Trayvon Martin Video Shows No Blood or Bruises on George Zimmerman [W:1041]

[Karl]

Yes, we do have official police reports. They are on line. I'm not going to link them because they've been linked numerous times already; but they're out there.

Okay, I stand corrected, we do have the initial official police report. "Bleeding from the nose and the back of the head." No mention of a broken nose.

You say his attorney is "probably lying." Now there's scientific evidence if I ever heard it. /sarcasm.

The attorney's public statements cannot be considered medical fact. Nor can he be considered impartial. Now there's gullibility if I ever heard it. /sarcasm

You say it's proof of nothing. I say it's consistent with his accounting of events. You say the maximum that common sense could create out of that is that Zimmerman got punched in the nose, fell back and hit his head. I say, again, that is consistent with eyewitness testimony that puts Martin over top of Zimmerman. (That's all it shows, by the way. Since no one saw the fight start, at least so far, it doesn't prove much more than that.

Then we're in agreement -- there is no evidence that Zimmerman was in a fight for his life that required the use of deadly force. No evidence of a broken nose. No evidence of his head being repeatedly bashed against the sidewalk.

When's the last time you saw evidenciary photographs disseminated to the media before a guy's even been indicted?

When there is a large lynch mob forming against my client. When my client's story (broken nose) is falling apart. When my client claims to have been in a fight for his life, and keeping him hidden hides the physical evidence of that fight (and worse, allows it to heal just like it had never even existed . . . . . ).

And why do you think he'd need to take photographs if he's got a hospital report? If he did put photographs out there, folks like you would say they'd been fudged.

So what? Using your logic, Zimmerman might as well plead guilty, since folks will say he is guilty. And who says he's got a hospital report? If he's got one, why not publish it? Unless, of course, it... um... doesn't support the severity of the injuries that are being claimed.

As far as bloody clothing? I can't opine on something like that. And neither should you. If the police DID collect his clothing, you think they're going to put pictures up on line showing it? How old are you?

Old enough to think that if the clothing had been taken as evidence, his lawyer would be announcing that (thereby bolstering Zimmerman's self defense claim). Surely Zimmerman's attorney knows that this case is being tried in the media, and that any potential jury pool is going to be tainted by all this media coverage which is damning to his client. Why not get some positive news out there, that bolsters Zimmerman's claim?

Or is that too much common sense for someone your age?

 

[rhinefire]

This now dead ADULT male age 17, six foot -two, tattooed, kicked out of school for reefer possesion and Twitter handle,"@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" and parents(?) divorced of course. This being true he was seven times more likely to die in a homicide that a white or hispanic male and in NINETY-TWO per cent of the cases the killier is a black male. The school drop out rate for black males is 50 %, not FIDDY so it is what it is.

 

[haymarket]

The DOJ going full blast on this may make any tangible evidence and witness selection and manipulation all very suspect. The DOJ leadership are political appointees dependent upon the re-election of Obama or may very well face replacement if a Republican elected. With President Obama and Democrats making this case part of a get-out-the-vote drive to African-Americans, the motives of the leadership of the DOJ is one of an employment interests in the outcome of the investigation and evidence. It is not like the federal government hasn't lied and concocted lies in the past for political goals including manipulated and false "facts."

Why would forensic or witness evidence be any different for any Justice attorney regardless of party?

 

[haymarket]

This now dead ADULT male age 17, six foot -two, tattooed, kicked out of school for reefer possesion and Twitter handle,"@NO_LIMIT_NIGGA" and parents(?) divorced of course. This being true he was seven times more likely to die in a homicide that a white or hispanic male and in NINETY-TWO per cent of the cases the killier is a black male. The school drop out rate for black males is 50 %, not FIDDY so it is what it is.

How does any of that attack pertain to the events of that night that led to the death of Martin?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I still don't see a "gash" but a dark shawdow that disappeared on motion.

The other bald guy has some lines that show up on his head for some frames. I don't think that video evidence is very conclusive on that matter.
Doesn't seem to be enough to say much. imho.

 

[haymarket]

If that's the case (bolded sentence) this thread should be closed.

You may have a very good point there Maggie.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

The DOJ leadership are political appointees dependent upon the re-election of Obama or may very well face replacement if a Republican elected.

And you think political appointees flew to Florida to assist? Or did some career FBI guys went down?
Or do you even know?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

This being true he was seven times more likely to die in a homicide that a white or hispanic male and in NINETY-TWO per cent of the cases the killier is a black male.

Then Zimmerman's is most likely lying about shooting Martin, because Zimmerman is not black.

 

[Karl]

Yeah, split hairs. The video is most likely admissible in court. That's not what I'm arguing. It is not definitive scientific evidence that he had no injuries. What, pray tell, biased interest do the EMTs have in this case?

Do you have a statement from the EMT's that he had a broken nose? Or that his injuries were consistent with his head being repeatedly smashed against a sidewalk?

What biased interest do the LEOs have in this case? They reported what they saw.

Do you have a statement from the LEO's that he had a broken nose? Or that his injuries were consistent with his head being repeatedly smashed against a sidewalk?

Or are you saying that, because Zimmerman was Spanish and Martin was black, they just lied for Zimmerman from the get-go? Oh, pullleeze.

I'm saying that some are buying the hype. Checked your purse lately?

However, if you want some conspiracy theory hype, Zimmerman's American father is/was involved in the justice system, as is/was his Peruvian mother.
Enjoy :mrgreen:

 

[dolphinocean]

The other bald guy has some lines that show up on his head for some frames. I don't think that video evidence is very conclusive on that matter.
Doesn't seem to be enough to say much. imho.

I mean with a higher definition manipulation and we still have to wonder about some lines showing up? Could they be just skin folds casting shawdows from the light? I mean all these are squeezing for imagined facts which are no more than conjectures. Like I said, we can't be certain of anything here one way or the other. They need to be presented as evidence, examined and cross-examined in the court of law for them to be of any factual value.

However, they are good for use, together with the 911 call and witnesses accounts, as a determination of probable cause for a trial.

 

[What if...?]

The DOJ going full blast on this may make any tangible evidence and witness selection and manipulation all very suspect. The DOJ leadership are political appointees dependent upon the re-election of Obama or may very well face replacement if a Republican elected. With President Obama and Democrats making this case part of a get-out-the-vote drive to African-Americans, the motives of the leadership of the DOJ is one of an employment interests in the outcome of the investigation and evidence. It is not like the federal government hasn't lied and concocted lies in the past for political goals including manipulated and false "facts."

Well, if we're going to make bald accusations of corruption.

I'll see your crooked federal investigators and raise you a daddy judge.

 

[MaggieD]

Okay, I stand corrected, we do have the initial official police report. "Bleeding from the nose and the back of the head." No mention of a broken nose.

And you know why there's no mention of a broken nose? 'Cause that would've taken an X-ray, for heaven's sake. Who cares if it was broken? That's not what this case hangs on.

The attorney's public statements cannot be considered medical fact. Nor can he be considered impartial. Now there's gullibility if I ever heard it. /sarcasm

An attorney is an officer of the court. He cannot lie. He did NOT say, "My client told me he went to the hospital." He said, "My client went to the hospital."

Then we're in agreement -- there is no evidence that Zimmerman was in a fight for his life that required the use of deadly force. No evidence of a broken nose. No evidence of his head being repeatedly bashed against the sidewalk.

And so far, there is no evidence that he wasn't.

When there is a large lynch mob forming against my client. When my client's story (broken nose) is falling apart. When my client claims to have been in a fight for his life, and keeping him hidden hides the physical evidence of that fight (and worse, allows it to heal just like it had never even existed . . . . . ).

At first I thought, WTF??? This guy's an attorney? I assume you're talking in hypotheticals here. You cannot be an attorney so I'll let that pass. Tell me you are, and I'll call you a liar. "Your client" is being kept in hiding because there's a Wanted Dead Or Alive bounty on his head. Allows it to heal?? You must be jerking me around.

So what? Using your logic, Zimmerman might as well plead guilty, since folks will say he is guilty. And who says he's got a hospital report? If he's got one, why not publish it? Unless, of course, it... um... doesn't support the severity of the injuries that are being claimed.

I can't resume to answer for him as to why he would not publish it...but, off the top of my head?? Maybe he doesn't give a tinkder's dam what the public thinks. Maybe he'll just wait and present his evidence in court. If and when his client is ever indicted.

Old enough to think that if the clothing had been taken as evidence, his lawyer would be announcing that (thereby bolstering Zimmerman's self defense claim). Surely Zimmerman's attorney knows that this case is being tried in the media, and that any potential jury pool is going to be tainted by all this media coverage which is damning to his client. Why not get some positive news out there, that bolsters Zimmerman's claim?

But hardly old enough to shave, I'd bet. It makes no difference that you "think" his lawyer would announce that to the media. Doesn't mean his clothing wasn't taken as evidence. And, whether it was or wasn't, in and of itself, that means nothing.

Or is that too much common sense for someone your age?

There are very few people on this board who are more objective than I.

 

[Karl]

And you know why there's no mention of a broken nose? 'Cause that would've taken an X-ray, for heaven's sake. Who cares if it was broken? That's not what this case hangs on [...]

The case hangs on the credibility of Zimmerman.

 

[Karl]

An attorney is an officer of the court. He cannot lie. He did NOT say, "My client told me he went to the hospital." He said, "My client went to the hospital."

Was his client treated? For what? Is there a medical report?

 

[MaggieD]

The case hangs on the credibility of Zimmerman.

No. This case hangs on the prosecution being able to disprove his accounting of events. If he were indicted, he need not even take the witness stand.

 

[Karl]

And so far, there is no evidence that he wasn't.

So you rule that Zimmerman walks based simply upon the maxim that dead men tell no tales. Essentially, you can kill someone, and if there is no one around you simply say it was self defense -- with no evidence to support that -- and that's it. Case closed. Lovely.

 

[Karl]

No. This case hangs on the prosecution being able to disprove his accounting of events. If he were indicted, he need not even take the witness stand.

So you rule that Zimmerman walks based simply upon the maxim that dead men tell no tales. Essentially, you can kill someone, and if there is no one around you simply say it was self defense -- with no evidence to support that -- and that's it. Case closed. Lovely.

 

[Karl]

"Your client" is being kept in hiding because there's a Wanted Dead Or Alive bounty on his head. Allows it to heal?? You must be jerking me around.

Photos, Maggie, photos. Why no photos of Zimmerman's injuries from his attorney? Yes, when Zimmerman finally surfaces, his attorney will claim that of course there are no injuries, because they have all healed. But there were injures, before they healed. Well, our camera ran out of film, so no, we have no photos of those injuries...

Yes, you're being jerked around, but not by me.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Could they be just skin folds casting shawdows from the light?

That's what I am leaning toward.
We never have a good picture of the texture of the skin. We can see color and that's about it.
It seems there could be a big gash that's not discolored and it wouldn't show up. But the thing that's being pointed to seems to change shape. And the other bald guys has some, but most of his are more horizontal-ish. Heads aren't round and they aren't always smooth.

I am willing to file this in the very large drawer labelled INCONCLUSIVE

I think I can wait until we get w/e close photos were taken and the reports of the medical personnel

 

[haymarket]

No. This case hangs on the prosecution being able to disprove his accounting of events. If he were indicted, he need not even take the witness stand.

So at his trial, the present his admission of the killing of Martin, the tape where he was told not to do what he was doing, the videotape of him lacking wounds, other forensic evidence............. and you are saying he would not respond to all of that?

It certainly shows he killed an unarmed youth and he was the instigator that evening. I think that in and of itself would warrant at least a manslaughter conviction without any defense being provided as you claim.

 

[Karl]

[...] but hardly old enough to shave, i'd bet. [...] there are very few people on this board who are more objective than i.

lol . . . . . . . . .

 

[MaggieD]

So you rule that Zimmerman walks based simply upon the maxim that dead men tell no tales. Essentially, you can kill someone, and if there is no one around you simply say it was self defense -- with no evidence to support that -- and that's it. Case closed. Lovely.

If the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's story, then how can he be found guilty?

I can take both sides of this argument. I can see Zimmerman walking up to Martin (who already knows Zimmerman's following him) and being afraid for his life. Zimmerman's father says (paraphrased), "Martin asked my son if he had a problem. My son said no and reached for his cellphone." Martin could have thought, "****! He's reaching for a gun." If I were a guy in that situation, I might well figure I was in a fight for my life, and start wailin' on him. And if I personally ever started, and thought somebody had a gun? I wouldn't let up 'til he was unconscious. That could possibly account for Martin being on top of him. But that's pure and simple conjecture.

Regardless what happens in this case, Zimmerman brought this on himself when he got out of his car and began following Zimmerman. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. But. Getting out of one's car and walking up to someone is not against the law.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Old enough to think that if the clothing had been taken as evidence, his lawyer would be announcing that (thereby bolstering Zimmerman's self defense claim).

Where did you come across this claim that they don't have his clothes?
Did that source also say that they did not have his gun as well?

I am searching for the source of these rumours. No one seems to be able to remember where they found this info.

 

[dolphinocean]

There are very few people on this board who are more objective than I.

You may think you are objective but you are far from it. What you are doing is taking the killer's side of story steadfast to just let him walk while ignoring all the doubts and inconsistencies of his story together with his behavior on that night leading up to the killing per the 911 call and the victim's girl friend's phone conversation.

An objective person looking at all these now before us will say there is definitely a probable cause for a trial and let the jury decide the case based on all the evidence and testimonies presented in the court.

 

[dolphinocean]

If the evidence is consistent with Zimmerman's story, then how can he be found guilty?

How did you make that determination? Conclusively how?

I can take both sides of this argument. I can see Zimmerman walking up to Martin (who already knows Zimmerman's following him) and being afraid for his life. Zimmerman's father says (paraphrased), "Martin asked my son if he had a problem. My son said no and reached for his cellphone." Martin could have thought, "****! He's reaching for a gun." If I were a guy in that situation, I might well figure I was in a fight for my life, and start wailin' on him. And if I personally ever started, and thought somebody had a gun? I wouldn't let up 'til he was unconscious. That could possibly account for Martin being on top of him. But that's pure and simple conjecture.

All you are doing is wild conjectures here.

Regardless what happens in this case, Zimmerman brought this on himself when he got out of his car and began following Zimmerman. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. But. Getting out of one's car and walking up to someone is not against the law.

That plus more that led up to a teenager being killed by him. The element of negligent homicide is there given the circumstances that we only hear the killer's account with is called into question. That's why this case needs to be heard in the court of law.