Support NeoGAF

[soundscream]

Nope. Saw the father say all of that in an interview yesterday. That's what the police told him.

Like out of a cartoon.

Next they will say Martin was twisting his mustache while waiting to spring his trap on Zimmerman.

 

[slidewinder]

Outside of the defense/gun laws of Florida and how they are written, no one was ever presented or given some kind of immunity to be indicted. We never were told we could not indict anyone, including the police brought before us.

No, immunity doesn't mean that the grand jury isn't allowed to indict him. It means that if the grand jury indicts him, that he can appeal to some other party (for example the judge of his criminal trial in a pre-trial motion), assert his immunity, and not have to defend himself against the indictment at all if his appeal is successful. If the judge agrees with his claim of immunity, in other words, then he doesn't go to trail, regardless of the indictment. And this principle extends through the whole process, in theory.

But, at the same time, like you said, the laws that the grand jury is judging against when deciding to issue an indictment are themselves the ones that describe the conditions of and potentially grant this immunity in the first place. So if the state's attorney is going to bring this before a grand jury, then it would hopefully be because that they'd believe that they could do so in a way that Zimmerman could not then merely cry "immunity" to the trial judge (or somebody further down the line) if an indictment were handed down.

 

[KHarvey16]

KHarvey, I know you'll never, ever understand this but I'll say it anyway, we're not logical robots. There's such a thing as "smelling bullshit" that doesn't require that evidence be admissable in court, or within the allowable domain of whatever algorithm you think your brain needs to run (complete with the contrarian.ignore() function) whenever these things come up.

But to respond. If Zimmerman gave his father and the police different stories, which it appears he may have, then he changed his story, and the assertion of the original poster that Zimmerman changed his story is correct. Regardless of your contrarianism, you cannot debunk that logic. Use all the words you want. You did not debunk that logic above, neither will you in subsequent responses.

The implicit assumption is that everything out of the father's mouth came from George. That is unnecessary. The other point to make is people are using their bullshit detectors to judge and criticize a system that does not operate on the basis of merely detecting bullshit, but proving it. If Zimmerman's original statement to police matches up with the evidence discovered during the process of investigation his father's statements do not change that in any way. If his original story does not match up, again his father's statements do not change that in any way.

For the purposes of the investigation and any potential trial for murder, that piece of paper George gave to the police with his statement is what matters most(as far as his story). I'm not sure how else I can explain that. His guilt or innocence shouldn't be, and won't be, determined based upon statements his father has given to the media. Either the original makes sense or it doesn't. Frankly anyone convinced the man is guilty should prefer looking at it this way because it's conclusive in that context.

 

[empty vessel]

Which are decidedly less relevant to the case than the written statement. It will come down, ultimately, to what he told the police, not his father.

No, they aren't less relevant. George Zimmerman's father's statements can be attributed to George Zimmerman himself (because that is necessarily where the statements come from). There is no legal distinction between statements Zimmerman makes to the police and statements he makes to anybody else. They all count equally as evidence of "what George said" (although a jury is obviously free to conclude that the statements were never made or that their content is false). The point is that the statements George made to the police have no greater inherent legal importance or relevance than any statements he makes anywhere else to anyone else.

 

[KHarvey16]

They're as relevant as the jury finds them. A jury may well give more weight to a statement made in candor to one's father than a self-serving statement made to police.

Not if the original ends up fitting and is maintained throughout by Zimmerman and his lawyer. If his initial statement has issues of course other considerations will be made, but that process is completely dependent upon the determination concerning that initial narrative from Zimmerman.

 

[KHarvey16]

No, they aren't less relevant. George Zimmerman's father's statements can be attributed to George Zimmerman himself (because that is necessarily where the statements come from). There is no legal distinction between statements Zimmerman makes to the police and statements he makes to anybody else. They all count equally as evidence of "what George said" (although a jury is obviously free to conclude that the statements were never made or that their content is false). The point is that the statements George made to the police have no greater inherent legal importance or relevance than any statements he makes anywhere else to anyone else.

But his statements to police do not carry with them the additional burden of demonstrating they came from George directly.

 

[empty vessel]

But his statements to police do not carry with them the additional burden of demonstrating they came from George directly.

No, they don't, unless they were recorded or he signed a written statement. Otherwise, George's oral statements to the police are reported by the police. Just as George's oral statements to his father are reported by his father. But again, the question of what weight to attach to the statements is for the jury. There is no legal difference between the statements. George's statements are George's statements, regardless to whom they are made or when.

 

[marrec]

I've got to stop reading comments sections.

"This isn't a racial matter! *says racist thing* See!"

I hate people.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

But his statements to police do not carry with them the additional burden of demonstrating they came from George directly.

And that makes all the difference in the world. George can easily claim his dad was concocting a story to protect his son. It's all hearsay and easily dismissed.

Surprised this is even a discussion point. What his father says matters for our perception of the case, but has no weight in the law, for the above reason.

 

[QuickSilverD]

No, they aren't less relevant. George Zimmerman's father's statements can be attributed to George Zimmerman himself (because that is necessarily where the statements come from). There is no legal distinction between statements Zimmerman makes to the police and statements he makes to anybody else. They all count equally as evidence of "what George said" (although a jury is obviously free to conclude that the statements were never made or that their content is false). The point is that the statements George made to the police have no greater inherent legal importance or relevance than any statements he makes anywhere else to anyone else.

Isn't that hearsay?

 

[empty vessel]

And that makes all the difference in the world. George can easily claim his dad was concocting a story to protect his son. It's all hearsay and easily dismissed.

Statements by a party (including a criminal defendant) are exceptions to hearsay in many (all?) states. It is an exception in Florida. The prosecution could call George Zimmerman's father to the stand and force him to testify about every relevant statement George told him. That's why when a lawyer tells you to keep your trap shut, you do it.

(Indeed, statements given to police officers, even signed written statements and video recorded statements, are technically hearsay.)

 

[Gordon Shumway]

"This isn't a racial matter! *says racist thing* See!"

I hate people.

Reading comments on this story basically = you're asking for it. Sad stuff, really.

 

[Onemic]

Isn't that hearsay?

Not sure if this is right or not, but can't we assume that if this goes to trial and he's brought in as a witness, the statements that George told his father would be brought up?

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Statements by a party (including a criminal defendant) are exceptions to hearsay in many (all?) states. It is an exception in Florida. The prosecution could call George Zimmerman's father to the stand and force him to testify about every relevant statement George told him. That's why when a lawyer tells you to keep your trap shut, you do it.

(Indeed, statements given to police officers, even signed written statements and video recorded statements, are technically hearsay.)

I'm making the leap here to say that one the defense settles on a story, they will instruct the dad to either not talk or to "admit" to concocting a story.

This is a non-starter.

 

[demigod]

Robert Zimmerman will be the reason why his son will end up in prison. Every time his son runs into trouble with the law, he uses his position to bail his son out. By helping his son out, he's only hurting him. This time it ended with a kid's life.

I can't believe it took over 3 weeks for us to find out that Robert was a judge.

 

[empty vessel]

I'm making the leap here to say that one the defense settles on a story, they will instruct the dad to either not talk or to "admit" to concocting a story.

This is a non-starter.

If the prosecution calls Zimmerman's father to the stand, and he testifies that George Zimmerman didn't really tell him all of that stuff, and he, as a former judge, just made it all up to try to help his son, you think that's going to fly with the jury? You also realize that if the statements were made by George Zimmerman, then you are suggesting that Zimmerman's defense counsel would suborn perjury from a former judge by asking him to lie about it?

 

[Dude Abides]

I'm making the leap here to say that one the defense settles on a story, they will instruct the dad to either not talk or to "admit" to concocting a story.

This is a non-starter.

Dad has to talk if subpoenaed.

If he says he concocted a story, the jury doesn't have to believe it. They can also infer that there is an effort going on to retcon everything to be consistent with the police statement.

 

[Effect]

ABC releasing that video was amazing timing in regard to the interview.

 

[BruiserBear]

Have any eyewitnesses or 911 calls clearly put Zimmerman on top of Trayvon when the screaming was heard?

As I've thought more about this, that becomes a key nugget of information for me. If Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon, and Trayvon was the one screaming, and Zimmerman shot him, that raises the guilt level of Zimmerman significantly in my eyes.

Zimmerman is already guilty of a crime in my eyes regardless, for various reasons, but I would really like to know those details.

"This isn't a racial matter! *says racist thing* See!"

I hate people.

I'll play devil's advocate for a moment, and say that when a story like this comes out, and people immediately start pointing the racist finger at someone, without there being a lot of evidence to prove as much, it brings out the worst in people. That doesn't excuse anyone making racist statements of their own, but there has been an awful lot of racial mud flung about in the past couple weeks, and that just brings out the worst in a lot of people, on both sides of the debate.

That's why I've been arguing in this thread from the start that we can all agree this case went very badly, and lots of things were handled poorly, but that doesn't mean the entire story is one which revolves around race. Unfortunately that was how it was presented immediately.

 

[JCreasy]

Have any eyewitnesses or 911 calls clearly put Zimmerman on top of Trayvon when the screaming was heard?

As I've thought more about this, that becomes a key nugget of information for me. If Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon, and Trayvon was the one screaming, and Zimmerman shot him, that raises the guilt level of Zimmerman significantly in my eyes.

Zimmerman is already guilty of a crime in my eyes regardless, for various reasons, but I would really like to know those details.

The 13 year old witness said he saw ONE person on the ground.

Turned around to fuss with his dog.

He heard screaming.

He heard a gun shot.

The screaming stopped.

This is VERY significant.

 

[J.ceaz]

Is it possible that there's audio of the convo with Trayvons girlfriend? would the phone company have something like that? If they did then that would be a smoking gun type of evidence.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

If the prosecution calls Zimmerman's father to the stand, and he testifies that George Zimmerman didn't really tell him all of that stuff, and he, as a former judge, just made it all up to try to help his son, you think that's going to fly with the jury? You also realize that if the statements were made by George Zimmerman, then you are suggesting that Zimmerman's defense counsel would suborn perjury from a former judge by asking him to lie about it?

Dad has to talk if subpoenaed.

If he says he concocted a story, the jury doesn't have to believe it. They can also infer that there is an effort going on to retcon everything to be consistent with the police statement.

I think that with the media circus going on and the high-profile nature of the case, this are things that will be attempted, and will make the discussions of "different versions" of the story something that the prosecution doesn't even go into. Too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, too easy to deflect teh blame for those statements onto the father.

And Vessel, are you really suggesting that with the hint of corruption already involved, that the defense *wouldn't* be willing to have to father commit perjury? You are saying that influence or preferential treatment may have already been a facotr, but that if this comes to trail suddenly *that* is where they will draw the line?

 

[BruiserBear]

The 13 year old witness said he saw ONE person on the ground.

Turned around to fuss with his dog.

He heard screaming.

He heard a gun shot.

The screaming stopped.

This is VERY significant.

OK. We all agree someone was on the ground. That much is clear. Some 911 calls specifically mention someone being on top of someone else. My question is WHO was on top when that screaming was happening.

Is it possible that there's audio of the convo with Trayvons girlfriend? would the phone company have something like that? If they did then that would be a smoking gun type of evidence.

Not possible.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

ABC releasing that video was amazing timing in regard to the interview.

What interview? And are you talking about the police station video where the dude doesn't even look like he's been in a fight? What a scumbag.

 

[Dude Abides]

I think that with the media circus going on and the high-profile nature of the case, this are things that will be attempted, and will make the discussions of "different versions" of the story something that the prosecution doesn't even go into. Too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, too easy to deflect teh blame for those statements onto the father.

What's too hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt? I don't understand what you're talking about.

If Robert's statements are inconsistent with the narrative the defense presents, it would be borderline malpractice not to introduce them.

 

[Zoe]

What interview? And are you talking about the police station video where the dude doesn't even look like he's been in a fight? What a scumbag.

His father did a sit-down interview that aired on local Fox affiliates last night.

 

[BruiserBear]

What interview? And are you talking about the police station video where the dude doesn't even look like he's been in a fight? What a scumbag.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/


You know, injuries like that are not always going to look like gaping head wounds in a grainy video. No one suggested he had his head split open. They've only suggested he showed signs of a violent struggle.

 

[Figboy79]

As mentioned earlier, the medical examiner's statement would hold more weight here than a funeral director. The injuries may not present as bruises since he died shortly after.

How about bloody knuckles?

I don't know if you've ever been in a fist fight (and I admit I haven't been in many since I was a kid), but punching things that offer resistance can usually end in cuts/scrapes/scratches and bruises on your knuckles and fists.

At the very LEAST, if Trayvon was pounding Zimmerman with the force of someone who is fighting either for their lives, or to end another person's life, there'd be evidence.

I imagine that a Funeral Director, who's job it is to dress the body for the funeral, would notice if Trayvon's hands (which are usually clasped across the body, and in plain view of those viewing the body at the wake) had any wounds.

The real point is that, from what we can piece together from the surveillance video, and the funeral director's account of Trayvon's fist, it simply doesn't seem that Zimmerman's claim of being in mortal danger to the point of justifying shooting Trayvon holds up.

At the very least, even if Zimmerman wasn't bloodied to all hell, he'd have a bandage on his head that was "slammed repeatedly against the ground." I mean, not even a little band aid? His "broken" nose would probably, at the least, have some kind of bandage on it to staunch the bleeding.

Being treated at the scene of the crime doesn't include a trip to the cleaners, from my knowledge, since not even his clothes look to have drops of blood (ie, blood running down the back of his head wound, onto his neck). Having been treated for head trauma myself (where I bled like a stuck pig), they didn't wash my entire face and neck. They cleaned the wound, stitched me up, and sent me on my way (granted, I was at the hospital).

Even with Zimmerman's seemingly changing story, that video footage and funeral director's comment throws a big fat question over whether a genuine struggle took place at all.

Especially a struggle that justifies ending another person's life.

I'm not even going to comment on the "d-movie" tier dialogue Zimmerman's father has contributed to the already over the top narrative of a struggle for the gun.

 

[empty vessel]

And Vessel, are you really suggesting that with the hint of corruption already involved, that the defense *wouldn't* be willing to have to father commit perjury? You are saying that influence or preferential treatment may have already been a facotr, but that if this comes to trail suddenly *that* is where they will draw the line?

I don't necessarily believe that influence or preferential treatment has occurred (other than the leniency that comes with any case in which a black person dies). I would be very surprised if there were any kind of express agreement for Zimmerman's father to lie. That doesn't mean Zimmerman's father won't try to lie about it, however. Either way, if Zimmerman's statements to his father are deemed helpful in any way by the prosecution to its case, they will be coming in and Zimmerman's defense will have to deal with them however they can.

 

[Dram]

If he was bleeding from his nose and head like his supporters have said, wouldn't there be blood on his clothes? Or at least wouldn't his clothes have some stains on them? I mean there's nothing on them, from what I can see. I don't think the paramedics would have dry cleaned his clothes, before the cops brought him in to question him.

 

[BruiserBear]

Anybody want to make predictions of the outcome of this case?


I predict Zimmerman is charged with some form of manslaughter, and ends up taking a plea deal, and being sentenced to 10-20 years.

If he was bleeding from his nose and head like his supporters have said, wouldn't there be blood on his clothes? Or at least wouldn't his clothes have some stains on them? I mean there's nothing on them, from what I can see. I don't think the paramedics would have dry cleaned his clothes, before the cops brought him in to question him.

He's wearing a red coat dude. The video is of mediocre quality.

I am NOT a Zimmerman support in any way. I just wish that everybody could discuss the case with the straight facts.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/


You know, injuries like that are not always going to look like gaping head wounds in a grainy video. No one suggested he had his head split open. They've only suggested he showed signs of a violent struggle.

I think more people are kind of amazed that he looks quite fine, regardless of grainy video, for someone that had to take a life in fear of his own. Unless Trayvon's fist and the sidewalk were made of cotton candy, you'd think you'd see SOMETHING, considering he was pounding his head to the ground allegedly for over a minute. You could understand that, right?

 

[Kinitari]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/29/police-surveillance-video-of-zimmerman-may-show-head-injury/


You know, injuries like that are not always going to look like gaping head wounds in a grainy video. No one suggested he had his head split open. They've only suggested he showed signs of a violent struggle.

except apparently the police report that cites him as having bruises, a broken bloody nose and 'bloody lacerations across the back of his head'.

 

[Allard]

If he was bleeding from his nose and head like his supporters have said, wouldn't there be blood on his clothes? Or at least wouldn't his clothes have some stains on them? I mean there's nothing on them, from what I can see. I don't think the paramedics would have dry cleaned his clothes, before the cops brought him in to question him.

Going to play a bit of devil's advocate on this. I'd imagine a responsible police agency would confiscate his clothes if it had blood on them for forensic testing. Not saying that's what happened (Since the police have already shown such large incompetency with evidence taking thus far) but it might not be the best place to use it as evidence he didn't have any large injuries yet.

 

[BruiserBear]

I think more people are kind of amazed that he looks quite fine, regardless of grainy video, for someone that had to take a life in fear of his own. Unless Trayvon's fist and the sidewalk were made of cotton candy, you'd think you'd see SOMETHING, considering he was pounding his head to the ground allegedly for over a minute. You could understand that, right?

I've never suggested he had a right to take this kid's life. In fact, I've stated quite the opposite on this very page of this thread.

I'm only saying that suggesting he showed no signs of injury isn't an honest statement to be making, and ABC News stating as much is dishonest on their part. Here we have another journalist examining the video and noting that he is showing some signs of injury.

except apparently the police report that cites him as having bruises, a broken bloody nose and 'bloody lacerations across the back of his head'.

Yes, and that link I just provided seems to show a 'bloody laceration across the back of his head'. You can even see an officer checking it out at one point in the video. Did you not click the link and look at the images?

 

[Figboy79]

Going to play a bit of devil's advocate on this. I'd imagine a responsible police agency would confiscate his clothes if it had blood on them for forensic testing. Not saying that's what happened (Since the police have already shown such large incompetency with evidence taking thus far) but it might not be the best place to use it as evidence he didn't have any large injuries yet.

And we all know how responsible the Sanford PD has been throughout this entire ordeal...

EDIT: To add a little bit of my experiences with head wounds. The head trauma that I received was a tiny, maybe half an inch to three quarter inch cut near my left eye. That tiny cut bled like I had been stabbed in the face. It was amazing.

Interestingly enough, I was 17 at the time. It was senior skip day, and I was, er, skipping school, a few weeks before graduation. I was doing stupid things that 17 year olds do involving soda cans, basketballs, and baseball bats, and took a glancing wooden bat to the head. Tiny cut, massive bleeding. The moral of the story is, don't play baseball with a basketball, but what I'm saying is that even the smallest head wound can bleed like mad.

Don't forget that a 17 year old kid is dead because Zimmerman thought he was in mortal danger. The reason Zimmerman thought he was in mortal danger is because he was punched in the nose (and it was broken), and had his head slammed REPEATEDLY onto the ground. I'd imagine that having your head repeatedly slammed against the ground would leave some rather obvious signs of trauma. Trauma that doesn't look present in that security video. Even being treated at the scene would have, at the least, resulted in some kind of gauze bandage on the back of Zimmerman's head. His head, even in that decidedly NOT HD surveillance footage is not covered with anything. I don't think I've ever heard of a serious head would that wasn't at least bandaged with gauze. Especially a head wound that would justify shooting someone in self defense.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Have any eyewitnesses or 911 calls clearly put Zimmerman on top of Trayvon when the screaming was heard?

As I've thought more about this, that becomes a key nugget of information for me. If Zimmerman was on top of Trayvon, and Trayvon was the one screaming, and Zimmerman shot him, that raises the guilt level of Zimmerman significantly in my eyes.

Zimmerman is already guilty of a crime in my eyes regardless, for various reasons, but I would really like to know those details.

I don't think it really matters who was on top of who or who was screaming, really. I think the main aspect of this is, who initiated the confrontation.

 

[Kinitari]

Yes, and that link I just provided seems to show a 'bloody laceration across the back of his head'. You can even see an officer checking it out at one point.

That's not a laceration - that's a shadow, in the video you see the light change gradually and turn into a shadow - there is another still I can show you of a well lit head, you won't see a single scratch.

 

[ced]

Maybe this has been discussed, and it's not really relevant but that video is a recording of the CCTV footage. Someone filmed it off the monitor with their phone or another recording device.

Why does ABC have the damn banner covering his head half the freaking time as well, hard to see anything at all.

 

[Dram]

Anybody want to make predictions of the outcome of this case?
I am NOT a Zimmerman support in any way. I just wish that everybody could discuss the case with the straight facts.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-03-26/news/os-trayvon-martin-zimmerman-account-20120326_1_miami-schools-punch-unarmed-black-teenager

Well these are the facts Zimmerman told police.

With a single punch, Trayvon Martin decked the Neighborhood Watch volunteer who eventually shot and killed the unarmed 17-year-old, then Trayvon climbed on top of George Zimmerman and slammed his head into the sidewalk, leaving him bloody and battered, law-enforcement authorities told the Orlando Sentinel.

That is the account Zimmerman gave police, and much of it has been corroborated by witnesses, authorities say. There have been no reports that a witness saw the initial punch Zimmerman told police about.

Zimmerman has not spoken publicly about what happened Feb. 26. But that night, and in later meetings, he described and re-enacted for police what he says took place.

In his version of events, Zimmerman had turned around and was walking back to his SUV when Trayvon approached him from behind, the two exchanged words and then Trayvon punched him in the nose, sending him to the ground, and began beating him.

Zimmerman fell to the ground and Trayvon got on top of him and began slamming his head into the sidewalk, he told police.

Zimmerman began yelling for help.

Several witnesses heard those cries, and there has been a dispute about whether they came from Zimmerman or Trayvon.

Lawyers for Trayvon's family say it was Trayvon, but police say their evidence indicates it was Zimmerman.

Zimmerman then shot Trayvon once in the chest at very close range, according to authorities.

When police arrived less than two minutes later, Zimmerman was bleeding from the nose, had a swollen lip and had bloody lacerations to the back of his head.

Paramedics gave him first aid but he said he did not need to go to the hospital. He got medical care the next day.

The video's grainy but he looks pretty clean here.

 

[mavs]

Going to play a bit of devil's advocate on this. I'd imagine a responsible police agency would confiscate his clothes if it had blood on them for forensic testing. Not saying that's what happened (Since the police have already shown such large incompetency with evidence taking thus far) but it might not be the best place to use it as evidence he didn't have any large injuries yet.

Well in the early days when this broke CNN commentators repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman was allowed to leave the station with all of his clothes, meaning that evidence related to gunshot residue that could confirm Zimmerman's story was now lost.

 

[BruiserBear]

That's not a laceration - that's a shadow, in the video you see the light change gradually and turn into a shadow - there is another still I can show you of a well lit head, you won't see a single scratch.

That's some interesting analysis on your part. Guess the police completely made up the part about him having lacerations on the back of his head, and then the video just happens to feature a perfectly placed "shadow" in just that location. I guess the one cop must have also been looking at the back of his head in the video, just so he could get a good look at that "shadow" himself.

 

[theignoramus]

I think you all are missing the point during the struggle. Nobody ever said that Zimmerman's injuries were the reason he feared for his life. If there was a fight and Martin then discovered that Zimmerman was armed, they probably at that point struggled for the gun. Then both parties had every right to fear for their life at that point. At that point, if Trayvon hadn't been shot, Zimmerman probably would have. I don't think Trayvon intended to kill him at first, but when he saw the gun, he probably did feel like he had to use lethal force. It's a complicated and sad situation if true.

Go ahead and call me a contrarian all you want, I still think a lot of you guys are choosing not to think the situation all the way through because you want so badly to hate Zimmerman. I get that, a kid is dead and he should not be. But most of you guys aren't objective, so just admit it. Most people here made up thier minds long ago as soon as they heard the word Skittles and can't wait to find any possible hole in Z's story and are not viewing all the media articles and reports with adequate skepticism.

As for the security tapes, I agree that he doesn't looks like road pizza. In certain frames, I can see what looks like he may have a black eye and a broken nose. Nothing visible on his head. It is blurry though and doesn't tell you how long after the altercation this was. Did he change his clothes? Did he get cleaned up? I dunno. Still doesn't negate the aforementioned scenario about struggling for a gun.

So I expect to be called names for this, whatever. I'm a murderer defender blah blah blah. Actually, I don't think Zimmerman should have ever got out of his car. He acted irresponsibly. Doesn't prove that he stalked and chased and murdered anyone.

I just can't help but interject when I see such a one-sided discussion blinded by (understandable) emotion egged on by bad media reporting and involving a lack of all the facts.

what kind of fool ass post is this?

 

[Gordon Shumway]

I've never suggested he had a right to take this kid's life. In fact, I've stated quite the opposite on this very page of this thread.

I don't know why you just made this point. I never suggested you did. As for whatever ABC said, they have nothing to do with "my" opinion and observations. I was a bit surprised he didn't need help out of the squad car. Was surprised to not really see blood on his shirt. TOTALLY noticed the officer checking the back of his head last night, don't know why that is a question.

Again, I was merely pointing out what might have surprised people. Also asked if you could see that. Shouldn't of asked that part, I guess?

 

[Kinitari]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5OiLQjUcOU

For a non ABC logo video, this is the original pre-watermark version.

Here are a few random shots of the back of his head, the one on the bottom right is me trying to illustrate that the back of his head has a 'bump' that casts shadows, you can see it better in motion from 1min onwards.

 

[Zoe]

Well in the early days when this broke CNN commentators repeatedly claimed that Zimmerman was allowed to leave the station with all of his clothes, meaning that evidence related to gunshot residue that could confirm Zimmerman's story was now lost.

I think gunshot residue tests on Martin's clothes could still point in one direction or the other.

 

[BattleMonkey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5OiLQjUcOU

For a non ABC logo video, this is the original pre-watermark version.

Here are a few random shots of the back of his head, the one on the bottom right is me trying to illustrate that the back of his head has a 'bump' that casts shadows, you can see it better in motion from 1min onwards.

Thankfully the grand jury and such will have access to more clear footage and evidence than all this eye squinting footage everyone is analysing.

And lol at ABC "enhancing" the image

 

[ced]

That's some interesting analysis on your part. Guess the police completely made up the part about him having lacerations on the back of his head, and then the video just happens to feature a perfectly placed "shadow" in just that location.

It's not a shadow, you can see at more than one spot. I'm not saying it's a laceration though. Again it's a recording of a recording, it's grainy and hard to tell anything, but there is something on the back of his head.

Here is a shot of the officer examining the back of his head (he does it twice), there is something there, what it is, who knows.

Edit:

Kinitari might be right about a bump or elevated part of his head casting a shadow, when someone said shadow I was thinking of something in the room casting one.

 

[Roger Danish]

Aww, sheeeeeeeettt... Tucker Carlson going all CSI on us, huh?

ZOOM IN CLOSER!

 

[theignoramus]

In the poster's defense I was all for locking Zimmerman up and throwing the key away too when the story first broke.

Too much misinformation has come out from both sides of the fence that I don't think I can objectively (with current info) "pick a side". I'm waiting to see more compelling evidence surface that Zimmerman intended to shoot Trayvon or what happened in the altercation between Zimmerman and Trayvon (was Zimmerman actually walking away like he claimed or did Zimmerman attack Trayvon?).

No, you are waiting for the dead kid's innocence to be proven. simple as that.