacks you later, should your prior language take away your right to defend yourself?

    that comment was deleted (none / 0) (#58)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:35:32 AM EST
    for falsely stating the commenter's version of disputed facts as truth.  She's done it several times before and been warned. She is now banned.

    I believe even the prosecution has already... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Cashmere on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:32:00 PM EST
    stated the word was punk..........  not the other racially charged term.  

    The prosecution uses ther term "punks" (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Cashmere on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:35:25 PM EST
    ... in the affidavit...

    Punks (none / 0) (#59)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Wed Dec 05, 2012 at 09:55:01 AM EST
    The word 'punks' is what Zimmerman has admitted to saying. The prosecution has no evidence he said anything different, so they can't do better than accepting his admission.

    Helpful Reminder (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Cylinder on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 10:41:49 PM EST
    I'm not affiliated with this site in any way, I just think it might be helpful to read Ms. Merritt's guidlines for posting in Zimmerman threads.

    That some racists may support Zimmerman's claim of self-defense is irrelevant. In fact, they probably are using the same form of dime-store logic you're using here - that one association dictates the other.

    In fact, Mark O'Mara has chastized everyone exploiting racial issues in this case. In one of his web posts and various interviews, he is clear that people using Zimmerman's cause as a platform for bias against African-Americans do not understand Zimmerman's life and philosophy at all.

    Neither the state nor the defense have asserted that race played any substantial role in the events of Feb. 26. After extensive investigations by the SPD, FDLE and the FBI there is no real evidence of Zimmerman espousing or acting on racist motives. To assert that Mark O'Mara is using racism for monetary game without bothering to present evidence is foolish and lazy.

    Thank you Cylinder and great post.. (none / 0) (#53)
    by Cashmere on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 11:03:07 PM EST
    It is sad that this case has turned into a racial issue, especially as there has been no evidence presented that it was race-related at all.

    Feathergirl is now banned (none / 0) (#56)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 11:48:41 PM EST
    the allegation against O'Mara was the last straw.

    It is not allowed to call anyone a racist on this site.

    I am going to delete all of Feathergirl's comments.


    looks like a broken nose to me (4.50 / 2) (#4)
    by scribe on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 10:11:16 PM EST
    a pretty broken one at that

    So Who Did the Photoshoping? (4.50 / 2) (#5)
    by RickyJim on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 10:21:46 PM EST
    Are you accusing Officer Wagner?  Please state your qualifications as a photo detective.  I don't see anything wrong with the photo.

    that comment was deleted (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 02:42:51 AM EST
    There is absolutely no evidence the state, which provided the photo to O'Mara, and which matches the black and white photo, were photoshopped. Baseless accusations are not allowed here.

    feathergirl, you need to (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 03:05:34 AM EST
    familiarize yourself with the discovery and the case. The prosecutor said in court he was never provided the digital color photo, so he couldn't have been using it for investigation.

    The photo was emailed by Wagner to Serino on March 18. Sanford had already turned to the case over to the state's attorney's office. He was no longer investigating.

    Any further comments stating the baseless allegation the photo is not real will be deleted.


    This is baseless speculation (none / 0) (#15)
    by Redbrow on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 02:41:54 AM EST
    If the prosecution "kept the color version for investigation before releasing it" they would have to provide documentation of the investigation as part of discovery.

    The only people I see being 'stirred up' by this photo finally being released are the rabid Zimmerman haters, who are coming up with all kinds of whacky conspiracy theories to explain it.


    Has it really come to this? (4.50 / 2) (#9)
    by Cylinder on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:20:13 PM EST
    The state released the B&W multigen photocopy that matches this image on their own website. To assert that the state for some reason manufactured evidence that strongly corroborates Zimmerman's version of events in this case is delusional.

    Sometimes... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:34:10 PM EST
    delusions is all you have to work with.

    Evidence has been released that support Zimmerman.  This picture isn't new.  It is the same picture, digital version, as come out in the first DocDump.  So why the uproar now?  

    It is crazy some of the conspiracies people come up with.  IMO, and most likely to get deleted.


    yes it is delusional and (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 02:43:56 AM EST
    has been deleted. That poster is warned he/she will be banned from the site if additional such comments are posted.

    Nothing New Here (2.00 / 1) (#22)
    by nemerinys on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 09:03:59 AM EST
    We've known all along that witnesses and police officers had seen Zimmerman with a bloodied face and scalp; this photograph only confirms those testimonies, while raising a few questions.

    The swelling on the right side of his nose decreased remarkably over the next four hours, and yet I don't recall anyone stating he was holding an icepack against his nose during his stay at the station. The small laceration on the same side obviously caused some bleeding, as did the minor scratches on the tip of his nose, yet they scabbed rather quickly. Frankly, this damage appears to be more of a welt than that of a broken nose, but, then, certainly a broken nose it could be.

    Altogether, it appears that Zimmerman did indeed some into contact with something that would also cause the laceration and scratches. However, since there's no evidence that Trayvon actually punched Zimmerman, much less did anything else that Zimmerman described, there are other plausible reasons such as bare tree branches, shrubbery, sprinkler heads, utility covers, the signage at the trash bin (mentioned by Zimmerman), and, of course, the cement dog walk. It's also possible that Trayvon swung at him some implement, but there's been no plausible explanation as to what that would be.

    What is your point nemerinys? (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by RickyJim on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 10:13:28 AM EST
    You are adding nothing to the discussion by pointing out that there are other possible explanations for Zimmerman's injuries besides Martin intentionally inflicting them on him.  To have any legal repercussions, one of these alternate explanations for the injuries would have to be shown to be more likely than the one Zimmerman gave.

    RickyJim (none / 0) (#24)
    by nemerinys on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 10:51:54 AM EST
    The point was to establish that there's nothing exciting or further exculpatory about this photograph. For an affirmative claim of self-defense, O'Mara and team will have to prove that right-handed Trayvon Martin caused whatever injury that is on the right side and tip of Zimmerman's nose and the two lacerations on his scalp. The state need only show that that claim is not proven, and that there are other plausible reasons for those injuries. This, of course, accompanied with other state evidence.

    No, Zimmerman Doesn't Have to Establish That (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by RickyJim on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 12:05:58 PM EST
    The burden of the defense to get a self defense jury instruction is very small.  Jeralyn went over it several times, for example  After that tiny burden is established, it is up to the state to show beyond a reasonable doubt that shooting Martin was not in self defense.  Suggesting other possible ways Zimmerman could have gotten his injuries won't help them one bit. For example, they have an almost insurmountable hurdle in having to show that the person screaming for his life was not Zimmerman.

    Yep, as RickyJim said (none / 0) (#28)
    by Kyreth on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 12:30:32 PM EST
    George doesn't have to prove anything.  It's up to the State to disprove George's self defense claim by a reasonable doubt.

    If the State wants to assert that Trayvon never hit George, it's the State's burden to prove that; and that's just not likely to happen, which I imagine is why the State has even acknowledged that Trayvon hit George.


    *beyond (none / 0) (#29)
    by Kyreth on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 12:31:39 PM EST
    my posting skills are lackluster today, and this time I didn't have the excuse of using my mobile device to explain the mistake. :p

    My mistake (none / 0) (#30)
    by nemerinys on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 01:05:21 PM EST
    I meant to refer to the affirmative self-defense claim for the immunity hearing. I believe immunity will be denied. The state definitely has the burden to prove its case in the jury trial, and I believe the state has more than sufficient evidence to do so; you, obviously, disagree.

    At the Immunity Hearing (none / 0) (#31)
    by RickyJim on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 01:39:39 PM EST
    the defense had the burden of showing it was more likely than not it was a case of self defense.  The three things that tip the balance in that direction for me are:

    1. Witness #11's testimony that she heard the argument start on the north side of her house at the T and the fact that Zimmerman's keys and flashlight were found near there on the ground.  This proves that it is more likely than not that Martin remained in the vicinity of the T in order to confront Zimmerman instead of going home while Zimmerman was on the phone with the dispatcher.

    2. Witness #6's testimony testimony that at the start of the approximate 10 seconds he watched the fight, shortly before the shot, Martin was on top facing the houses across the walkway and appeared to have the advantage and Zimmerman was on the bottom feet pointed towards #6 and a clear non echo cry for help was heard.

    3. The one sided nature of who was getting hurt before the shot.  It is more likely than not that some of Zimmerman's injuries to the front and back of his head came from Martin's efforts than all are from some accident like you suggest.

    Just 50.0000001% it is more likely self defense is enough for immunity to be granted.

    Witness #11's testimony... (none / 0) (#42)
    by unitron on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:09:23 PM EST
    ...may show that it is more likely than not that Martin remained in the vicinity of the T instead of going home, but sheds no light on his reason for doing so.

    To get a conviction (none / 0) (#32)
    by Kyreth on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 02:10:19 PM EST
    the State has to win at a jury trial.  There are many ways this could end before the trial, but only the one way for this to be resolved in the State's favor, so when discussing the burden of proof needed for a conviction it seems kind of a waste of time to focus on the pre-trial hearings.

    Now as to the actual trial, noone has yet to really point out what this evidence is that would come close to winning a conviction.

    The Defense's claim is that George was on the ground, taking injury and unable to get away until he feared imminent serious bodily harm or death and fired as a last resort to defend his life.  

    The State has to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt in order to win a conviction, even if by some miracle the State shows George to be the aggressor.  And with the forensics, witness  statements, etc all consistent with the Defense's claim, there's no chance of disproving it with the evidence released to date.


    Why (4.00 / 3) (#34)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 06:21:59 PM EST
     weren't there any injuries to Martin's hands commensurate with what one would reasonably expect had he, in fact, administered a beating so brutal as to make Zimmerman fear for his life, or great harm?

    One punch and then holding (2.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Tamta on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 11:23:10 PM EST
    Zimmerman's head and banging it against the concrete would
    produce injuries on Martin's hand that would speak to the level of threat and bodily harm experienced by Zimmerman?

    I don't think so.


    What Should Martin's Injuries Be? (none / 0) (#35)
    by RickyJim on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:12:58 PM EST
    The injuries he gave with his fists would be what we see in the just released photo.  It might all have been from the initial "sucker punch".  You know, of course, that black skin doesn't show bruising anywhere as much as white skin.

    What injuries would *one* (none / 0) (#39)
    by Rojas on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:44:00 PM EST
    one would reasonably expect?

    The State's Only Chance (none / 0) (#33)
    by RickyJim on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 03:11:29 PM EST
    is to get the trial to be a referendum on Zimmerman's credibility; that is being a liar implies guilty of the charges.  I was surprised to hear Marcia Clark on CNN say that the "picture" doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman's account of what happened must be believed in order he be acquitted at trial.  I don't buy that but it indicates that even among those that should know better, the defendant's statements somehow trump other evidence.  So in the situation (which I regard as unlikely) there is a criminal trial in which Zimmerman testifies, the prosecution will hammer away at claims Zimmerman's head was repeatedly banged on the concrete, he was searching for a house number, he was downed at the exact spot he had his initial verbal confrontation with Martin, etc.  Of course only severe incompetence by defense counsel would allow it to work since the prosecution doesn't have any good evidence for their main chased, caught and confronted scenario.  

    You are correct, Jim (none / 0) (#47)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:44:24 PM EST
    The state HAS to make this case all about assassinating Zimmerman's character for it has literally nothing else.

    But as you can see from at least one commenter above, the original narrative was very strong. Too bad for some of the "true believers" that the State has already conceded the punks or racist slur issue.


    That's a much better crummy version... (none / 0) (#1)
    by unitron on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 04:04:25 PM EST
    ...of the black and white version of the picture than I've seen anywhere else these past few months.

    You must use twice as many electrons as everybody else. : - )

    Electrons are cheap (none / 0) (#36)
    by scribe on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:13:04 PM EST
    Big sale down at the Quantum Particle store.

    Here's a side by side... (none / 0) (#2)
    by unitron on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 06:23:44 PM EST
    ...somebody put together of that pic and a later that night one at the cop shop.


    Seriously? (none / 0) (#8)
    by DebFrmHell on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:07:50 PM EST
    You are taking the word of a poster that wished the entire Zimmerman family dead?  Shannon is 1 inch below vile and I will be happy to send you the link to her statement.

    Find someone credible if you want to make that photoshop argument.


    And who would be doing the photoshopping? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Tamta on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:25:43 PM EST
    An LEO took it and it was in State's possession.

    All I said was.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by unitron on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 01:19:16 AM EST
    ...here are the two pictures side by side.

    I didn't offer an endorsement of whatever else was on that page.  Didn't really even pay any attention to it.


    Not sure why. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Tamta on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 11:05:48 PM EST
    Interview Narrative Officer Tim Smith at SPD


    Rescue personell cleaned Zimmerman's injuries with peroxide before Zimmerman was taken to the station Smith then began transporting Zimmerman to the police station.[More..]

    Smith took Zimmerman to the police station interview room. Zimmerman was uncuffed. Zimmerman was given bottled water and kleenex. Zimmerman bled from his nose.[More..]


    There's also Sgt. McCoy (none / 0) (#19)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 03:08:34 AM EST
    see page 17 of the 183 page discovery:

    She told Officer Smith at the scene to have the Sanford Fire Dept. provide medical care to Zimmerman because there was visible blood on his face.


    So... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Kyreth on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 12:37:45 AM EST
    Diwataman posted elsewhere that with over a decade worth of video and photo experience, nothing jumps out to imply this photo is altered.

    And considering the photo came from the State and not the Defense, there is no merit whatsoever to claim it is altered.

    And as to the side by side comparison, remember that one phot was taken immediately after the shooting and the others several hours later after questioning.  During that questioning George's head looked so swollen that Singleton actually asked him if that was the normal shape of his head then pointed out the next day how much the swelling had gone down.

    phot = shot (none / 0) (#13)
    by Kyreth on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 12:38:51 AM EST
    ...the dangers of cell phone typing.

    There was some evidence (none / 0) (#38)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 07:36:32 PM EST
    Though it was inconclusive: there was blood found on Martin's fingernails that might have been Zimmerman's - the DNA report wasn't very clear on that.

    More to the point remember two things:

    A. From what I understand it was a rainy night, and even if it wasn't raining at the time this altercation occurred , I'm sure the ground was wet. My memory is that people here have asked why Martin's hands weren't bagged prior to the analysis because there's a chance blood could have washed off.

    B. Martin died rather fast due to an injury to the heart. I'm not sure how fast his blood would have pooled, I AM sure that any swelling would have been minimized by the method and speed of his death. Swelling relies on local circulation after all.

    I'm not sure the apparent lack of evidence of injury to Trayvon's knuckles means as much as you think it does.

    Hey, Rezo, how are you? (none / 0) (#48)
    by NYShooter on Tue Dec 04, 2012 at 08:52:26 PM EST
    You've made some reasonable points, but so many of the issues involved in this case come down to a question of "degrees." Z was injured, but "how greatly was he injured?" TM seems to have been a pretty descent kid, but did he have a dark (no pun intended) side? Same with Zimmerman.....devoted to neighborhood, but, maybe a "hair trigger?" (again, no pun intended.)

    So, all these seemingly minor points, on both sides, when spun by expert attorneys, will result in a compelling story.....for the ultimate victor.

    We'll see.


    Nose (none / 0) (#68)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 03:12:55 AM EST
    While not claiming to be an expert, a misspent youth in the boxing ring, as well as  martial arts and 26 years in the USMC gave me some familiarity with the damage wrought in a fight.  The injuries to both seem consistent with the GZ version of events.  And while GZs nose seems to have improved remarkably over the next 24 hours, the nose is not bone, but cartridge.   Additionally, he stated he was being smothered by a young man sitting on his chest.  That is not inconsistent with "mashing" his nose, which might look like the picture, and leave no brushing on TMs knuckles.  Thanks for the excellent point about the lack of swelling on TM possibly being due to becoming deceased shortly after the alleged punch.  

    Perhaps someone has a better memory than me but wasn't there a mark on TMs ring finger?  

    The face and head heal quickly for the same reason they bleed a great deal, lots of circulation.  Again, please correct me if I am in error because I have not re read the reports recently, but I thought GZ had 2 black eyes when examined by his doctor.  That is consistent with a broken nose.

    As far as the delayed release of the photo it would seem to be much more compelling to a jury (or the public) then the B&W photo.  Blood always is.  I am less concerned about it as an isolated incident then I am as a pattern of behavior of the prosecution.  Coincidence, perhaps.   But it seems that MOM often has to go to extraordinary measures to get discovery information from BDLR.  Just my impression.

    ...but wasn't there a mark on TMs ring finger? (none / 0) (#70)
    by NYShooter on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 03:55:45 PM EST
    Martin's autopsy revealed:

    ...a small abrasion on Martin's left ring finger,

    "There is a small 1/4 x 1/8 inch small abrasion on the left fourth finger."

    Eddpsair.....Your opinion regarding the physical altercation is certainly plausible. I have no argument with that, and your personal experience certainly adds credence to your hypothesis. However, when I quoted from the autopsy report (quite a while ago) the general, anecdotal comments were that the fight was ferocious, and that the aggressor was "beating the hell out of the victim......in MM style."

    I think you would agree that if the fight was of the vicious, brawl type that was being claimed at the time then both parties would have shown physical damage as a result. If the altercation was more of a pushing, shoving, "mashing" sort then, certainly it's possible that a nose could be damaged without damage to the other.


    Also.... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Eddpsair on Thu Dec 06, 2012 at 03:25:12 AM EST
    Also....  Zooming in on the color photo it looks like there are minor abrasions and possibly some swelling just to the left of GZs left eye.  There is some white debris (skin?) on his left temple.  None of this shows up on the B&W photo so the color does add exculpatory detail.