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
Malisha, Don’t try to complicate the reasonable POINT that the Tawana Brawley & Duke Lacrosse cases were brought up by others. The details of the cases are not the point.
The RUSH TO JUDGEMENT by black activists and our ‘yellowed’ media pundits IS the POINT. Both, by the way, having their own motivations behind their very public accusations . Later to be found FALSE.
Yes there is sadly to say a dead body in this case and that can never change. Its POSSIBLE that Zimmerman did act in self-defense and for many of you to accuse him of being a cold hearted racist killer without knowing all the facts is despicable deplorable and un-American.
Now the photo comparison of Zimmerman’s profiles have been posted here ,,thanks to those that had posted them.
Those pictures show a DISTINCTIVE change in the appearance of his nose. Of course the photos could not make any conclusions alone but they add to the possibility that Zimmerman WAS struck when you connect it to the bloodied head photo of Zimmerman.That is of course if these photos are backed up with the FACTS that we will be provided later. Have you known anyone who had had a broken nose before? I have..and the difference is the same as those pics.
Back to why i posted this comment. Malisha you are very WRONG for that last comment of yours . The reason those 2 cases were brought up here is the public handling and presentations by the YELLOW MEDIA AND BLACK ACTIVISTS. Not the details of each.
Oh, about Duke Lacrose and Tawana Brawley? There was no dead body in either “case.” There was no admission by a shooter or alleged shooter (or other alleged perp) in either case that they had actually done something that COULD be considered a crime if motivated by anything other than the finest motives. That is, in those two cases, there was only “he said she said” evidence, nothing more. In the Trayvon Martin case, there was Trayvon Martin, DEAD, and George Zimmerman saying, “I shot him…but…”
As Peter Pan said to Michael, “lovelier thoughts, Michael!”
Matt, OK, sounds rational, except that SASQUATCH did not want to give his name, and also, did not give the photograph to the police who were evaluating the situation that night. Why not? Just because he never wants to be seen, like Mr. Snuffle-uppagus?
I think right after Zimmerman shot Trayvon that his friend Sasquatch came over and broke his nose and cut his head to make it look like self defense. I then think that his friend Sasquatch snapped a photo and turned it over to the police later on in the case to complete the conspiracy theory.
beccs 1980, what makes it even more bizarre is that Zimmerman says to the stranger, “Man, just tell [my wife] that I shot somebody.” And the stranger, instead of running away and calling 911 in a fright, stays there and takes a head shot, which he then does not provide to the police. Um, really? Uh, how did that go again?
Anon, I did not say that the conclusion “we don’t know what happened so we have to take Zimmerman’s word for it” is the logical conclusion or the standard for trial. Quite the opposite. I was referring to that as the defense banner for the bloggers and talkers, like you and me, but not like me. For me, I think the trial will cover, besides “Zimmerman’s word for it,” at least the following:
Careful analysis of the events according to ALL recordings made that night on all police lines, all other phone or other lines (including the call from Zimmerman’s cell to his wife as the photographer possibly took the alleged possible picture of his possible injuries), distances, markings, etc.
Real results of verified interviews with all witnesses whether they witnessed sight, sound or other perceptions that night.
Interviews of the actual EMTs who were on the scene that night. !!!
Careful evaluation of the autopsy report.
Real results of all prior contacts Zimmerman had with the police.
In-depth interviews of all doctors, employers, psychologists or treatment providers of any type, etc. etc. etc. regarding Zimmerman.
In-depth interviews of all teachers, friends, relatives, and others who knew Trayvon Martin, to find out if he ever had a history of making unprovoked attacks upon people who were not threatening or assaulting HIM.
and many many etceteras.
We do NOT have to take Zimmerman’s word for it. The reason I mentioned the confusion, ambiguity and complexity issue was to show that there was good defense-team incentive to throw as many red herrings into the thing as possible to make it look possible for Zimmerman to get a “walk” on this — so that the public opinion, that the police screwed up big-time and probably on purpose, and that Wolfinger is corrupt at best and whatever is worse than that at worst, can be turned around in time for the survival of these departments as they presently are.
Nobody has to take the word of Zimmerman for what happened. Confusion can be overcome and if the prosecutors are half decent it will be. Ambiguity does not really exist and so far, has only been introduced by anonymous witnesses and a few who gave their names and then either quickly retreated (Taafe) or got humiliated off the screen (Oliver). And complexity is just something that a jury of Zimmerman’s peers will grapple with. We do not really know how they will come out. They might get overwhelmed with complexity, of course, but then again, they might sort it out together and come to consensus. This is something George Zimmerman and his defense team will have to deal with. Reasonable doubt will have to be reasonable, and we’ll see how it plays out. Remember, Mr. McNeil in Georgia was convicted on facts more sympathetic to him than those presently available in this case, and that conviction was upheld on appeal.
@malisha, don’t forget the curious incident with the dog.
I’m far more interested to learn who the photographer is.. And if he knew Zimmerman personally. To me, it really appears as though he does.
I can’t imagine a confused, wobbly, half beaten man approaching ( or being approached) by a stranger and asking him to call his wife after posing for a photograph.
It just doesn’t register with me.
I feel as though I’m missing something.. As though I’m in a bizarre twilight zone.
beccs1980:
“I just shot someone dead after being beaten into almost unconsciousness. Here stranger, take a shot of my injuries and call my wife.
Uhhhhhhh”
****************
Uncommonly good common sense. This guy has been setting up his defense since moments after the killing. I am so upset … so upset ,,, really upset. Hey you take a picture of my head, will ya?
Sounds like guilty mind to me.
From a foundational point of view only two people we know about (obviously defendant Zimmerman couldn’t see them) saw the “gashes” the defendant is claiming. Zimmerman’s dad says he saw two vertical ones the next day. That’s not what I see in the picture. The other person is the photographer who refuses to be identified. Right now it’s interesting but decidedly inadmissible without more proof of authenticity.
I just shot someone dead after being beaten into almost unconsciousness. Here stranger, take a shot of my injuries and call my wife.
Uhhhhhhh
Oh those nose bump photos are just silly. If Zimmerman was so keen on having his head photographed minutes after the shooting, either he or the cops should have had him taken to the E.R. so the whole thing could be properly photographed and documented. His picture two months later whether it is a “booking photo” or a “mug shot” or a shot for him to get work as a nose model proves nothing. You have an undated “before” and a much-later-dated “after.” But Zimmerman left the police station and went HOME that night or early the next a.m. Surely he could have either gone to the hospital or had his wife take a full set of pictures of him with the dates on them. He didn’t try to memorialize anything properly because he didn’t think he had to; the cops worked it out so there wouldn’t be a fuss about what had happened. It wasn’t until the story broke into the big news that the situation changed. At that point, it would have been possible (while he was “in hiding” to avoid being killed by some person who might have thought he was a suspicious asshole, presumably) to make changes in his nose shape, if indeed there ARE changes in his nose shape.
[return]
[return]
Sorry, anon. I don’t speak or read baboon. If that’s what you were writing in, please use standard American English. Your cooperation on these matters is appreciated. What you said was “I honestly don’t know if that’s a mugshot or not, but I presume it could be. One of the lawyers, or maybe even Gene H, could clarify that.” It looks remarkably like English, but I’ll take your word it’s baboon. However, in English, you have presumed correctly that I could clarify whether it was a mug shot or not. You presumed incorrectly that I would. Now if your meaning was something else in baboon? I can’t help you or not help you there until you rephrase it in a language I do speak.
bfm:
“But to compare her mesmerizing work with these YouTube videos is totally unfair to Riefenstahl.”
*******************
Now that was funny! 😀
The angles are quite different, too.
In one he is leaning to the right, in the other to the left. The difference is so minute that it’s hard to call it relevant.
Idk.
I get a very sick feeling about the newly released photo. I know many of you detest ‘gut feelings’ and ’emotional debate’, but since I wasn’t there and don’t have every piece of evidence, it’s all I’ve got. I’m also not a professional in any field relevant to the case, so I’m here as strictly a layman.
So at the risk of being called a ‘bunt’ and having poo thrown at me, I am going to say that this photo is extremely questionable and it reeks of shadyness.
I’m not some crazy, über liberal who wants Zimmerman’s head on a plate, so I’ll clear that up now.
But the fact that he ‘posed’ for these photo’s, appears to be talking on a cellphone when he should be in cuffs, asks a complete stranger to call his wife.. All just a mere 3 minutes after the shooting.. Well… Something is off.. WAY off!
I don’t see these photos being helpful to Zimmerman at all. It may calm the media storm for a bit, but in court, this is going to be torn to shreds!
“As in, “nobody knows what happened” so we have to take George Zimmerman’s word for it?”
reasonable doubt, ain’t it a pisser?
Ask Gene H how to do away with that, he’ll just hire some phony crumbum to make up a whole new scientism and blame it on American jurisprudence.
I write:
“One of the lawyers, or maybe even Gene H, could clarify that.”
Gene responds:
“Now why would I assist someone who called me unethical? That would be inequitable. Since equity is a key component of justice, that would make it unjust. To be unjust is to be unethical.
Sorry.
Answer your own questions.”
Man, you are such a dope. (“straight man, feed, dead wood, or stooge”)
Use your baboon like reading skills and reread what I wrote.
OK, Anon, just send me $10,000 and I’ll send you the change.
[return]
[return]
Pete, Gene H, your interest in what Anon is calling me is just turning my head. I personally like “silly kaak” which is a bit sweet, but what the H. I had a correspondence once with a psychiatrist who was in practice at (I think it was) University of Kentucky Medical School Hospital, and he was named Otto Kaak. When I mentioned that his name was palindromic, he told me that his mother, Anna Kaak, had a friend who sent her a 7-page letter that was entirely a palindrome. Many nights I have wondered what on earth could have been said to her in those seven pages. None of my business, actually. Dr. Kaak was an outstanding professional, very erudite.
[return]
[return]
Although the many defense suggestions and assertions (boo boo on the head, red shirt on the bottom of the two fighting forms, bump on the nose, “you’re gonna die tonight,” “Do you have a problem?” jumps from behind on the way back to the car, shouts of “help help” that do not show the voice-print quality necessary to identify as Zimmerman’s, etc. etc.) do lead to more and more questions, I think of the book “RULES OF THE ROAD” and especially the premise that defendants prevail (and this was written about civil trials, by a plaintiffs’ lawyer) when there are three things:
Confusion
Ambiguity and
Complexity.
If you have the guy in custody and you read him his rights and then he talks and he tells you, “I killed him in self-defense,” and you lock him up on assault with a weapon charges or something, and then in the morning you work more on the investigation and you get an autopsy and a ballistics report and you speak with all the witnesses, etc., and then you discount the self-defense assertion and charge him with manslaughter and wait for the prosecutor to make some kind of a determination, that’s pretty straight-forward. Let his defense lawyer try to prove self-defense; you know he shot the kid. He agreed that he shot the kid. He gave you reason (in his phone call a few minutes before ETD) to suspect that he had animus when he shot the kid. Not terribly confusing, minimal ambiguity, and in fact, complexity will be worked out with good forensic work over the next day or two, including in-depth interviews of all possible witnesses.
But if you have a guy in custody and then you speak to him, let him go, fail to do appropriate investigation, and let the whole thing get stale and inconclusive, then you have confusion (because now the guy is “in hiding” and you get statements from his brother, his father, his friends, his perhaps African American advocate, his long-time neighbors, his detractors, and people in the community who are either afraid of him or creeped out by his behavior or blah blah blah blah blah —
and you have ambiguity because DID he have cuts or bashes on his head or DIDN’T HE and DID he get medical treatment or DIDn’t he and WHEN did he get it and WHO took the pictures and HOW was this done and blah blah blah blah blah —
and you have complexity because everything (who was screaming HELP HELP and who was on top and who did what to whom?) spreads out in concentric circles of craziness until —
WELL WELL WELL, what have we here?
Confusion,
Ambiguity and
Complexity.
As in, “nobody knows what happened” so we have to take George Zimmerman’s word for it?
So really, is that the way to practice law enforcement? Perhaps, but only if you do not want ALL the laws to be enforced, just SOME of the laws SOME of the time.
My point. If this is a freebie killing, anybody can be a freebie killing, just so long as the killer does his killing without witnesses and then throws a tantrum about how scared he was and how he was beaten up. In those circumstances, I would think there would have to be a lot of “passes” for a lot of self defense. Might get out of control.
anon,
Now why would I assist someone who called me unethical? That would be inequitable. Since equity is a key component of justice, that would make it unjust. To be unjust is to be unethical.
Sorry.
Answer your own questions.
However, that you can’t figure out if a booking photo is a mug shot or not on your own is simply hilarious.
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2012/4/17/17410/1544
Merritt writes:
“Here’s a comparison of Zimmerman’s profile from an undated photo before the shooting and when he was booked into the jail. I see a smooth bridge in the former and a bump in the latter, but maybe that’s just me.”