Oh, Really?

[chris_gerrib]

So, we were told that George Zimmerman was "in the fight of his life" the night he shot Treyvon Martin. Martin had broken Zimmerman's nose on the first punch, and was pounding Zimmerman's head against the concrete sidewalk.

Now, we've got video of Zimmerman walking into the police station after the fight. It's reasonably clear video, and noticeable for what it doesn't show.

There are no visible marks on Zimmerman. No cuts, no bruises, no bandages, no blood. Remember, Zimmerman is claiming head injuries! Where's the blood? If Zimmerman was claiming that he got hit in the gut, that would be different. But head injuries bleed. Profusely. Also missing are the grass stains on the back of his jacket.

Tell me again, Mr. Zimmerman, what happened out there?

Comments

[daveon.livejournal.com]

The other bit that I've filed in 'weird as f**k' is they had the local police chief, an ASA and the head of their detective crew at the scene of the crime...

I doubt we'll ever really know but something very odd happened that evening.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Well, Sanford is a town of 50,000 or so. I suspect a murder is a rare enough occurrence that pretty much every senior manager feels the need to at least make an appearance at the scene.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Even a murder on a Sunday it seems unlikely to me. OTOH, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

Interesting to hear that the head detective wanted a manslaughter charge... which, frankly, should have been the default position, and then leave it to the court system to determine if it was that or self defense.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

In the Navy we called it an "Officer Magnet." Any serious event seemed to draw all sorts of officers (like me) to the scene, so we could rub our leadership all over the problem.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

And as we know, Florida technology hasn't yet gotten up to the level of stemming bloodflow, or cleaning off existing blood ...

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Actually, no, I'm pretty sure they haven't - at least this part of urban Seattle doesn't have that level of tech yet... at least not for removing blood in the field from a broken nose in the time scale available.

Assuming that a 150lb kid was on top of a 200lb+ man 'beating him in the face', 'breaking his nose' and 'slamming his head into the concrete'...

Especially an armed 200lb+ man versus a 150lb kid armed with a bottle of Iced Tea and those terrifyingly over coloured Skittles.

Jordan: Is there a stupid right wing position you haven't taken? Or is this just a condition you have?

[daveon.livejournal.com]

BTW - if you know of such blood removal technology, I have a hyper active 2 year old Chocolate Lab who's accident prone and I am tired of throwing away clothes that she's covered in blood from various cuts and scrapes in the dog park, so I'd actually quite like a decent blood removal system.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

So, Florida ambulances have showers and laundry services in them?

Seriously.

While your at it, where's Martin's blood? We're told that Martin was on top of Zimmerman, pounding down. Catching a 9MM in the chest should produce prodigious amounts of blood, both arterial (under pressure) and gravity-driven (going down).

[daveon.livejournal.com]

Hmmm.... interesting question. So if Martin is on top of him hitting him, we have to assume that he didn't shoot him from the ground in defense as he would have had a fair amount of blood on him at that stage, which isn't the case.

So, going with the narrative, we assume he pushed Martin off and shot him... was he prone at this stage or standing?

Who was the one screaming help at this stage as the 9-11 tapes recorded? It didn't sound like a grown man, although it's possibly Zimmerman has a high pitched voice, except in the other 9-11 tapes he didn't seem to.

It all comes back to the police dropping the ball and at the very least there was enough to charge with Manslaughter and let the courts decide.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

You were the one who accused Chris of not knowing his facts, and describing Zimmerman as having been 'badly beaten'...

Damn, he looked good on the video they just showed for somebody who'd been badly beaten.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

BTW - I just saw the thread you were in on Jordan's LJ. You, sir, are a saint.

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Or just hard-headed.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

I was impressed by the guy who was insisting you were talking nonsense when you were actually reporting what are fairly accurate pieces of common-law.

The power to detain a person, question them or otherwise impose on your will on them is something that young cops are taught to take very seriously indeed.

The heart of the issue

[dalecoz.livejournal.com]

This should be a no-brainer to resolve. If Zimmerman was on the ground and fired the shot at close range at somebody on top of him, that should be obvious from the forensics. Were there residues from the short-range shot on Martin? If the bullet went through Martin, where did it end up? Is that compatible with it having been fired by a guy on the ground through somebody on top of him? Where did Martin's blood fall? It would be a different pattern if he was standing up than if he was on Zimmerman's chest, both in terms of where it fell and how far it fell. Zimmerman's blood should have been on the scene, and in a specific pattern that matches where Martin's blood fell and where the bullet ended up.

The point is that the positions of the two guys at the time of the shot should be resolvable. If they were both standing up, then Zimmerman is lying. If Zimmerman was on his back and Martin was on top of him, then the issues get more complex. That doesn't necessarily make Zimmerman innocent, at least not morally. He could have started a fight and gotten the worst of it, or he could have scared Martin enough that Martin felt as though he was acting to defend himself against a pursuer.

Unfortunately, while that all should be resolvable given a reasonably competent initial police investigation, my limited experience at watching police do crime-scene investigations says that what they can theoretically do and what they actually do at crime scenes are worlds apart. On the other hand, I wasn't dealing with a potential murder scene and hopefully they are less casual about such things.

If Zimmerman is telling the truth, he had better hope the police did an excellent job. Unless there is an absolute slam-dunk in the forensics evidence in favor of Zimmerman--proof beyond a doubt that he was on his back getting pounded on when he shot--this will go to court in some forum whether it be a local murder charge or a federal civil rights charge. If nothing else, the parents should be able to go after Zimmerman with a wrongful death lawsuit. There the standard would be preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a very tough standard to meet, especially with no witnesses. If forensics clearly shows that Zimmerman lied about where he shot from it gets a lot easier, but still isn't a slam-dunk.

On the video

[dalecoz.livejournal.com]

Whether or not Zimmerman had blood on him initially, I doubt that he would have any by the time he reached the police station. Maybe I'm assuming too much competence on the part of the police, but in an era of AIDS it seems unrealistic that he would be put in the squad car with blood on him. I don't know about police, but I know that firefighters and teachers (at least locally) are trained to see blood as a potential biohazard. I suspect that police would get the same training. They would do what it took to get any blood off of him before he went in their car.

Again assuming minimal competence on the part of the police, he would probably not leave the scene of the crime in the clothes he was wearing at the time of the shooting both because of the biohazard and because those clothes were key evidence, either because they had blood on them or because they didn't. That's evidence that would deteriorate rapidly if he was allowed to run around in the clothes.

Did Zimmerman have a broken nose? From the video I doubt it. Did he get punched in the nose? The video isn't going to tell you one way or the other. Did he have major damage to the back of his head? I doubt it. Did he have minor lacerations? I didn't see any, but with dark skin and a so-so video I wouldn't put it at the beyond a reasonable doubt stage. Bruising? I didn't see any. How well would bruises show up on a dark skin? My guess is: well enough that you would see them in the video, but that's a guess. How long would bruises take to develop? They don't just immediately pop up as soon as you get hit. How long after the shooting was this video? Was it long enough for any bruises to show up? I'm guessing that it would be, but that's purely a guess.

Again, this all should be resolvable given minimally competent police work. They should have pictures of him as he was at the scene of the shooting and presumably at the station after any bruises had time to develop. If he was examined by paramedics they should be able to tell the extent, if any of his wounds. Failing that, the video clearly shows one of the police looking at the back of his head. What, if anything did that guy see?

Re: On the video

[chris-gerrib.livejournal.com]

Having read the police report and the timeline, the video is 35 minutes after the shooting, and the jacket is as described in the police report. In short, it appears that the brought him directly from the scene to the police station.

Which then begs the question - if there was visible blood, how come the cops aren't wearing gloves?

Re: On the video

[dalecoz.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I found the timeline mentioned on a CNN video after I posted that message. He arrived at the station approximately 35 minutes after the police arrived at the scene, and it would have taken around 15 minutes to get to the station. That would mean 20 minutes at the scene before they started to the station, maybe a little longer if they went with sirens, which I doubt that they would.

If they were even minimally competent, the police would not bring him to the station with visible blood on him or his clothes. That means he either didn't have blood on himself or his clothes or he cleaned up and changed at least part of his outfit. (Or that they weren't minimally competent)

According to one of the experts CNN had reviewing the case, the clothes would have been swapped out if there was any sign of blood on them, for exactly the reasons I mentioned. So if the jacket was the same, it probably didn't have blood on it to begin with. Is there any way of knowing if that's true of his shirt and pants?

CNN had an eye-witness on who spoke of a prolonged fight with two people on the ground. He couldn't identify which of the men was on top. If they were on the ground and struggling, I can't see there not being evidence as to who was on top if the shot was fired while they were struggling on the ground.

One other aspect of this: The eye-witness claimed that it was starting to rain during all this. I don't recall if it was before or after the shot was fired. That could complicate forensics work a lot, depending on how heavy the rain was. It could also tell us whether or not Zimmerman was wearing the same clothes. If the rain was heavy and his clothes were dry, then he probably did change.