Reasonable Doubt? Crime Scene Photos Shows Serious Injury On Zimmerman’s Head

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

1,309 thoughts on “Reasonable Doubt? Crime Scene Photos Shows Serious Injury On Zimmerman’s Head”

  1. That coworker interview is also interesting from another point of view. The coworker says that when Management called George in to speak with him about his bullying conduct toward a fellow employee, he gave such good excuses and seemed so sincere and honest that the target of his bullying actually DOUBTED HIMSELF for a minute. That would seem to bolster the people on this and other threads who believe that Zimmerman would do well on the stand in a criminal trial and that he could convince a jury that he was a poor victimized frightened man who committed only self-defense against a violent drugged-up thug. But I think that won’t work for him. First of all, he will look like that only through his direct questioning, but on cross-examination, he will deteriorate and do himself so much damage, with his self-righteousness and his mediocre intelligence and his self-promoting transparent bullshit that he will transform himself, right before the jury’s eyes, into a quintessential asshole who shot a guy for not kissing up to him. Furthermore, he is amazingly unaware of himself, and unable to tell when he is going too far. He apparently gets “full of himself” when he’s describing what everybody else does wrong. That puts his brain out of gear and his punk persona emerges. I would hate to be his defense counsel trying hard to protect him from himself on the stand under oath. And all the witnesses who would get up there to defend him would end up looking like Joe Oliver — pathetic.

    There is another issue for defense counsel to consider. Although Professor Turley thinks that the presence of HTC in Martin’s dead body’s remaining blood works for the defense, I don’t see logically how it can. Zimmerman did not shoot Martin for having HTC in his blood; he shot him because (using his OWN version of events) he sought out a confrontation with him to protect his community and that confrontation ended up with Zimmerman being physically dominated by a teen-ager and that caused him to fear for his life and kill his alleged assailant; or (using the physical evidence alone) he shot him because when he found Martin, who had run from him, the meeting of the two strangers on the grass caused Zimmerman to decide to pull the trigger and shoot Martin through the heart. Or (using common sense) he shot Trayvon Martin because he wanted to roust Martin but the boy did not cooperate with being rousted.

    None of that has anything to do with drugs. Since the police were already alerted, if this case had anything to do with drugs, the arrival of the police on the scene and their search of Martin would have finished that story.

    This had to do with Zimmerman’s choices and conduct that night.

    So, back to the possibility of the Zimmerman self-defense case coming to trial. As we know, sociopaths are people who have no empathy for others, and therefore, cannot figure out how others think, what others feel, or what is or is not acceptable to others. They can lie very well. So if they get into trouble, they can sometimes lie their way out of trouble.

    Now, I have no proof that Zimmerman is a sociopath. It does appear, though, that the coworker who described Zimmerman’s conduct at work (at a job he was fired from, as he was fired from other jobs in his short working career) described someone who really did not care that he was causing extreme discomfort for someone (“Omar”) who had done him no harm and who was only trying to please him. This does match many other witness statements about Zimmerman’s historical inability to understand someone else’s position or rights.

    When this kind of person finds that he cannot convince you of something that he wants to convince you of, he can do one of two things, in general. He may icily abandon you and move on to someone else he feels he has more control over, or he may become angry and coercive towards you, and blame you for the problem.

    Play that in front of a jury if the prosecutor cross-examines George Zimmerman in a way that he does not like, and/or if the judge orders him to answer a question that he is trying to evade.

  2. “Prior Bad Acts” usually cannot come into a criminal case, unless the defense puts up some information that opens the field up to an examination of the LIKELIHOOD of a defendant doing something, at the time of the crime, resembling something he had done in the past. In other words, you couldn’t put up evidence in a prosecution to say that George Zimmerman was known as a bully at work unless Zimmerman got on the stand, perhaps, to show that he was always polite and non-threatening and therefore he would not have done anything to scare or terrorize Martin or to make Martin feel he needed to defend himself. But once Zimmerman was on the stand talking about how he was so nice and calm and this horrible thug attacked him and beat him up and put him in fear for his life, well, then all sorts of prior bad acts could presumably come into the trial as rebuttals of that defendant-created impression of the saint being attacked for no reason by a candy-toting druggie-thug.

    So this particular interview that has hit the airwaves today, about Zimmerman getting fired from a job because he phoned HR to complain about everyone else, about his bullying a foreign-born employee to the point where the man wondered if he should risk losing his job by responding to the bullying, and by his calling the other employee a “fucking moron” BECAUSE THE GUY LISTENED TO ZIMMERMAN WHEN ZIMMERMAN DIRECTED HIM TO PERFORM A DUTY ON THE JOB, is very enlightening. It makes me think more and more that the impression Zimmerman’s people are trying to promote cannot last past any cross-examination and that going to trial would be a very big risk.

  3. Bosco, the recent release of information is all very well, but it was not previously released — what that told me was that the information that WAS released was all the police were willing to release. Not ANY of the information anybody was using had been vetted yet because there was no trial yet. I have no apology to make to you or anybody about accurate and careful evaluation of what was available, and in fact, the information that is now being made available confirms my suspicions (including suspicion of a deliberate police cover-up) even more.

    Professor Turley put up a picture at the top of this thread announcing in his headline that “serious injury” was shown by the photograph of “Zimmerman’s head.” NONE of that was evidence yet, Bosco; it was released to a news source, not entered on the record in a court proceeding. Remember, O’Mara was not even sure he would use it, and wouldn’t comment on it.

    I don’t care about your grammar at all, don’t worry. What I care about is the illogical leaps you make to reinforce your original view that Zimmerman did no wrong by accidentally killing a kid he thought nobody would care about. That view is common (fortunately, only among 25% of Americans) but it is just plain grossly wrong. Even Zimmerman thinking he did no wrong is grossly wrong, but it can never be corrected.

  4. (One more thing,,please excuse the grammatical errors ,,I’m busy doing other things and was rushing to get this done)

  5. Malisha,,thanks to you and Tony, for more of the same one-sided biased views of this sad tragedy.
    I’m sure that the self proclaimed Research Scientist here will already know of the definition to ‘CONJECTURE’ but i will post it for you and others alike that may not be as enlightened as he is.

    1) the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
    2) an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
    3). the INTERPRETATION of signs or omens.

    That is ALL your continued rantings here have been Malisha >conjecture.

    That is the only reason for which i have been in opposition to this thread (your ‘playground’).

    Let me go back a little with you Malisha.
    your words on – May 16, 2012 at 7:19 am

    “What was found at the crime scene was not recorded, so we do not know what was found at the crime scene. Here is a list of what was NOT mentioned or done at the time, or preserved, from the crime scene:”
    You went on to make a list of
    8 “No explanation of-blah blah blahs”
    Your point being that
    “What was found at the crime scene was not recorded..”
    OBVIOUSLY your insinuation was that there was a possible coverup going on because at that time.
    Remember my response later ? I said “(one of the dumbest ones yet, ALL crime scenes are RECORDED-they stated that they were going to suppress all of the facts and they DID)

    NOW the evidence is beginning to emerge 200 pages of it which blows your prejudicial accusation out of the water.

    And now people like you will down play the fact that you were off base in your allegation. You will go on to discredit everything else that doesn’t show Zimmerman in the worst light.
    To point out,,I am NOT pro ANYONE in this tragic shooting.
    I am pro JUSTICE without prejudice or CONJECTURE which is all that you and Tony and others with the same biased mindset have been spewing.

    I don’t like Bill O’Reilly and i never did but In this case though he seems to be the only one in the media that speaks with common sense.
    He has even had Martin’s mother and atty on his show to talk about the case. He spoke to them with nothing but respect and UNBIASED LOGIC.

    Take time out to review this snippet before you start your slanted critiques.
    O’Reilly makes a very very good point to the recent news.

  6. @LD: “You don’t understand that the prosecution would need to somehow justify Martin hitting Zimmerman.”

    No they don’t. Not at all. There is no fact in evidence — and will be none at trial unless O’Mara puts Zimmerman on the stand and lets him be cross-examined — that would indicate to any rational person that Martin “hit” Zimmerman. There are a thousand ways it could have happened and “Martin hit Zimmerman” is only the one that Zimmerman would like. Besides which he didn’t say that happened when he spoke to the police — he said that he was headed back to his car and he was basically ambushed. Which, yes I repeat, does make Zimmerman’s credibility shaky, which would, you see, make his attorney worry about putting him on the stand to be sworn in to testify in his own defense. Sticky wicket there.

    But the real issue is now this: Intermediate Range. Intermediate Range.

    Zimmerman’s story does not work.
    It didn’t work that night (the police just liked it, as did the prosecutor at the time, but really, it didn’t work at all) and it doesn’t work now.

    Intermediate range, straight into the chest. No angle. Zimmerman’s not on the ground getting “MAA” Punches or “AMA punches” or “MAA MAA please come and save me from the big bad boy” punches or any other kind of punches.

    By the way, Trayvon Martin doesn’t bruise up because he’s dead. Your blood doesn’t keep flowing after you die so the bruise doesn’t form. Besides, maybe nobody punched anybody; maybe there was a tussle and they were on the ground and no punches were thrown. You could have had all sorts of things happening that physically add up to a fight before Zimmerman shot Martin at intermediate range, straight into his chest; they don’t necessarily include punches.

    Strange, though, that all those pictures become available much later than, and aren’t mentioned in, the report written that night by Ayala.

    Wait a minute, wait a minute: Intermediate range; no angle.

  7. Oh and here’s another “confuse people so they think there can’t be any real facts to use” piece of it:

    “Trayvon Martin assaulted and hurt poor George Zimmerman.”

    Confusing, isn’t it?

    A kid who only minutes ago was “running” according to honest George?

    A kid who told his girlfriend, “I won’t run but I’ll walk fast…”

    A kid who was carrying candy and tea — obviously to make an assault on a stranger a little more challenging so he could test his reflexes…

    A kid who was on the phone until the minute of confrontation — proven by the records of the phone itself AND the records of the minutes of the 911 calls placed from the surrounding houses …

    A kid who had no record of ever assaulting anyone before (unlike George Zimmerman who had a record of assaulting people before) and who was unarmed and therefore had no confidence that if he assaulted someone he could win…

    A kid who had no motive to assault a stranger or to verbally “mouth off” at him and who DID have a motive to try to get away from him…

    This, I suggest, is very confusing. It can only make sense if you FIRST decide on the conclusion and THEN advance the “evidence” leading to that conclusion.

  8. @ Bosco: “sometimes an underlining motivation behind a very convoluted theory or response (like what we see by you and others) is that to CONFUSE the issue.”

    OK, let’s look at it.

    We have the following:

    Zimmerman’s in his car.
    He sees Martin.
    He calls the cops.
    He says Martin is suspicious, etc.
    He says, “These assholes always get away.”
    They say, “are you following him?” He says, “Yeah.”
    They ask where the police should meet George.
    He says, “have them call me when they get here” —

    The next thing we know, he has shot Martin dead.
    He says he got out of the car to check the street sign and Martin reappeared, attacked him, and put him in fear for his life.
    He says he killed Martin in self-defense.
    He says he was screaming “Help Help” but nobody helped him.
    He says he does not want an ambulance.

    Now, that’s not too confusing. YET.

    Here’s the confusing part:

    Trayvon Martin put up pictures on FaceBook that were not very nice.

    Trayvon Martin got in trouble in high school.

    Trayvon Martin said either, “you got a problem?” “You do now, homie,” “You’re gonna die tonight,” “you got me,” or “I’m a criminal and you’re allowed to kill me.”

    Trayvon Martin’s father did not recognize the screams on a 911 tape.

    George Zimmerman’s prior protective order for violence brought on his saying that the girlfriend had actually assaulted HIM, not the other way around.

    George Zimmerman’s prior arrest for assaulting an officer ended up with his taking either an anger management course or an alcohol abuse course.

    George Zimmerman tutored Black kids.

    George Zimmerman’s mother was from South America.

    George Zimmerman’s friend Joe Oliver considers himself an expert on something.

    George Zimmerman’s friend Frank Taafe says George was “fed up.”

    George Zimmerman might not have actually been a “captain” of anything.

    Trayvon Martin might have made a teen-age “gangsta” video once.

    George Zimmerman didn’t have professional photographs of his injuries or X-rays taken the day after the incident.

    Trayvon Martin’s blood and urine tested positive for traces of THC.

    A school teacher was crying that night.

    Whites are sick of being accused of racism.

    Hoodies are bad…

  9. @Bosco: I do think Zimmerman profiled Martin based on race, but race makes no difference to my argument.

    I am a white man. If I pick a fight with a full grown white man in a bar over anything, say I think he cheated in a game of pool, and in this fight he splits my lip and breaks my nose, so I pull a gun and shoot him dead — I am guilty of murder, not self defense. Because I started the fight. If he bloodied me up and broke my nose, he did that in self defense.

    I did not have to intend to kill him, I did not have to hate his race. If I picked the fight, I do not get to claim self defense.

    So no, there are no extenuating circumstances for Zimmerman, because clearly Zimmerman picked the fight. His 911 call alone is enough to see that. Race was probably a factor in Zimmerman’s profiling, but it doesn’t have to be a factor at all, if this were a white-on-white or black-on-black crime, I would say the same thing: Zimmerman picked the fight by his aggressive following and questioning of Trayvon Martin.

  10. Ah OK Malisha, i see How vry very profound you are… Got to go,, ,,you kids enjoy your playground now. Commiserate safely together good.

  11. Exactly, Bosco. I am biased in favor of the VICTIM of the the crime, and against the PERPETRATOR of the crime. Extenuating circumstances would apply to Zimmerman if he were, for instance, dragged out of his car by a mob of angry unarmed teen-agers and beaten half to death, whereupon he accidentally killed an innocent by-stander named Trayvon Martin. NOT if he sought out someone he called an “asshole” [at least] and decided to prevent from “getting away.” That’s extenuation I’m not biased about, f’rinstance.

  12. Thank you Malisha for backing up what i was alluding to with your biased response . >extenuating circumstances would only apply to Martin<

  13. Bosco: You said: That is why in your mind ,,it doesn’t matter what type of person Martin was at that time of the shooting and it doesn’t matter in your mind that there IS a Stand-your-ground law (SINCE 1895) in the books.

    Well to me, both of those things matter.

    Does it matter to me what “type of person” Martin was at that time?

    Let me count the ways:

    1. He was innocent.
    2. He was young.
    3. He was worried at first, and frightened thereafter.
    4. He was alone.
    5. He was African American.
    6. He was unarmed.
    7. He was still alive.

    Minutes later, he was all of the above, but no longer #3 or #7.

    Does it matter that there IS a Stand-Your-Ground Law (Since 1895) in the books?

    Yes indeed, it does.
    Because Trayvon Martin, before he was #7, was all of the other numbers, #1 through #6, and he stood his ground. And that was lawful FOR HIM TO DO and that was what he apparently tried to do. So Zimmerman made sure that “his ground” — which was previously anywhere that was public and was not covered by DO NOT TRESPASS signs — was six feet of earth at his grave.

    It all matters to me. Very much indeed.
    Check out the play “All My Sons.”

  14. Nice response Mr Scientist, I’m sure that others here with the SAME mindset as you had enjoyed your ‘high brow’ attempt at insult.
    Once again, its a nice diversion from the obvious here in your ‘playground’..
    Lets get back to the topic at hand though.
    It seems to me by your very words that any
    extenuating circumstances would only apply to Martin. Never to a person like Zimmerman.
    Yes, sadly, he shot and killed someone that’s true.
    It seems though, that because you (and others) have already made up in your mind that he is GUILTY of racial murder ,there is no way that you would ever consider extenuating circumstances in his case.
    That is why in your mind ,,it doesn’t matter what type of person Martin was at that time of the shooting and it doesn’t matter in your mind that there IS a Stand-your-ground law (SINCE 1895) in the books.

  15. @Bosco: It was made to be short so you could understand it, Bosco. So is this: Everything Martin did was in response to Zimmerman’s aggression so everything that happened was instigated by Zimmerman and that invalidates any claim he has on “self defense.” The facts that show that are already known to us, and we have already shown Zimmerman’s life more consideration than he showed for Trayvon Martin’s life. I hope that was short enough to get through.

  16. Ah the highly proficient Tony C is here to educate us all once more on ‘what is and what is not’.
    Well to respond to you Ill say this,
    Contrary to your assumptions ,my attention span is very good. That is WHEN what I am reading is not an ongoing re-tread of the same old prejudicial ‘theories’.
    But its obvious that you and others will think exactly what you’ve decided and WANT to think.
    Its funny that you would mention the word ‘confused’ because sometimes an underlining motivation behind a very convoluted theory or response (like what we see by you and others) is that to CONFUSE the issue.
    I’m not confuse at all, I can see very clearly that we ALL NEED to have all of the evidence available to us before anyone could so easily pass judgement. Especially when someone elses life may be at stake. Blind JUSTICE for ALL. Not just for some.
    A side note Tony,,Ive noticed that your comment was made to be very short.
    That isn’t normal for you. Either you must be busy with so many other research assignments or ………

  17. @Bosco: I fail to understand why the LENGTH of an explanation invalidates it. Perhaps that is your problem, your attention span is so limited and your reading ability so deficient that you cannot follow an argument longer than a paragraph.

    That is too bad, really, you must be so confused by so much of the world.

  18. Folks,,remember when i said-
    “…more of the same convoluted long winded and narrow minded explanations..”
    Look directly above this comment to see what i meant. .

  19. Bosco, he didn’t start it by just being Zimmerman.

    He started it by objecting to Martin just being Martin.

    He started it by deciding Martin was an asshole who should not be allowed to “get away.”

    He started it by not allowing Martin to just “run” — (“Shit, he’s running”) — when Martin tried to run away from what he believed was scary.

    He started it by appointing himself an authority and trying to make Martin submit to whatever it was he was trying to do that night.

    Would you like to suggest that this all happened because of Martin’s behavior in NOT submitting?

    Should someone being approached by someone else they do not know, do not trust and do not want to risk trouble with ALWAYS avoid hitting them, avoid physically touching them, no matter what goes down?

    Should we all just stand still, quietly, and hopefully, thinking, “Maybe he’s not armed and dangerous…maybe it will be all right…maybe if I hit him and try to get away, he’ll kill me and then they’ll all blame ME for the whole thing”?

    Or just 17-year-old Black kids?

    Can the rest of us try to defend ourselves when push comes to shove?

    Please answer asap in case something happens to me on the way home today; I don’t want to do anything that somebody might object to.

Comments are closed.