Sanford Police Release Full Camera Surveillance Video

The Sanford Police have released the full, six minute camera surveillance video of George Zimmerman's arrival at the police department.

MSNBC reports the video was taken four hours after the shooting. Also:

In the video, there are no readily visible signs of injuries to Zimmerman's head or blood on his clothes. However, he is wearing a red jacket, which could obscure blood stains. Also, at one point, an officer pauses to look at the back of Zimmerman's head, which he claims was injured by Martin.

Appearing on NBC's TODAY on Thursday, Zimmerman's attorney Craig Sonner described the video as "very grainy." He also pointed out that Zimmerman had been "cleaned-up" and received first aid in the four hours between the incident and Zimmerman's videotaped arrival at the police station.

Update: USA Today says the video shows it was taken at 7:52 pm, 35 minutes after the shooting. [More...]

The police security camera video shows Zimmerman exiting a patrol car and entering the Sanford Police Department. It begins at 7:52 p.m., about 35 minutes after the fatal shooting. Shots of Zimmerman's head and face reveal no obvious cuts or gashes, but at one point, a police officer inspects the back of his head.
This video screengrab handed out by Reuters says 7:52 pm.(Police arrived on scene at 7:19 p.m. at which time Trayvon was dead.)

Here's the police version of the video and it does have a timestamp in very tiny print at the bottom:

Update: As for no injuries, here's a screengrab from the ABC news video. What's wrong with the back of his head? It looks like his hair is gone and there's a knobby bump. I cropped that part and increased the contrast a bit.

His nose doesn't look right either.

Here's a comparison:

Does this tell us what happened? No. But it does tell us the video doesn't resolve anything and is only a piece of the story.

On a related topic, here's a good description of the techniques used and court admissibility of forensic voice analysis, from experts I have used in the past.

Before commenting, keep in mind this is a criminal defense-oriented website and comments declaring George Zimmerman is guilty are not welcome here and likely will be deleted.

Comments with factual misrepresentations will also be deleted. I do not want this site used to spread misinformation.

This thread is now closed.

< George Zimmerman's Father Relates George's Account of Encounter | Thursday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    From the site (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by me only on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 01:42:04 PM EST
    The examiner can only work with speech samples which are the same as the text of the unknown recording. Under the best of circumstances the suspects will repeat, several times, the text of the recording of the unknown speaker and these words will be recorded in a similar manner to the recording of the unknown speaker.

    It would seem that they can check Zimmerman's voice against that on the taped recordings, but not Martin's.  So if they come back that it could be Zimmerman's, but not definite that really isn't very helpful.

    Duke Lacrosse (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by diogenes on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 07:58:38 PM EST
    How about reopening the old posts about Duke Lacrosse.  That case, like this one, had demonized defendants, thousands of internet posts expressing certainty about the defendants' guilt, complaints about the racist justice system, and unclear actual facts.

    Except in this particular case, the ... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:08:25 PM EST
    ... Seminole County State's Attorney Norman Wolfinger and Sanford Police Chief Bill Lee have apparently bent over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused, to the point of overruling the professional judgment of the police department's chief homicide detective, whereas Durham County (NC) District Attorney Michael Nifong deliberately concocted a false case agains the Duke lacrosse players as a means to seek re-election.

    So no, they are not really the same thing. But thanks for playing.


    And... (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by ks on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 12:01:48 PM EST
    The insistent comparisons to the Duke LAX case are bizzare.  

    Is Zimmerman being falsely accused of shooting  Martin like the Duke guys were falsely accused of rape?  No. He plainly admitted to shooting him.  

    Is an over zealous prosecutor barging ahead despite a lack of, or sketchy, evidence like in the Duke case?  No. He hasn't even been charged with a crime yet.

    Basically the comparison is just the usual racial politics although, as an aside, I'm always bemused by the people who wave the "Duke Lax case" banner never seem to have heard of a much more egreigous case which is a more accurate comparison - the Central Park Jogger case.  


    please note that comparison (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 12:10:14 PM EST
    was not posted by me, but by a commenter who never agrees with this site. Just ignore him.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#99)
    by ks on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 12:19:53 PM EST
    Thanks.  I might not agree with you on this case but your "consistency" is laudable.  

    As you no doubt are aware, the prosecutor (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:22:09 PM EST
    has discretion to issue, decline to issue, or request further investigation.  Law enforcement agency has no power to issue a criminal case, only submit the case to prosecutor's office w/request to issue or take no position.  

    Yes, he does. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:39:21 PM EST
    But why did Wolfinger show up in person late on a Sunday night in order to do so? Who was George Zimmerman, that he merited that sort of prompt and personal attention from both the state's attorney and the chief of police?

    Speaking for myself, there are a lot of things about the official account of this case that are suspect. In particular, I'm concerned about the conduct of senior officials in Sanford law enforcement. It looks for all the world like a summary -- and woefully premature -- rush to judgment on their part, potentially at the expense of due process and ultimately, justice for the deceased and his family. And at this point, I don't think I'm alone in wanting to know why.


    The facts are "unclear", ... (none / 0) (#51)
    by Yman on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 08:26:13 PM EST
    ... yet you choose to compare it to a case complete with false accusations, police and prosecutorial misconduct prejudicial to the defendants, and where the defendants were exonerated.

    Funny how conservatives have developed a sudden respect for the rights of the accused when it comes to this case.


    As I remember (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by lousy1 on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:13:06 PM EST
    Conservative leaning and libertarian voices were  prominent in addressing the LAX miscarriage of justice as well as several contemporaneous cases involving absurd sentences for young minority defendants

    Jeralyn was one of very few left leaning commentators who braved the current of a strong (primarily) liberal jump to judgement.
     Regardless of the outcome of this case I think LAX veterans recognize a similarity


    that's correct (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 12:34:20 AM EST
    I defended the accused lacrosse players incessantly from the beginning. It was a fishy story that didn't add up.

    Here's a short description of my coverage from an excellent  book on the case, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case  By Stuart Taylor and K. C. Johnson.


    What LAX case was that? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:24:41 PM EST
    I'm sorry, but you'll have to refresh my memory.

    The Duke LAX case (none / 0) (#59)
    by lousy1 on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:29:38 PM EST
    I think if you were here or on the other discussion boards that debated the case you would remember a few of the posters here.

    Oh, the Duke LACROSSE case! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:42:41 PM EST
    I thought you were literally referencing LAX, as in the Los Angeles International Airport. And I was thinking to myself, "LAX case? What LAX case?" LOL! My bad.

    LAX (none / 0) (#67)
    by lousy1 on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 10:31:14 PM EST
    My sympathies :)

    That's my point (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 06:42:26 AM EST
    Conservatives tend to develop a sudden interest in defendant's rights in those cases where they empathize with the defendant(s) - Duke LAX, Zimmerman, etc.  Diogenes has frequently trivialized concerns for the accused and wrongfully convicted.

    That's incorrect (none / 0) (#87)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:50:33 AM EST
    no one is judging anything except the lack of an arrest and charges in a case where the facts admitted to by the shooter/killer should result in an arrest.

    ABC News reports video was <30 min post- (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Maestro on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 10:06:42 PM EST
    shooting They even gave the starting time as 7:54 PM. Not much time in there for what his attorney says about clean up and treatment.

    This is such a sad situation.

    Whoa, that's HUGELY different (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    from the four-hour time frame claimed on links that Jeralyn kept posting.

    More WTF???!!! with this story, a story more suspect with every statement.


    I don't think (none / 0) (#64)
    by Edger on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 10:26:34 PM EST
    I've ever seen anyone heal so fast as Zimmerman.

    In the video he doesn't even look like the same person as in the mug shots...

    Trayvon Martin killing: witness says he saw Zimmerman walk away uninjured
    The Guardian, Friday March 30, 2012

    The first eyewitness account of the 17-year-old's final moments emerged on Thursday night more than a month after the boy lost his life in an altercation with a neighbourhood watch leader in a gated community in Sanford.

    The anonymous man said he reported to police details of what he saw on the evening of 26 February, which included watching the gunman walking away from the fight apparently uninjured.
    "I don't know if was an echo but it definitely made more than one pop. "After the larger man got off there was a boy, obviously now dead, on the ground facing down.

    "It was dark. I can't say I watched him get up, but in a couple of seconds or so he was walking towards where I was watching and I could see him a little bit clearer. It was a Hispanic man. He didn't appear hurt or anything else. He just kind of seemed very worried with his hand up to his forehead."

    I don't have a clue what happened (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Maestro on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 10:42:01 PM EST
    that night. I wasn't there and it's almost impossible to find a logical report on it. But, the abundance of conflicting reports is what escalates the troubling elements of this event.

    Although, if the reports were logical and consistent the public wouldn't be demanding answers that could expose any misconduct that may have taken place.

    It does seem to me that Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law is terribly flawed. Even the police don't get to shoot unarmed people.


    Virtually (none / 0) (#82)
    by NYShooter on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 06:00:02 AM EST
    every police agency and district attorney organization fought like mad against the then pending "stand your ground" law.

    The NRA fought for it.

    The NRA won.


    The police shoot unarmed people all the time. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by redwolf on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:08:19 AM EST
    Go read injustice everywhere for a good run down of it.

    Besides Zimmerman's self defense has nothing to do with stand your ground.  If you're being penned and beaten you can't escape and thus the duty to retreat that most states have does not apply.   Also Zimmerman's claimed through his father that Trayvon was grabbing for his gun.


    there was only one shot (none / 0) (#70)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 11:05:39 PM EST
    he could have been holding his nose, that's why his hand was on his forehead. Why did he wait a month to come forward? I bet police interviewed him that night. I wonder if he's the 13 year old whose mother is now claiming had words put in his mouth by the police.

    We'll just have to wait until witness statements are released by the police. There are several in the initial police report, but all blocked out.

    This doesn't look like no injury to me. (From a screen grab from the police video I cropped and enlarged.)


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 04:46:34 AM EST
    Are you a forensic expert performing expert image analysis?

    The one I grabbed from the video Armando posted was not altered by me as yours appears to have been in comparison to the one I took. Perhaps the video you took your screenshot from was altered before being released?

    Unfortunately since you deleted my comment containing a link to my enlarged cropped out and unaltered section that does not show what you'd like it to show, people will have to watch both videos again if they wish to do their own comparisons.

    Talkeft being your site however, they may want to save their energy, since you can always delete any comments they might make describing what they see or don't see.



    sorry I deleted your photo (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 10:36:28 AM EST
    This as I said, was a screengrab from the ABC video. All I did was crop, enlarge and increase the contrast a bit. I posted the full video above and I took the screengrab around 1:04-1:06 into it. You can do the same.

    I did the same (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 11:09:54 AM EST
    the first difference was that my two screenshots were from the video Armando posted.

    The second difference is that all I did was crop, enlarge, and increase the brightness a bit.


    Maybe because (none / 0) (#88)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 08:19:43 AM EST
    The mugshot picture of him was taken in 2005, when he wad, what? 19 or 20?

    I'm slowly learning. . .. (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by RickTaylor on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 10:29:45 PM EST
    not trust anything I read, unless it's substantiated by someone who's in a position to know what they're talking about. I've gotten mad about things I heard only to later learn they were without foundation too many times already.

    I did hear that the video was taken at 7:54 pm based on the time stamp. I went and stared at the surveillance video for a while. The first clip you see is nearly two minutes long (before they break to another). At the beginning of the clip, what I presume is the time stamp reads, 19h52min00:000. At the end of the clip, nearly two minutes later, the time stamp reads 19h52min00:000.

    Until someone who seems to be in a position to know what they're talking about explains that, I'm not assuming the time stamp is correct. Nor am I assuming the four figure is correct until that's sourced.


    Absolutely agree (none / 0) (#69)
    by Maestro on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 10:47:44 PM EST
    I'm inclined to believe a network news report over a cable talk network, but only slightly more.

    ABC is being fed (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 11:34:04 PM EST
    by the Martin family and police against Zimmerman. It's why they were the only ones to get the police video yesterday and the only one to be in on the recording of the girl with Martin's lawyer who says she was on the phone with Trayvon right before the encounter. The Martins' lawyer even allowed him to listen in. He was also the only one to get the phone bill showing the call.

    And he plays fast and loose with his words. Here's a twitter exchange with him from yesterday. He implies to the tweeter he has a recording between the girl and Trayvon. You have to read between the lines of his articles very closely to realize there is no such recording. It was a reording of a call between the Martin's lawyer and the girl he is reporting about.

    Read ABC's articles with an eye towards sourcing. It's all Martin and police driven. It's shameful a national news network has taken sides and worse that it fails to disclose it.


    Agreed. But then, ... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 11:55:38 PM EST
    ... I'd also that the Sanford police brass and / or the Seminole County State's Attorney's office has been busy feeding the Orlando Sentinel and Fox News 35, and doing some selective leaking on their own.

    Strictly my observation here, but based upon my experience in the public sector, I'd guess that there's some serious internal discord within the Sanford PD that's playing out here.

    Perhaps Det. Chris Serino, the guy who initially wanted Zimmerman charged with manslaughter until overruled by his chief and Mr. Wolfinger, is pushing back at what he perceives to be a miscarriage of justice or worse. Clearly, Serino's also been talking to the Washington Post's Jonathan Capeheart.


    This keeps getting more confusing (none / 0) (#85)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:27:31 AM EST
    Of course I can understand the relation between the Martins' lawyers and ABC news, and that is troubling. But why would police be giving ABC news stories? Of course some left wing sites are now convinced the police are in a conspiracy to protect Zimmerman, going so far as to falsify records. While I don't believe that, I don't see why they'd be cooperating with ABC news, though as you point out, ABC news somehow got that video from them.

    the police report (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 12:43:41 AM EST
    says Fire Rescue 38 administered first aid in the back of the patrol car.

    Yes I updated my earlier post to (none / 0) (#72)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 11:18:49 PM EST
    reflect what ABC and USA Today are reporting.

    His lawyer on TV today said it was four hours after. The video of Zimmerman arriving at the station does have a tiny band at the bottom with a timestamp, but curiously, some have said the time doesn't advance as it should as the video progresses. ( haven't checked that yet.)

    No on disputes he was provided first aid at the scene before going to the station. I also updated with photos from the video that show a big bump on the back of his head and missing clumps of  hair, and what to me looks like an enlarged nose in comparison to his normal nose.

    Does the time or content of the video tell us what happened? No. But I don't think the video  resolves anything, it is just one component of the story.


    I have to say (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by scarshapedstar on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 08:49:08 AM EST
    The level of censorship on this topic is getting disturbing. Haven't commented here in years but several of my posts were silently deleted, wingnut blog style. One was simply a quote from Trayvon's funeral director - down the memory hole.

    You've gone far beyond policing tone, JM. Why?

    your comments (none / 0) (#93)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 10:46:38 AM EST
    that were deleted violated comment policy. I don't just delete haphazardly. It may have been your language, or that it contained an unfounded accusation or was off-topic.

    I have left hundreds of comments on this case, most of which doubt Zimmerman. Comments declaring him guilty or containing false, unsourced information  or information from an untrustworthy source (like a tabloid or tabloid website) are deleted.


    On the photo of Zimmerman (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    I had a friend and coworker who was an applied mathematician who specialized in image processing. He once took pride in showing off a picture of a model he'd enlarged, and pointing out how you could see her contact lenses. He was once called on to enhance a fuzzy photo of a bank robber from a security camera. He worked by ignoring the robber and concentrating on enhancing the image of the stucco wall behind him; that we he could be confident his own presuppositions would not prejudice the enhanced picture of the robber. If he were to enhance a picture of Zimmerman from the surveillance camera, or if he were to point out this or that feature of the photo and what it said about him, I'd take him seriously. Most other people, not so much.

    The funny thing is, you completely convinced me to resist drawing conclusions about a grainy video of Zimmerman taken who knows how long after the shooting.  So I'm not going to stare at a blotchy photo of his head and try to determine if he has a pimple. As for his nose, it looks a little crooked, but whether it's broken, or if that's an artifact introduced by processing the original image, I have no idea.

    Since we have nothing to compare the (none / 0) (#107)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 03:25:39 PM EST
    video to - no pictures of Zimmerman before this event (and the old mug shot doesn't count, I don't think) - how are we to know that anything we are seeing wasn't there before his encounter with Martin?

    More questions, not likely to be answered anytime soon, if ever.


    As a Florida resident (3.00 / 2) (#28)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:33:53 PM EST
    in a sea of guns, here is my common sense take.

    Take all the hype and  hyperbole out of the equation. When you have a gun in your possession and you follow someone, you are the aggressor. When the person being followed ends up dead, the aggressor is fully responsible. I don't care about perceived injuries, threats, statements from girlfriends or fathers, stand your ground, bloodied or non bloodied noses.

    The person doing the following is the instigator, and in some capacity needs to be held responsible for the death.

    That may be common-sense (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:56:09 PM EST
    Stand your ground (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:10:57 PM EST
    I get how stand your ground applies to Martin.  I don't see how stand your ground applies to Zimmerman.

    If the deceased was being pursued, (3.00 / 2) (#31)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:12:44 PM EST
    then turning to confront and even punch the pursuer would seem to exonerate mr martin's actions under the FL "Stand Your Ground Law" and not make him the "aggressor", heh?

    Not (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:21:48 PM EST
    with me on the jury.

    if you aren't willing (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:52:45 PM EST
    to follow the law as instructed by the judge, I hope you ask to be excused. You shouldn't be on a jury.

    The law seems simple (none / 0) (#44)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 06:03:53 PM EST
    I don't get the confusion over the law.  If you are threatened outside your home as in your home, you may stand your ground with reasonable force.  Also, a person may intervene/confront a person in the act of a felony.  No?

    Seems these cases would be more prone to be sent to a jury for determination of what is reasonable/intervention/appropriate confrontation in the situation.



    Again (none / 0) (#33)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:23:47 PM EST
    That also may be true.  But then you would not be following the law - sonething you would take an oath and swear to do.

    I'd (none / 0) (#34)
    by CoralGables on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:25:50 PM EST
    stand my ground for common sense.

    And (none / 0) (#35)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:29:37 PM EST
    Be held in contempt if you actually admitted that in court.

    or take a pound-ing (none / 0) (#38)
    by DFLer on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:48:32 PM EST
    Problem is, if the police and DA (none / 0) (#52)
    by ruffian on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 08:51:44 PM EST
    decide it is a Stand Your Ground case, it never makes it to the jury. Zimmerman becomes immune from prosecution.

    exactly (none / 0) (#86)
    by BobTinKY on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 07:48:10 AM EST
    Really? (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by redwolf on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 05:58:03 PM EST
    I had a gun in pocket after a midnight jog.  When drove back into my gated parking garage I found 3 guys who I didn't recognize from the complex walking from one end of the garage to the other.  They were looking in cars and didn't seem to be heading to car to drive out. We've had car break ins so I watched and followed them to make sure they weren't breaking into cars.  They walk out the area and I went to my apartment.  

    So if they had decided to attack me and I decided to defend myself then I would be a criminal?  All for making sure someone wasn't breaking into my or my neighbors cars?  That seems really perverse to me.


    You would do better to have (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Towanda on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 06:11:51 PM EST
    a cellphone in your pocket.  And, with three against one, you would do better to not follow them.  How did you know it wasn't just three guys against one guy but maybe three guns against one gun?  And you followed them?!

    Cell phone wouldn't have done me (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by redwolf on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 07:37:11 PM EST
    much good if they attacked me. Why would I be better off being afraid of people? Good people shouldn't have to fear criminals.  Criminals should fear them.  

    I followed them from a distance until they walked out of the garage into the night.


    If they attacked you? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by sj on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 12:01:04 AM EST
    You were following them.  More likely to be attacked under those circumstances than using the phone to call 911 and staying put.

    Really? (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 06:15:48 PM EST
    People that live in the complex are heading out for a late cocktail and are looking in their vehicles because they thought they heard a neighbors missing cat crying and an armed someone who is out of breath fleeing a crime scene approaches them?  Who is the suspicious one in the situation?

    How did anyone (none / 0) (#55)
    by lousy1 on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:16:09 PM EST
    know that Walden (or Zimmerman) was armed?

    Common sense (4.00 / 4) (#40)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:52:19 PM EST
    is apparently lacking w/r/t the gun lobby.

    Anyway, no one has answered the question as to why Zimmerman was even given a gun with his history of violence. The only thing I can figure is the law allows it.


    If he (none / 0) (#2)
    by lentinel on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 01:56:32 PM EST
    had indeed been "cleaned up", paramedics must have done the cleaning and administered the first aid.  

    They should be easily identifiable and should come forth as a witnesses as to Zimmerman's condition at the time.

    The article linked to in the Sentinel says that, "Zimmerman was bleeding from his nose and back of his head, according to a police report." Who wrote the report? I would assume it was based on personal observation. Could a "police report" be based on hearsay?

    I could tell nothing from the video.

    How do you know they haven't? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:12:27 PM EST
    The police aren't going to tell you every detail about an ongoing investigation.

    I have linked to the report (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:22:12 PM EST
    many times. It is here and contains the reports of two officers.

    The people who rendered him first aid were from Fire Rescue 38. It was done while he was in the back of the patrol car.


    Jeralyn, I have a question about the police (none / 0) (#98)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 12:14:59 PM EST
    report.  It lists 6 adult witnesses, three male and three female, but no juvenile witness which would be the 13-year old boy.  Can you tell me why that might be?  

    Can (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:14:20 PM EST
    somebody tell me why they let this guy get cleaned up and change clothes? I mean why four hours later if in fact that is correct information?

    his clothes were (none / 0) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    taken as evidence and submitted for forensic analysis according to police and the State Prosecutor, who told the Orlando Sun Sentinel:

    They took his clothing as well as Trayvon's and packaged it for crime-lab analysis. A spokeswoman for Special Prosecutor Angela Corey would not disclose Tuesday where the clothing is now, but she wrote in an email that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement "is assisting with the processing of physical evidence."

    Typically, evidence from Seminole County crime scenes is analyzed at the FDLE lab in Orlando.

    Is that something normally done at (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:58:06 PM EST
    the scene, or at the police station?  And if Zimmerman's clothes were taken from him somewhere else, where did that happen?

    It seems to me that there is less likelihood of contaminating potential evidence on someone's clothes or person if it is taken under the controlled - or at least we'd like to think it is controlled - environment of the police station, or even at the scene.

    In the video, Zimmerman looks clean - not just his clothes, but his person.  Were his hands photographed and swabbed?  Were photos taken of the alleged injuries to his head?  If he was treated - or cleaned up - at the scene, was this done before or after any evidence was collected?  Was he cleaned up after he relayed his version of events and it was decided not to charge or arrest him?

    Am I remembering correctly seeing news video of police photographing the scene just in the last 10 days, after all the hulabaloo started?  If so, would it follow that no photos were taken that night, of either the scene or Zimmerman and his alleged injuries?

    I don't know the answers, but I would be curious to know where, in the timeline, and where, as in location, Zimmerman's clothes were taken.

    I think it's important to remember that, at the time this happened, no one was looking at the Sanford PD's handling of this case, which could have a bearing on when and where evidence was collected.


    So, can one assume :) they took his clothes (none / 0) (#12)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    before he cleaned up? If so, wouldn't the color of his jacket and lack of blood stains etc in the video be a non-starter?

    The police report states that Zimmerman was (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:05:30 PM EST
    wearing a red jacket and blue jeans.  That's what he appears to be wearing in the video, which makes one believe these were the clothes referenced in the police report.

    I noticed that, too. (none / 0) (#26)
    by Anne on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:17:03 PM EST
    That nice, clean red jacket, those nice, clean, blue jeans, and that nice, clean t-shirt.

    Ah, thank you. n/t (none / 0) (#39)
    by nycstray on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 04:51:11 PM EST
    I Won't Speak to Guilt or Innocence of Shooter (none / 0) (#5)
    by msaroff on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:17:51 PM EST
    But it appears to me that there was a deliberate effort to cover it up by the States Attorney.

    He personally showed up at the police station in the middle of the night, and told the cops to kick him loose?

    Here's hoping that the DA ends up with a well-deserved federal indictment.

    Enhancment is out there (none / 0) (#7)
    by waldenpond on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:32:16 PM EST
    The video is not enhanced but MSNBC did show an enhanced photo.  I could see a spot a little higher on the back of his head that looked very much like contact with a pebble.  Whatever any altercation would have to do with this.


    What would be the reason for it taking four hours (none / 0) (#8)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    to get Zimmerman to the police station?  Curious.

    The officers arrived (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:46:43 PM EST
    individually, they waited for fire rescue who tried to revive Trayvon (and then administered first aid to Zimmerman), a crime scene unit arrived to seal the scene and compile a contamination of evidence log. They interviewed witnesses. They may have waited for the body to be taken away. (From the police report.)

    The only times on the report are that the incident began at 7:17 pm and ended at 3:07 am.

    The report says he was taken to the police department after he was "cleared" by the Sanford Fire Department.


    ABC News this morning reported 7:54PM (none / 0) (#65)
    by Maestro on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 10:26:55 PM EST
    as the time of the video.

    The four hour delay to get him to the police (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Angel on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 10:28:38 AM EST
    station never made sense to me.

    Would the police department (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:51:27 PM EST
    Release this video without pressure if it had bungled the investigation?

    Well, since we don't really know all of the facts (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    how can you presume that the investigation was not in fact "bungled?"  

    I don't know (none / 0) (#19)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:04:49 PM EST
    How do you know it was?

    Did I sayin my post that it was? No, I didn't. (none / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:06:37 PM EST
    it may have been subject to a (none / 0) (#13)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:57:15 PM EST
    Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, and not an exempt item.

    State Attorney (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    Says it was not authorized:  Link

    A spokeswoman for the State Attorney assigned as special prosecutor to the Trayvon Martin shooting death investigation said Thursday that the surveillance video of George Zimmerman was not authorized to be released.

    Jackelyn Bernard, spokeswoman for State Attorney Angela Corey, told Local 6 the video "should not have been released." She wouldn't say if Sanford officials had discussed the release of the video with Corey's office.

    ah, ok. (none / 0) (#25)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:16:49 PM EST
    some of us actually have to work for a living, so we aren't able to keep up with every spillage on this case! :)

    Huh? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Addison on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 02:58:36 PM EST
    Release this video without pressure if it had bungled the investigation?

    (a) The "police department" isn't necessarily a monolithic structure. Was the video leaked first to ABC News last night, forcing an "official" release today? That's my impression based on how the media reports have detailed it, but I don't know. Perhaps a non-bungler leaked the video and the bunglers had to release it officially?

    (b) There has been pressure. For physical evidence of Zimmerman's claimed injuries and status as the victim of an aggressive attack. And also just generic "pressure" on the Sanford PD. So what do you mean "without pressure"?

    (c) I'm not sure if I even understand the basis of your question. What does the release of this video have to do with the possibility of a bungled investigation? The bungled investigation, if it happened, was unlikely to be captured on station surveillance tape in the first place.

    So I don't quite get what you're asking, here.


    I mean (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    Without a court order

    that would certainly make it easier for (none / 0) (#27)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    everyone (except the police), wouldn't it?

    The bungled investigation, if it happened, was unlikely to be captured on station surveillance tape in the first place.

    this starts to clear up a couple of questions, (none / 0) (#22)
    by cpinva on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 03:12:54 PM EST
    kind of:

    1. his clothes: apparently they are saying his clothes were taken from him as evidence, and i guess are still being processed. this isn't CSI, it takes longer in real life. a month may seem like a long time, but who knows what kind of backlog there is at the lab. who provided the clean clothing? is any of what he's wearing in the video, what he was wearing at the scene?

    2. based on the police reports, which i read, and the actual FL statute in question, which i've also read, it appears the local prosecuting attorney is incompetent to read the law, or else interprets it so broadly, it's surprising there aren't more shootings going on in that town. heck, just walk out the door, gun in hand, and shoot the first person that looks at you funny.

    the police report, and the zimmerman's/friend's/attorney, describe a vicious altercation, between mr. zimmerman & mr. martin, resulting in relatively severe damage to mr. zimmerman's nose (allegedly broken), and the back of mr. zimmerman's head, (allegedly smashed repeatedly against the concrete sidewalk), with serious lacerations on mr. zimmerman's head. how come the emt's didn't dress the wounds on the back of mr. zimmerman's head? he doesn't appear to have any type of dressing on his head at all, in the video.

    has anyone seen the report filed by the on-the-scene medical personel, that first treated mr. zimmerman?

    Just the police report (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by lousy1 on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 09:25:26 PM EST
    Sorry, Jeralyn, but I don't see ... (none / 0) (#71)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 11:17:49 PM EST
    ... either the abrasion or swollen nose. But I'll tell you what I did notice here, which I didn't see before.

    If you look closely at Zimmerman's red jacket when he first disembarks from the squad car (at 00:38 in the video), you'll note a fairly large and uneven dark spot on its left front side just below the lapel. I was thinking initially that it was a shadow from the lighting, but the same large spot appears again the exact same part of the jacket at 04:02 as he's walking past a security camera, and again at 04:24, and again at 06:08.

    A blood stain, perhaps?

    That's all I can grant you here. I made an honest effort, but I just can't see the abrasion on the scalp or the swollen nose. Sorry.


    You don't see the big pimple (none / 0) (#73)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 11:20:34 PM EST
    looking thing on the back of his head and missing clumps of hair here?

    No, I didn't. I tried. (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Thu Mar 29, 2012 at 11:40:06 PM EST
    And truly, I viewed the video several times, and even downloaded another version so I could expand it to full screen. I still didn't see any abrasion or evidence of missing clumps of hair.

    But Zimmerman shaves his head, and the flourescent lighting is reflecting sharply on his skin. From my experience in photography, florescent lighting can exacerbate shadows.

    Further, most people's close-cropped or bald scalps are rarely smooth and well-rounded, and are often uneven and bumpy. I know mine has multiple bumps, because I lost my hair during chemotherapy when I was being treated for Hodgkin's disease, and saw it first hand.

    But as far as what I saw, did you go back and look at the video for that dark spot on the jacket? It's much too large and uneven for it to a designer label, and it's in a spot where it could possibly have come from a bloody nose.

    I'm not discounting what you're saying at all. It could be there, but I honestly just don't see it. I guess we'll have to wait for the actual evidence photos.



    The thing on the back of his head is probally.... (none / 0) (#80)
    by redwolf on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 03:17:46 AM EST
    medical super glue.  These days they normally clean up a wound and then super glue it shut.  Works much better than bandids for most wounds.  I don't know if they'd use it on a broken nose.

    BLowback (none / 0) (#101)
    by smott on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 12:31:18 PM EST
    Blood from Martin potentially.
    AFter being shot at close range.

    This thread is closing (none / 0) (#108)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Mar 30, 2012 at 09:50:58 PM EST
    Edger is upset I deleted his photo, which I apologized for and told him to repost. He chose not to. The topic is not Edger, but the surveillance video. Since that topic has been exhausted, everyone has had their say and there is now a news blackout imposed by the State's Attorney General, there is no reason to keep it open. Edger is welcome to stay, or not, as he chooses.

    This is just to say. . . (none / 0) (#109)
    by RickTaylor on Sat Mar 31, 2012 at 09:07:01 AM EST
    I've very much appreciated having a forum to talk about these topics, especially one run by someone with a legal background who could add some context. Overall it has persuaded me to be more cautious about believing what I hear in the media, especially in a fight over a trial involving an ongoing investigation which is appropriately not being done publicly. Overall I'm somewhat conflicted; I still think a public outcry was necessary when there were questions about the integrity of the investigation (though I'm far from certain of that), but at the same time it raises troubling questions when the facts in a case are debated before a trial, before all the facts are revealed, with both sides leaking information they feel will support their case, and with major media having so much power and influence and caring as much about entertaining as informing people.

    Anyway, thank you very much for making this forum available.

    Hmm (none / 0) (#110)
    by Euro News Magazine on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:09:32 AM EST
    Hmm (none / 0) (#111)
    by Euro News Magazine on Wed Jun 20, 2012 at 04:10:18 AM EST