Defense Gets Discovery in George Zimmerman Case

Mark O'Mara, attorney for George Zimmerman, said Monday he has received discovery from the state prosecutor today:

The discovery package included 67 compact discs and numerous hardcopy documents, including the State’s Discovery Exhibit and Demand for Reciprocal Discovery. The discovery also includes witness statements, 911 calls, non-emergency calls, photos, video, medical records, and more

The Orlando Sentinel has more details of what was turned over, as Corey filed an 8 page document with the Court right before it closed describing what was turned over. [More...]

There are 67 cd's of discovery. The state must turn over all it has, including information that exculpates Zimmerman as well as any that inculpates him.

Since no one has seen the state's 8 page document, everyone is just quoting reporters from the Orlando Sentinel.

We don't even know if the 8 page document represents anything other than a table of contents or catalog of what's been provided. As part of discovery, the state has to list potential witnesses it may call. We don't even know if the Sentinel's reference to "Primary witnesses" means witnesses with direct information rather than background information, or witnesses they think support their case and it intends to call at trial.

We've already heard Zimmerman's call to police, the neighbor's 911 calls, and Trayvon Martin's phone friend "Dee Dee"s version of events as provided to the Martins' lawyers. Witness re-interviews conducted after they were exposed to the media reports and aligned themselves with one side or the other, are not great evidence.

What will be more interesting is the autopsy report, Zimmerman's medical reports, the statement of the Emergency Rescue worker/paramedic who treated him in the back of the patrol car, the ballistics reports, DNA/trace evidence and perhaps fingerprint reports.

The crime scene photos may tell a lot. Then again, maybe not. I would have expected to see a footprint expert mentioned. It was a rainy night. Did neither Zimmerman nor Trayvon leave footprints (particularly on the grass) that could have indicated where they first encountered each other, or their positions when they reached the grass? Or whether both the verbal and physical encounter happened in the same spot?

What will photos of the clothing show? Also, I wonder if the testing results from their clothing are encompassed the state's description of DNA/trace evidence or ballistic evidence. Is there no bloodstain pattern analysis? There's no mention of a an expert in in that field in the Sentinel article.

The video of 7/11 is may tell the time Trayvon was at or left the store. It may also show whether he left the store with the AZ Iced tea in a bag or just carried it in his hand. As for the clubhouse video, I'm not sure what it's relevance will be. It could show the time that Trayvon walked by it or when Zimmerman drove by it, if he ever did that night.

What I didn't see described in the Sentinel was any audio recording of Trayvon Martin's voice. Since the state's investigator testified at the bond hearing the FBI agents could not conclude whose voice was crying for help in the background of one of the 911 calls, and the only other audio experts listed are Tom Owen and Ed Primeau who rendered an opinion for the Orlando Sentinel, the voice experts may cancel each other out.

Primeau never mentioned doing any testing. On his website, he says he used what he calls his "ear critical listening skills" which he describes as a skill comparable to that of a piano tuner.Based on his listening skills, he decided it was a teenager's voice, mostly because the voice on the tape "cracks like teen male’s does when going through puberty." (Going through puberty? Trayvon Martin was 17, not 13.)

Primeau adds:

Tom Owen and I may have the tools and experience available to us to conduct voice identification, but we do not have the proper voices recorded to arrive at a positive ID and conclude the voice yelling on the 911 recording is Trayvon Martin yelling for help. By process of elimination, both Tom Owen and I agree the voice yelling in the 911 recording is not George Zimmerman. That is our opinion, and there is no money involved.

So on his website he says he can't say the voice is Trayvon's, he just thinks it is not Zimmerman's voice. Yet according to the Orlando Sentinel, he said:

"I believe that's Trayvon Martin in the background, without a doubt,"

When he first described how he compared the voices on the tape, he explained he took the call from the Mother Jones website, put it into his "audio computer" and...listened. He added:

As an audio forensic expert I want to make clear that this is not formal voice identification and not meant for legal purposes. It is not a statement of my opinion but rather a presentation of facts as I hear them in two particular 911 recordings.

From the bond hearing transcript:

Did you do any forensic analysis on that voice tape?


O'MARA: Did you or are you aware of anything?

GILBREATH: The "Orlando Sentinel" had someone do it and the FBI has had someone do it.

O'MARA: Is that part of your investigation?


O'MARA: Has that given any insight as to the voice?


One last item I keep forgetting to mention -- and I hope the discovery answers it. If Zimmerman''s medical records support that he was smacked in the nose, can it be determined whether he was hit by a hand or an object, like an Arizona Iced Tea bottle or can? Was the can seized and sent for testing? Could testing show whether Trayvon had the can or bottle inside the 7-11 bag, and swung the bag at Zimmerman, hitting him in the nose? If Zimmerman was hit with the AZ Iced Tea can or bottle, it might explain why there were no marks on Trayvons hands or knuckles, assuming that's the case.

I'm also curious about the route Zimmerman took from his house to where he parked his car, and what time he left his house. And whether police took photographs of the cement utility covers in the grass near where the body was found. Do they show blood stains? Was any blood found on them that matched Zimmerman's to back up the reports of police and his friends and family who say Trayvon banged his head on cement?

Are there other kinds of evidence you would expect the discovery to clear up? Any other categories you would have expected the Sentinel to mention in describing the State's 8 page list of items?

You can discuss your theories here, so long as you don't misrepresent disputed information as known facts and state your opinions as opinions, not fact. And please, don't even bother to say this list of items turned over in discover, which we haven't even seen and has only been described in a news article, proves Zimmerman is guilty.

< John Edwards Begins Presenting Defense | John Edwards: Here's the Tape >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I'm not so sure "fighting marks"... (none / 0) (#1)
    by CuriousInAz on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:05:48 AM EST
    are going to be all that visable on TM's skin.   They typically appear reddish and may not show well.

    While knuckles can tear open on teeth and bone,  I am not thinking repeated, solid,  closed fist blows to the face are consistent with GZ's injuries.

    WFTV is reporting.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by CuriousInAz on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:59:10 PM EST
    injuries to TM's knuckles noted in the sutopsy report...

    not even sourced to "anonymous tip" (none / 0) (#36)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:09:45 PM EST
    This tv station, WFTV has some poor sense of journalistic standards.  Here we have another non-sourced claim being put forth, without documentation or evidence of any sort cited.  Did the autopsy report fall out of the sky?  Sloppy.

    Someone is selectively leaking these bits of the whole picture and for a reason.  And the reporter is naive enough to not ask for a copy of whatever they were shown.  

    Corey has had this document for weeks.  O'Mara got it today.   I wonder who is leaking these selective details?

    I'm not surprised that Trayvon's knuckles are injured - there was some sort of a struggle.  We just don't know who started it.  


    Try to focus on the important question (none / 0) (#37)
    by RickyJ on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:28:50 PM EST
    We don't have to know who started the fight.  The only important legal question is, "Is it reasonable that Zimmerman didn't assault Martin first and shot Martin because he thought he would be seriously hurt or killed if he didn't?".

    That is all that counts.  No certainty is necessary.  Try to focus just on that.  My opinion is that there is not a scrap of evidence to show it is unreasonable.  Your delight in inventing unprovable scenarios where Zimmerman is guilty is so much wasted energy.


    thanks for putting it like that. (none / 0) (#41)
    by willisnewton on Wed May 16, 2012 at 02:18:42 AM EST
    I don't think GZ is telling the truth when he describes how the events unfolded.  Imagine it this way:

    Someone throws a sack of $100 bills onto Twin Trees road and GZ gets out of his car and chases after them on foot, running.  They blow onto the cut thru and then behind the townhouse, and he runs after the money for 25 seconds until someone tells him, "we don't need you to do that, because the man to whom they belong is on his way.  When he gets here you can tell him what you saw."  George says "Okay."  He's 24 seconds of running away from his car.  The person asks him where he can meet the owner of the sack of money, and after some choices are suggested and rejected, George says, "have him call me."

    Somehow, 2-3 minutes later the man and the owner of the money finds George between the townhouses with a bag in his hand, full of the money.  The man asks him what he's doing and he says "I was going to give it back to you guys."  

    Then he is asked why he didn't go back to his car, and he says," I was on my way there when the money flew into this sack I had in my hand. See?  Here it all is in this sack I have in my hands."  

    "Okay, George, you were on your way back to your car, fine. I would have guessed you were still chasing all this money, but if you say so...  But answer me this one thing.   What are you doing in between these townhouses, in John's backyard?   Your truck is down that other pathway that leads to the street where I first met you, not back here in the backyard grass.  Why are you farther away from your truck now than you were 2 minutes ago?"

    "Well, I was looking for a street address earlier so I could let you know where to meet me.  Then I started heading back to the car when this sack came up behind me and blew against my leg and tripped me, and my jacket got wet. I stopped right then and there and put the money in the sack for you."  

    "That may be so, but the cut-thru path back to your truck is over there, George, and you and this money are over here, between these townhouses."  

    And then George tells his story four more times, with inconsistencies.  

    I have no "proof" that what he says was false, but he's got no explanation for being between the townhouses.  It's neither on the route back to his truck, not a place where street signs are posted.  But his jacket is very wet, and his boot has come half off like he tripped on it, the heel broken slightly.  

    Was he going to give the money back, or not?  His story is corroborated by the wet jacket and his broken boot heel.


    Trying Again to Educate Willis (none / 0) (#42)
    by RickyJ on Wed May 16, 2012 at 09:02:25 AM EST
    I think that attempting to explain reasonable doubt to you is wasted energy.  But I will try again.  At a trial, the defense needs to only propose one reasonable scenario, consistent with the evidence, that has Zimmerman not committing any crime before the argument starts and firing his gun only after he fears he may be seriously injured or killed.  Get that?  

    Your irrelevant musings are based on guesses of what Zimmerman told the police about his motions.  They have no effect on constructing the reasonable scenario mentioned above.  Obviously the cops didn't find anything particularly wrong with his accounts.  You have been in the forefront of constructing cockamamie scenarios to try to explain why Martin didn't make it back to Brandy's townhouse, a minute or more before the confrontations, when obviously he could have been lying in wait for Zimmerman behind one of those little white fences.  I do believe that both Z and M tarried in getting back to their intended targets.  But so what? It don't mean squat as far as proving Zimmerman guilty of a crime.


    The burden of proof is on the state; if the (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Anne on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:02:15 AM EST
    defense believes the state has not proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, if it feels it has done a good enough job at poking holes in all of the state's evidence and the testimony of its witnesses, the defense doesn't even have to put on a case - it can rest right then and there.  

    The likelihood of that happening is, I would guess, slim, but who knows?  Zimmerman could prevail in a SYG hearing and the case would end right there.  I don't think that's likely, either, as I think this judge will do what others in his position have done, and punt the whole thing over to trial, and let a jury decide.  But again, who knows?

    But, for the moment, let's at least agree that willisnewton is not alone in engaging in what you call "irrelevant musings;"  that you believe your own comments, and the comments of others who share your point of view, are wholly relevant and firmly planted in "fact" as opposed to "musing" doesn't make them so.  Speculation is still speculation - the side one takes in engaging in it doesn't elevate it to fact.

    And while you dismiss willis' offerings because they are based on guesses of what Zimmerman's explanation to the cops was, you don't seem to appreciate that he is, in my opinion, only responding to the many scenarios provided right here that are also based on guesses; it can't just be okay for one contingent of commenters to be allowed, not just to speculate, but to take the position that their speculation is somehow better or more credible, and for those who have a different view to have those views rejected and dismissed on the basis that they are speculative.

    At this stage, we still don't know whose scenarios are right, even with the additional information that is making its way into the public domain; the ongoing speculation even with more information still doesn't rise to the level of fact by virtue of coming down on Zimmerman's side of this thing.


    Wouldn't a reasonable scenario also account for (none / 0) (#44)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 10:48:59 AM EST
    "time"? i.e., it should make a good fit with the timing of the incident as documented by the 911 calls, etc.

    I'm trying to get this straight in my mind.

    You said:

    I do believe that both Z and M tarried in getting back to their intended targets.

    You appear to be agreeing there is a measurable/ significant enough amount of time missing from what we know of GZ's account of what happened that night.  

    Of course, we don't have access to GZ's statements, but his description in his statement of what happened that night should account for that time.  Either he accounts for that time or he does not.

    If he does account for the missing time in his statement that is good for GZ.  If he does not account for that time, then there is something wrong with his story.  

    Is this correct or are you saying his story only has to be reasonalbe in the sense of "close enough"?

    Not sure if I've written this clearly enough but I'm trying to understand what you're saying.


    Scenarios and Reasonable Doubt (none / 0) (#47)
    by RickyJ on Wed May 16, 2012 at 03:22:36 PM EST
    In order to find Zimmerman guilty, you have to decide that it would be unreasonable (silly, ridiculous) to doubt that at least one of the following happened:

    1. He illegally instigated a physical confrontation with Martin.

    2. He shot Martin even though even though he knew his life was not in danger.

    Conceiving a reasonable scenario where both happened is not good enough.  You have to show that in every reasonable scenario at least one is true. If the defense can construct a reasonable scenario in which both are false, then they win easy.  Based on the available evidence, there are even scenarios where Zimmerman was looking up and down for Martin, after his call with the dispatcher ended, where 1 and 2 are both false.  So trying to account for Zimmerman's and Martin's movements during the missing 3 or 4 minutes is legally useless.

    re: Ice tea can as a weapon? (none / 0) (#2)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:06:14 AM EST
    I had read elsewhere that the ice tea can was found in Trayvon's pocket.  Sorry, no url at present but I will try to find it for the forum.  

    GZ doesn't mention a bag in his recorded non-emergency police line call. He does say the teen has his hand on his waistband.  Perhaps the weight in the pocket was causing his pants to droop - seems to be an epidemic with teens.  This might affect his running speed, too.  

    I agree it would make a formidable weapon, but we haven't heard GZ contend that it was used, either.  I'm not sure how one would wield it, however.  I suppose an overhand stabbing motion might be best, using the end of the can to hit with, and maybe the thumb on the back for emphasis.  A good hit with that would cause a nosebleed and two back eyes I'd bet. I think the phrase is getting "pole-axed."  Trouble is, it's not the quickest "sucker punch" move and might be blocked easier than another attack.  

    Trying to hold it like a set of brass knuckles or the roll of dimes from pulp novels wouldn't work out, I'd guess.  Too much like a knuckle ball pitch in baseball - slow and awkward.  Does one hit with the can or the fingers?  Either way is troublesome.

    Of course it's speculation to imagine it was used, isn't it?  There's no evidence or testimony yet to support it.  

    Reminds me of that Sean Penn juvenile delinquent (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:39:35 PM EST
    movie where Penn puts a bunch of full soda cans in a pillow case and beats up one of his Juvenile Detention tormentors.  Can't imagine a plastic grocery bag could withstand the force of more than one hit if used in that manner.

    The way I see it (none / 0) (#3)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:08:20 AM EST
    What I see as the most crucial areas to be probed, studied, and analyzed, other than irrefutable, hard, forensic evidence are the different relationships involved in this entire case. What I mean by that is what was the relationship of the Police Dept. with GZ, the community, and local white and minority groups? How homogenized was the community, and/or was there any friction or strife among different groups?

    What we have so far are a disparate collection of self-serving recollections and statements, each meant to shed the best possible light on their respective purveyors. This is just normal and natural. None have gone through the rigors of intense scrutiny or vigorous cross examination yet.

    What, I think can be taken for granted is that not everyone has told the 100% truth, either because of faulty recollection, aggrandizement, fulfilling an agenda, or just plain CYA.

    My advice, keep an open mind; this case can go either way, or ways we haven't even thought about yet.

    One thing I know for certain: this is going to be a fascinating few months ahead.  

    Neither, or both (none / 0) (#5)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:21:19 AM EST
    something for everyone.

    I don't have any opinion, but intrigued by the countless ramifications.

    I don't think I'm smarter than the 12 men and women who will render a verdict.

    I'll wait for them.

    Six Jurors (none / 0) (#25)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:45:35 PM EST
    Florida juries have six members for non-capital cases.

    The quantity was a bit surprising (none / 0) (#6)
    by RKF on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:26:23 AM EST
    Plainly, we do not know if many of the items referenced are simply duplicative of the phone calls which are already in the public domain. That said, I was a bit surprised at what appears to be a significant quantity of evidence.

    However, practicing civil law, I think the way to interpret this is that it is the potential universe of relevant evidence, including anything potentially exculpatory, rather than what the state intends to admit in its case in chief.

    This website is good on limiting these discussions, but it does seem to dispel some of the earlier conspiracy theories that Trayvon never actually went to a convenience store

    re audio recording of Trayvon Martin's voice (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mary2012 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:02:14 AM EST
    It must've been back around the time the 911 recordings were released, the question was asked/ put to the family as to whether they had any recordings of Trayvon's voice and the answer was no, they didn't other than perhaps his voice mail recording.  It's been so long I'm not at all sure where I heard it -- possibly MSNBC?

    If I find/ come across it, I'll be sure to post a link.


    Can vs. Bottle (none / 0) (#8)
    by Addison on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:00:32 PM EST
    As someone who has been hit with both a bottle and a can, I can say that if a BOTTLE hit Zimmerman, that would hurt like hell, concuss anyone, and cause the cuts we saw in that one photograph if it broke. That would be deadly force by any definition. If it was a CAN, it's like getting hit with a rigid water balloon and wouldn't cause nearly as much of a problem. I don't advise that people try this out for themselves, but feel free...

    Still not seeing whiffs of evidence that would get a conviction for the charge. The audio analysis seems to come closest so far, but it seems pseudo-scientific and so they'll have to both prove the technique is sound AND that it's this or that person's voice. Will be very interesting to see why the prosecution is calling the father and Joe Oliver. Also, given the fact that the shooting was admitted and it's a question of behavior and not whodunit, what's the point of the fingerprint analysis -- just covering all bases no matter how "assumed"?

    re finger prints, ice tea (leaves) (none / 0) (#11)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    A lot of this evidence is not going to be used at trial, but as long as we are speculating here it may be an issue to know if Trayvon ever touched the gun himself, and if so in what position, etc.  

    As for the can or bottle of iced tea, the only other thought I'd add before retiring the subject would be to note that when one walks, sans bag with a bulky thing like this you carry it in your hand.  But when you stop and fiddle with your phone, that's when you put it in your pocket.  It's counter-productive to try to walk or run with a tall boy can or bottle in your pocket.  When TM was passing GZ's vehicle he was described as having his hand in his waistband.  Maybe TM was concealing the tea at that point, maybe he was holding up his pants.  We don't seem to know.  Maybe he was "fronting" and pretending to have a weapon.  GZ hasn't hinted directly that we know,  and didn't say that specifically at the time, but he did infer that he couldn't know what the kid had in his hand.  One wonders how he felt later when the two met and Trayvon still had the bulky can somewhere?

    Still looking for the link to where I read the tea was actually found in his pocket, post-mortem.  It's a ubiquitous and generalized thing to try and google.  

    It's like the riddle with the fox and the goose and the corn - he had Skittles, tea and a phone w a headset - was the headset wireless or not?  I can't figure that one out, either.  But what, if any of these things were found on the ground later?  We just don't know yet.  


    I've always had a picture in my head, (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:19:41 PM EST
    probably erroneous, that TM was wearing basketball-style shorts. Any idea of what kind of pants he was wearing?

    Martin (none / 0) (#13)
    by jbindc on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:24:44 PM EST
    was wearing a hoodie and Zimmerman had a jacket on.  It was dark and rainy, so I would imagine Marin had jeans or sweats on, don't you think?

    as I haven't followed this as closely as many others have. If we don't know for sure, that's good to know as well.

    Yeah, I think's that right (none / 0) (#16)
    by ks on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:43:53 PM EST
    For some reason, I suspect we would have already known if he was wearing some sort of athletic shorts.

    GZ told police operator jeans or sweats (5.00 / 0) (#17)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:58:51 PM EST
    I'm not sure anyone has reported any real details on this, but that probably confirms GZ.  What's the significance?  (He had a pocket with money in it, we do seem to know.   It's unclear at present if the phone,headset, ice tea (can or bottle) and skittles were in the pants or if the hoodie had pockets, or were found on the ground etc.  AFAIK.

    Dispatcher: Did you see what he was wearing?
    Zimmerman: Yeah. A dark hoodie, like a grey hoodie, and either jeans or sweatpants and white tennis shoes. He's [unintelligible], he was just staring...
    Dispatcher: OK, he's just walking around the area...
    Zimmerman: ...looking at all the houses.


    Excellent, thanks. (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:29:49 PM EST
    Earplug Speaker (none / 0) (#40)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:43:28 PM EST
    Crump suggests Martin was in the habit of using an earplug type speaker. It's not clear if there would have been one or two.

    Bill Lee is speaking about hype here but... (none / 0) (#19)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 02:36:20 PM EST
    "The fact that he had a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced tea does not have anything to do with the facts of why George Zimmerman thought he needed to use deadly force."

    Miami herald, 15 Apr 12


    I don't see the relevance to my comment. (none / 0) (#46)
    by Addison on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:49:33 PM EST
    Off the top of my head, I'd like the discovery to (none / 0) (#10)
    by Mary2012 on Tue May 15, 2012 at 12:49:40 PM EST
    clear up:

    1. who was on top when the shot was fired.

    2. if GZ was holding on to TM in anyway so that he couldn't get away

    3. what time GZ left his home that night & which way he drove (already mentioned by Jeralyn)

    I'm sure I have more for the list but this will do for now.

    I'd like it to clear up the case! lol (none / 0) (#14)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    But from your list ballistics will speak to 1, 2 may be very hard to prove, and 3 is going to be GZ's word or guess as to the time and likely the obvious route on the latter.  Perhaps the video corroborates or contradicts his car's route?  Who knows.  

    I'm more curious to know where he parked and which way he ran then walked, but again one of those is a physical fact and the other is his story, it would seem.

    Back to 2 - they did have an altercation, I'm guessing that both sides will agree on that much.  I'm curious to know if GZ claims he ever got in a defensive blow or block if he was helpless the whole time up until the gunshot.  Any evidence of GZ altering TM's clothes or skin could have happened early or late in the struggle  - how could you tell and does it matter?  Seems like a long shot to get anything conclusive on that issue.  Do you mean holding him at first, or when he shot him, or what?  

    BTW, the court said it would release some more information this afternoon if there wasn't a gag order, or something like that.  Have they done so?  I think it's the witness list they are talking about. It's past noon on the east coast.  

    I meant holding TM on top of him (GZ) as by the (none / 0) (#45)
    by Mary2012 on Wed May 16, 2012 at 11:34:21 AM EST
    knees, for example, grasping TMs knees.

    I think if Martin had hit Zimmerman with a can (none / 0) (#21)
    by ruffian on Tue May 15, 2012 at 03:27:15 PM EST
    or bottle, in or out of a bag, we would have heard about it from his family in their various interviews. It would probably have been in the initial police reports as well. I would be very surprised if that story emerged at this point.

    ABC says it has medical records (none / 0) (#22)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue May 15, 2012 at 05:36:59 PM EST
    ah, the selective leaks begin (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:07:14 PM EST
    Even before we know what each side is trying to place a gag order on.  

    O'Mara has a website but this was first leaked to Matt Gutman at ABC, who many GZ advocates earlier felt was pro-prosecution.  I wonder if they will revise their opinion of him or not?  

    This report seems to corroborate some of the injuries Zimmerman received, most notably the broken nose. While missing,  X-rays are not common in nose fractures since you can't set the bone anyway.  But I did note there was nothing about a concussion.  

    The prescription meds are going to be an issue at trial if the idea of anger management comes up, I'd guess.  IANAD either however.  The a-der-all one is a potent drug and makes people I know do things out of the ordinary for their personalities, to put it mildly.  Again, YMMV and IANAD.  But it's not children's vitamins.  It's more like government meth, fighter pilot stuff.  

    Plenty to talk about, but please note this doesn't "prove" self-defense or guilt, for that matter.  It's another puzzle piece in a large mosaic still mostly unrevealed.  


    A non sequitur and more humorous than instructive (none / 0) (#34)
    by Rupe on Tue May 15, 2012 at 10:33:08 PM EST
    but a good friend of mine in college ripped a dishwasher out of the wall in college after ingesting not a small amount of adderall; he sheared the copper water pipe by hand, which is no small feat.  5'9" 165 lb guy.  I was impressed at the time.

    Suzie, can you (none / 0) (#24)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:12:00 PM EST
    not use the name of the drugs, it brings on the spammers like crazy. Use asterisks as if it were profanity. Thanks. If you could repost your comment so I could delete this one, I'd appreciate it, especially since you put it in the subject line of your comment. I know you had no way of knowing, but spammers are really a problem here, they auto-register from foreign countries and it's hard for me to keep up.

    Sure, I didn't realize (none / 0) (#39)
    by SuzieTampa on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:37:37 PM EST
    The drugs add* and tem* are used to treat ADHD and insomnia, respectively. The med report says GZ was taking these before the shooting, ABC says. A "closed fracture" means the skin wasn't broken.

    Prescribed not taking (none / 0) (#26)
    by Raoul on Tue May 15, 2012 at 06:56:16 PM EST
    Article said he had prescriptions. Not stated whether he was actively taking either of them.

    good point. but get ready for endless speculation (none / 0) (#28)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:14:35 PM EST
    We don't know if he was on the medications or not.  But I'm sure there will be much debate to come about all this....  ug.  In the end it seems like it's going to be inconclusive.  Did the pills shoot the teen? No.  

    I think these meds are trouble, and mixed with alcohol, they are a disaster.  But we don't know any of this, and maybe our helpful moderator will step in soon and we can find a way to table this issue before an endless debate begins that will end with the same inconclusive picture.  

    It's not that I don't think it's relevant, it's just kind of a black hole to fall in to try to discuss it all and hope to reach a conclusion.  

    We can barely keep civil on the legal merits of the case.  


    Has anyone read the comments (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Tue May 15, 2012 at 07:38:08 PM EST
    in that ABC article?

    What a shame something as great as the internet also brings out the subterranean, racist, maggots.

    In case anyone thought GZ couldn't get a fair trial; there's your jury pool.

    thank jah for this moderated forum (none / 0) (#32)
    by willisnewton on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:21:14 PM EST
    I'm sickened in so many ways by so much of this sort of reaction.  

    Even reasonably sane websites that are usually free from extremists are crawling with hate.  

    In a way, however I am encouraged that these displays are out there for all to see.  Our nation has to consider the larger issue of hatred and racism even if race isn't truly at the heart of this case.

    And, on the other side of the coin these MSM sites show that the corporate media can't really do social media as well as individuals can.  ABC would love to own the eyeballs of all of us, simply to sell us the products they advertise.  


    Jeralyn? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Slayersrezo on Tue May 15, 2012 at 08:30:01 PM EST
    Would it be ok to bring up here the story that one of the local Florida papers published today that says that Zimmerman's father and some other members of his family are in hiding?

    However much we may not want to discuss the cause I think its obvious that many people are upset and I also think its obvious that the Zimmerman family is in arguably far more danger than the Duke Lacrosse Team or even, when named, the Duke 3 ever were. The alleged racial angle and the perception either that the local police either didn't investigate or didn't investigate properly has tremendously upset a great many people. Is there a way I could bring this up without degrading the conversation here?


    From ABC video (none / 0) (#35)
    by Lora on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:02:30 PM EST
    Link provided by SuzieTampa, #22

    On the video, Dan Abrams I think it is, says that if Zimmerman was the aggressor, i.e. started the physical fight, he would not have the legal right to shoot in self defense even if he felt his life was in danger.

    Is this correct?  I know the question has been brought up in other threads and I've lost track if there has been any consensus on this issue.


    Aggression isn't Legal (none / 0) (#38)
    by RickyJ on Tue May 15, 2012 at 11:34:01 PM EST
    If you start the fight, you are doing something illegal.  You are not allowed to stand your ground in furtherance of illegal activity.  So I guess Mr. Abrams is correct.