ABC News has been given a photograph that might make the difference between life in prison and a walk. For weeks, we have been discussing the case and the application of the Stand Your Ground law. As discussed earlier, I think the case was over-charged and I remain doubtful of a conviction. This picture will likely be the single most important piece of evidence in the case. It shows Zimmerman with significant blood on the back of his head — an image that supports accounts from the scene and will be used to corroborate Zimmerman’s account of a struggle with Trayvon Martin where he feared serious bodily injury. [UPDATE: Zimmerman granted bond].
Unlike the photos of Zimmerman at the police station, this photo was taken a few minutes after the fight. Zimmerman’s shaved head could prove Godsend for Zimmerman. Had he had longer hair, the injury would have not appeared so stark.
The photo shows both cuts and a contusion — injuries that would normally be defined as serious bodily injury by many courts in torts cases where head injuries are treated as inherently potentially serious. The original police report said that he was bleeding from the nose and head and that his clothes looked like he had been in a fight. Zimmerman claims that it was Martin who jumped him, punched him, and pounded his head on to the concrete sidewalk.
The prosecutors can still argue that they do not contest the fight but that Zimmerman started it. However, with this photo, the charge of second-degree murder appears even more excessive and undermines Special Prosecutor Angela Corey’s claim that she was not affected by the political pressure to charge Zimmerman. I can understand a manslaughter charge, even with the photo, but no reasonable prosecutor would consider the second-degree murder charge as based on this evidence. Corey clearly must have seen this photo and the reports before her charging of Zimmerman.
The photo should also assist Zimmerman in his efforts to get bail.
Zimmerman, 28, is still being held on charges of second-degree murder of Martin, 17. In my view, a denial of bail would be an abuse and unwarranted given the fact that Zimmerman cooperated at the scene and voluntarily turned himself in.
Source: ABC
Poor Matt. He could not find anyone to join him in a rousing chorus of The Horst Wessel Song. Sad.
@Malisha: that were, up until the trial, hearsay, such as the girlfriend’s telephone call.
Sigh. What the girlfriend reports on the telephone call is not hearsay.
“Hearsay” is NOT the label we give to anything that was HEARD, “Hearsay” is when you were told a fact transpired by somebody that could have been LYING or MISINFORMED or MISTAKEN or MISREMEMBERING.
If your only knowledge of something is that somebody else told you it happened, then that is hearsay. If you heard something YOURSELF, as the girlfriend did over the phone, that is NOT hearsay, she can testify as to what she personally heard over the phone. That is called “earwitness” testimony, and I have seen a man convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison based almost entirely on a neighbor HEARING him commit a murder from the next apartment (and recognizing the voices he had heard many times).
The girlfriend can testify, under oath, what she personally heard over the phone; including Trayvon’s challenge and Zimmerman’s response and that she then heard what sounded to her like a scuffle before the phone went dead. Likewise, the people in the area can testify as to what THEY personally heard. She can even testify as to what Trayvon told her.
None of that is hearsay. Now note the difference: She can testify that Trayvon TOLD her he was being followed, but she cannot testify that he WAS being followed; the former is personal experience, the latter would be hearsay (for her) because theoretically, Trayvon might have been lying.
What she heard, by Trayvon and Zimmerman, is NOT HEARSAY, it is her personal experience. It would be earwitness testimony. If the judge believes it is relevant, it can be heard on the stand and under oath, and can be considered as reliable an account of the facts as eyewitness testimony.
Hey everybody, rather than clicking on the stuff Matt recently posted, you can always just go up to Elaine M’s posting from 7:30 pm on Friday, April 20, 2012 and hear James Brown sing PAYBACKS! It’s lots more fun and you can cut a rug while you do it!
No, really, did Matt really call Mespo…
Nevermind.
Uh oh, I feel a story coming on. I arranged a demonstration to take place at one of the downtown Washington DC buildings (can’t even remember it) some time during the 1990s about some case of covered-up sexual abuse in the military. Now these cases are coming to prominence but back then, not. So at this demonstration was a woman with a British accent who was so proper and perfect at all times that we — the rest of us plebian Americans — restrained our speech and even behavioral gestures to appear a lot less vulgar than usual, and so as to not offend her. She was an important activist with us. Anyway, I got a ride back into the suburbs with one of the other activists that day and this lady was in the back seat with me, and a demonstrator in the front seat made a loud complaint against one of the female members of the cover-up team that had led to the case we were demonstrating about. “What a F%#^-ing stupid Wh*re” she declared. We all gasped. I glanced over at Vanessa, who remained perfectly calm-faced as she said, in her aristocratic and authoritative voice, “Oh I much prefer the Anglo Saxon descriptive terms.” Beat. I then said it: “What are THEY?” In the same voice she responded: “Dumb F%#^-ing C*NT!”
I had for many many years bemoaned the fact that most of our curse-words, and at least those that had any real value or power, were all misogynist. Either you were no good because your mother conceived you while she was unmarried, or you were a son of a female dog, or you were just a female dog yourself, or you were female sexual anatomy presumed to be a degraded body part, or etc. etc. etc. They all basically “played the dozens” with you. Other languages seemed no better. I complained about this to a friend of mine in New York — another lawyer — and he helped me out of the dilemma. “HE IS A GOAT!” he declared (referring at the time to my ex). “Goat? Why a goat?” I had no reason to complain of these creatures, and their milk made the best cheese imaginable. “A GOAT,” he explained pedantically. “If he cannot eat it, and he cannot f*ck it, he will PISS on it.”
I wish I could find a good video clip for this one!
I’m done on this page. Obviously ignorance has gotten it’s full grasp on all of you because you don’t want to see it any other way besides your way. You all can keep on going thinking “videos are fake,” “pictures are fake,” “testimony is fake.” and only believe what you are fed.
I guess they were right. Ignorance is bliss!
malisha:
“Did this really happen? Did Matt, at a little past noon (Eastern Standard) call Mespo a “cunt” on this thread and then proceed with some further “argument” about some alleged point on topic?”
*******************
He did, indeed. He’s got this gender confusion thing going on or he misspelled “cutie.” As in “you are nothing but a cutie.” That must be it.
Matt:
Thanks for saving me the trouble of having to click over to “Storm Front.” Any good new Leni Riefenstahl movies out there yet?
Signing off, now. My point is made. The floor is all yours.
___________
Elaine M:
Let’s leave Matt alone. He’s pouting. He likes his women and minorities (like you & me) quiet and without any troublesome opposing opinions or contrary facts. If he gets irrational it’s our fault. Welcome to Matt’s World where he doesn’t really want the last word — until he does.
Otteray Scribe – Why you say that? Because you don’t want to hear things that contradict what you already BELIEVE to be the truth? Is it because you only want to hear the psycho-babble that all other news networks put out that are just boosting their ratings? Does the Fox network make you think too hard?
Every day you are listening to the other networks that WANT to make this a “race issue” and want to push you to watch them more because it gets you more angry and feeding false information (not all the time, but most of the time). I don’t really care what you all think my credibility is, you only feel that way because I’m trying to make you open your eyes and mind to other possibilities, other than “Zimmerman is a murderer and should be hung.”
@Matt: What would be the point of viewing these videos? Not one of these people has any more authority to comment than any of us on this blog; and some of the lawyers on this blog (which does not include me) are far more authoritative than they are.
If you think they make an argument worth hearing, don’t try to give us homework. Distill it for us. That also ensures that we hear what YOU are hearing, so we can argue with YOU. The people in these videos aren’t going to respond to anything we say. Posting videos to argue for your position is a coward’s tactic, it lets you avoid responsibility for what is said (for example, you are already telling us it isn’t you that is a racist, you are just posting a video by a racist you think makes good points) and lets you deflect criticism or logical flaws to others.
Don’t be a coward, you aren’t fooling anybody HERE with that tactic.
Excuse me, folks, I was just reading through this thread to try to find something I thought had stimulated a thought of my own, and I stopped cold and got confused. Wait a minute, wait a minute: Did this really happen? Did Matt, at a little past noon (Eastern Standard) call Mespo a “cunt” on this thread and then proceed with some further “argument” about some alleged point on topic? Did that happen?
I went back and read it several times. Of course, my credibility cannot be very high (I misspell quite often, and commit grammatical errors as well) by now so perhaps I got it wrong…
@Tony C: Yes, I agree with you completely, but I wanted to leave the fact bundle as “bare-bones” as possible to avoid all allegations that were, up until the trial, hearsay, such as the girlfriend’s telephone call. I agree with you and raise you several points on the prosecution side too, because the prosecution will presumably be able to prove the things alleged by witnesses who claim the police were refractory to their attempts to offer statements disproving the self-defense claims. Bottom line here is that if the prosecution is NOT trying to throw the case, it is a strong case. If the prosecution IS tryin gto throw the case, they will do it with one of those very complex argue-forever sleight-of-hands that mark the worst cover-ups in our national archives of disgrace and shame.
By the way, there are two little weird-looking “holes” embedded (sp?) in the blood in this allegedly exculpatory photograph. One such hole appears in the midst of the left-side “bloodlike substance pattern” and one appears in the right-side “bloodlike substance pattern.” I’d like some forensic physicist to figure out how you smash a that-shaped head on a flat hard surface to produce those two interesting rivulets. I’m no physicist. Once I took a college physics course from a guy whose name I think was Professor Wellington, and he was a “submarine splash expert.” I loved that. Hated the course, though: dull!
Matt, the fact that you regard Faux Spews and Billo as “news sources” blows your small amount of remaining crediblilty clean out of the water. You are right on one thing; I doubt seriously anyone other than your echo chamber will click those video links.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2bv1HwW3bw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6GIRvYxnv8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaHgv9zoraU&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iA3rLxncBw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-gsre7t6G4&feature=related
I think you all need to view these videos. I know most of you won’t because you have already made up your mind on this case. I will also, preemptively for all of you that want to say I’m a “racist,” I did not title or make the 3rd video down. I simply post that video because he made some good points.
@Malisha: The Defendant then, after more than 30 seconds’ elapsed time, came into contact with the Victim. (Here we do not have facts, subject to cross-examination, explaining the detail of the “coming into contact” phase of the proceedings.)
We have facts from valid inference: Zimmerman was outside of his car. By his own account. He claims he was jumped; but he was not, the girlfriend’s testimony will be valid in court, she can testify to what she heard with her own ears: Zimmerman was not jumped, he was having a hostile verbal exchange with Trayvon Martin before the struggle ensued. He was not jumped from behind, which to a jury will mean he was lying about the confrontation, and that will cast doubt on his entire story as a fabrication.
Final Score:
Elaine 1, Matt 0
Matt 1, April 21, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Let’s see…
“Martain”
“caugt”
“ie” (I don’t even know what this is)
“where zimmerman location when he made the 911 tapes” (grammatical error)
“zZimmerman”
“martain” (again)
“wht”
“ares”
“WONDS”
“CONSISTANT” (sorry for my little typo, I did the same)
“TOGETHERS”
I think my errors are minor compared to this…..
*****
We aren’t in the habit of correcting people’s spelling on this blog. Since you decided to criticize a poster for his/her spelling errors, I suggest you check out some of your own misspellings:
If he had commited a crime he would not have been “child” in the courts eyes.
I, as an EMT, have seen a SERIOUS injury to the top of somones head.
All in all I don’t believe that it is even possible for Zimmerman to recieve a fair trial due to what the media has done and how they have portrayed this case to the public.
I will also go as far as to say that I honestly believe that Zimmerman will recieve a guilty verdict and go to jail the rest of his life just to appease the public.
Dredd – Quite honestly your looking at this whole thing from an emotional standpoint.
Dredd – Tred carefully, you are getting dangerously close to the stupidity level of Mespo
Gene – manslaughter would have been the correct way to go but, in my opinon, the prosecuter really jumped the gun…
Gene – I completely understand trying to get a plea deal by overcharging the defendent and I have seen this done in many cases.
Which, by the way, they can now recieve money every time his name or those phrases (Justice for Trayvon and I am Trayvon) are used.
Michele – Then why did the funeral directer state openly in an interview for the news that he “didn’t see any noticable marks on Trayvon that would indicate a struggle.” ?
Elaine – Why don’t you do the same, and while your at it look at how many black on black, black on white, hispanic on black, and black on hispanic crimes actually make it to the news with the intensity that the Trayvon Martin case did.
Also, there is no afidavit because one was never made up.
I’m not trying to win an arguement by saying you are ignorant, I’m stating fact.
Him, in the bathroom posing for a picture with a gun plain as day laying on the counter.
I, totallity, just state that I personally lean more towards the Zimmerman side because of the evidence that has been presented thus far.
DWEETTA ADAMS – Can you spell? Your credibility is non existant when you mispell damn near every word.
How do you know those wounds aren’t consistant?
Hi, folks. I want to deal with an issue other than the relative dumbassitude, moronisationism, offayrationalisticism or spelling skills (and its obviously associated credibility) of my honored colleagues (I know I am being presumptuous but you can’t stop me) on this thread.
The issue of what has now been called the allegations of “prior bad acts” on the part of the late Trayvon Martin.
First of all, before we even entertain the notion that we should — or the court should — evaluate any of these proposed evidentiary offerings, I need to see all of George Zimmerman’s school records. I need to see his Juvenile Court records (which are probably sealed even to a criminal court). I need to hear from the girl he was going with when he was 16, 17 years old, if any. I need to see all pictures he ever posted or posed for. Then I’m willing to even BEGIN to think about these alleged issues regarding the late Trayvon Martin.
But presuming I have seen these things and they come up proving that George Zimmerman never (a) misbehaved in school; (b) was accused of misbehaving in school; (c) acted “wrong” according to the opinion of 28-year-olds when he was 17; (d) appeared suspicious to anyone at any time anywhere out in public; (e) wore a hoodie; or (f) was an “asshole” —
Still, then all I have is the following.
A person who never committed any prior bad acts from birth to age 18 (hereinafter called “Defendant”)
saw, regarded as suspicious, did not like and spoke ill of
A person who committed some prior bad acts before age 18 (hereinafter called “Victim”), which prior bad acts were unknown to Defendant at the time that he saw, regarded as suspicious, did not like and spoke ill of the Victim.
The Defendant reported his negative impressions (or some of his negative impressions) to the police when he saw the Victim.
The Defendant decided to get out of his car and follow the Victim because of his (a) bad opinion of the victim and his (b) desire to make sure that the asshole did not get away.
The Defendant, asked by the police if he was following the Victim, said, “Yes,” and the police person speaking with him on his cell phone then said, “OK We don’t need you to do that.”
The Defendant, indicating his understanding of the previously quoted phrase, said, “OK.”
The Defendant then, after more than 30 seconds’ elapsed time, came into contact with the Victim. (Here we do not have facts, subject to cross-examination, explaining the detail of the “coming into contact” phase of the proceedings.)
After some more elapsed time, some of which was audio recorded and some of which was not audio recorded, Defendant killed the victim.
Even after killing him, Defendant did not know of the victim’s many presumed failures or “shortcomings” as a person. If he actually was a dishonor student, even as he lay in the morgue, growing colder, minute by minute, Defendant did not know and could not discover (and presumably unkill) the blameworthy, or blameless, dead Victim. The dead Victim’s goodness or badness were still, after his death, matters completely unknown to Defendant, who could not even approximate his age properly, according to his own words spoken recently in court.
That’s really all we have, right now, because serious fact-finding and analysis is needed before we have more. Various people who consider various other people to be assholes, morons, dumbasses, and many variations on those themes, still do not have more.
I am willing to say that I will stake my reputation as a non-assoholic, undumb, only occasionally moronic (dear friend of mine who is also a lawyer and an economist called me a moron in 1990, though) American on the following: There is a presumption that if a person kills someone he doesn’t know, after having seen, disliked, dissed and followed him, that he probably committed a very serious crime.
Oh, and more. I think after you kill somebody, you’re ill advised to say that it wasn’t really as bad as all that because although you’re a good person, they were a bad one. Just seems to me to be bad form.
Now if I were to set up a society where people acted right, I would pass a law that said, if you kill somebody that you didn’t even know, because you THOUGHT he needed following, apprehending, and punishing for something although you didn’t know WHAT, and then after you kill him, instead of feeling sorry and horrible and falling all over yourself with remorse and misery and horror at your own terrible irreversible deed (and I don’t mean two months later in court with attorney’s advice, I mean two MINUTES LATER while you’re rending your clothes and pouring dirt on your head and crying out to god above to forgive you if he can), then you have to wear a “Mark of CAIN” on your forehead forever and everyone who sees you is entitled to say to you: “YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE DONE THAT BECAUSE IT MADE ME FEEL REALLY BAD!”
OK, that’s just MY WORLD.
Dweetta: You keep spelling your way; I understood every word!
In closing:
spehling duzzint kredibylitee maack;
budt summ nonsekwiters tayk thuh kaick!
anon,
Again, you’ve mistaken me for someone who cares about the opinions of me personally espoused by anonymous Internet nitwits.
@Bosco: I believe what I believe BECAUSE of the facts already presented, it is you that believes what you want to believe regardless of the facts already presented.
The facts are clear: If Zimmerman had not been pretending to be a cop that night, then Trayvon Martin would be alive, and would have made it home to watch his game without committing any crime whatsoever. The altercation was due to Zimmerman following and pursuing and frightening Trayvon Martin. That is true well beyond the level of “opinion,” it is the facts of the case based upon the physical evidence of the 911 tape.
Your belief that medical evidence can somehow exonerate Zimmerman is an example of believing what you WANT to believe REGARDLESS of the evidence. I will not deny that Zimmerman was injured, it just makes no difference, because if Trayvon injured Zimmerman it was in justifiable self defense against a stranger stalking him, which is obviously true from the tape.
Anon,
Sometimes you amaze me…..